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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24677; Tue, 1 Feb 94 03:28:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13147; Tue, 1 Feb 94 02:38:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 2:38:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 2:38:39 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIing Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 23:38:34 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1B9343268CA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Mark S. c/o Tom Yates > There are some problems with giving divine magic directly. A >master level Rune Lord gains access to 45 points of divine magic >under this system. Does Shield 25 Extension 20 seem excessive >to anyone? It's probably a pretty inappropriate use of DI, which is to resolve a situation. And depending on how weaselingly the GM interprets the rules, all DI rune spells end when the situation is over. (In tactical terms, Shield 25 is fairly silly anyway. I [mis]ran a Waha Khan's DI last night; he ended up with Shield 6. However, he was killed by critical hits, which ignore Shield 25 as surely as they ignore Protection 1.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26434; Tue, 1 Feb 94 04:11:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14590; Tue, 1 Feb 94 04:34:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 4:34:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 4:34:10 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG commits no Greg Stafford heresy Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 01:22:15 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1BB21307ED0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl, Thank you for your patience and thanks also to Nick Price who kindly posted to me directly an explaination of Greg's God Learner writings. After examining the facts and completing the inquisition :-) I must conclude that there appears to be no contention between God Learner writing and the stance of RQ:AiG. Its good to hear that RuneQuest remains Greg-compatable for this was my main concern. This is symptomatic of my return to RuneQuest after a break of about a decade. I'm bound to be bemused by the tail-end of discussions that have occurred during that period. Consider me now suitable illuminated. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01208; Tue, 1 Feb 94 06:44:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB20676; Tue, 1 Feb 94 07:44:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:44:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:44:15 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 10:45:28 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1BE4C500565@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask: > Loren J. Miller writes: > [a system with crits/fumbles on 0, etc.] > I for one am in favour of Loren's System. It also makes resolving > skill contests easy - higest successful roll wins. And causes RQ: AiG to be quite incompatible to today's RuneQuest players who are the most likely customers on the first hand, and might well p*ss them off. > This system could also be used for combat by making it a skills > contest. The system could work as follows: > The combatants make a single roll to determine the outcome for the round - > the one who makes the highest roll under their attack skill is the attacker > the other is the defender,unless a special or critical is rolled in which > case the combatant with the higher level of success is the attacker. > The defender determines if they parried successfully > by checking that their orignal roll was under their parry skill. Sounds like Pendragon to me, not like RQ/Basic Roleplaying. This is actually the part of Pendragon rules I like least, but that's personal. I grew into roleplaying with an attack/parry system all the time, and while I experienced other systems, I found them wanting in involvement from my side. One thing I use to advertise RuneQuest in Germany (e.g. tomorrow night in a lecture) is to stress its similarity to Cthulhu, which is so popular that most player you meet will at least know it. You learn the basic rules once, then remember some specialities, and start playing. I'd hate to have to remember the _differences_ each time I switch to Elric or Cthulhu (or an old RQ campaign). Even if I get accused to shoot down any attempt to improve the skill resolution method, I think the old system is fine if used appropriately. Don't fix what ain't broken! > Hey it's just an idea that popped into my head - it probably needs some > work and should probably be an optional rule. Do others see any merit in > these scheme - I'm sorry if something like this has already been dealt with. It sure has merit, only it ain't good ole RuneQuest. It's rather the brave new world of yet another roleplaying system. If yet another optional rule, RQ4 will get into a new edition of Murphy's rules under that section. Some day we might collect the "Tome of Optional Options" from suggestions from this list. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01826; Tue, 1 Feb 94 06:46:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20722; Tue, 1 Feb 94 07:46:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:46:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 7:46:25 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Coinage on Glorantha Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 13:28:44 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1BE55955AE5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This thread from RQ4-discussion can as well be discussed in the Digest, so I crosspost it. Mark Sabalauskas: > I wrote: >>> Coin prices are a useful convience for players and GM >>> alike. If a gamemaster is wants to put in the extra effort to >>> detail this part of the world,a price list is as useful a >>> place to start as a set of barter points. Most people will >>> find the effort required to model bartering a useless waste of >>> time at best, and an annoying distraction from storytelling >>> at worst. Ranges of coin prices would be better, as would a rule of thumb description how availability and distance influence the prices. > John Medway replyed: >> Why would fixed cash prices -- and what I see with it: a >> register-tape from the checkout at Target -- seem to fit >> storytelling better? Neither are appropriate for a bronze age >> society, and neither fits the picture. A society which has guilds will also know fixed prices for certain products. My guess is that any Lunar, Sartarite or Kethaelan city will have its prescribed sets of prices for certain goods, prescribed by either a powerful guild or temple, or by the mundane authorities. Bread or fish prices in Pavis under Lunar government are likely to be fixed by a council of producers and authorities, subject to fluctuating availability and political interests. Thus there will be a fixed price, although this may alter. Outside of town, barter and bargaining are the rule, except when a larger institution (such as the Cult of Geo) is involved. > If the story the players are telling has more to do with > certain aspects of a character's moral development, for example, > then they might consider bartering a waste of time that didn't > advance the story. On the other hand, if one's main interest was > social realism, then bartering would add to one's suspension of > disbelief. R:AG needs some guidelines for the value of items. But bartering does involve moral development. A miserly Orlanthi lord (like Leonidas the Short, whose mercenary contract was posted by MOB) is quite short of contracting the impests. (BTW: did Orlanth steal these from Malia?) > Money is the abstraction that both Gloranthans and we use when > talking about the value of goods. A coin price list is as > useful to gamers who barter as a a list of abstract barter > points. Again, this is true for city dwellers. Most rurals will think of bushels of barley (e.g. in case of the Sun Domers) as monetary means to pay taxes, and coins as minor tokens to pay for tolls or barge fees, if no other deal can be made. One thing in the price lists I'd really like to see are ferry rates for rivers, and bridge tolls. Again, these prices need to be given in ranges, and additionally should vary as the price lists in RQ3 do (metropolitan, urban, rural, wilds). > JM: >> Even *advanced* societies of antiquity, with coin and currency >> systems, conducted the bulk of trade, especially on a lower >> level, with barter. This is the way the people would think, buy >> and sell. Agreed, a trader will handle bulk sales with some ease. To barter say a herd of sable for several bushels of skullbush seeds, one can always give or take a bushel, or an animal. The problem arises when one wants to by exactly one animal. > A price table that lists the usual relative value of items > is not incompatible with that fact. Still, one set price will give the 20th century trained mind of the player the impression of a supermarket checkout. If there is a price range given, this allows to include small variations. Even if neither GM nor players delight in bartering, slightly increased prices for "furriners" who speak and dress funnily ought to be the rule. If the players start suspecting they're pidgeon-holed, they'll usually (out of greed and misery, you know how player characters tend to be) try and blend with the society, thus furthering suspense and roleplaying. > I agree with you that the rules would be better if they offered > the GM more advice on the reasons why prices vary. Hard and > fast rules on mercantile activity might not, however, be > possible. Rough guidelines would be better than a Traveller > type system that the players could easily crock. Agreed. Only keep the dice out of it, or the rules lawyers will insist you roll the daily market situation for satin "just in case", even if all they want to buy is some cheap wine. > I [Mark] wrote: >>> I would imagine that in Glorantha the value of the coin >>> would be based SOLELY on the value of it's metal. Iron bars would be a convenient currency, if this was the case. The value of a metal would vary from place to place. While I think it very likely for Prax to have rich copper ore (didn't a whole earth tribe die there, as well as in the Wastes?), I doubt much of it will be unearthed. By the way, what kind of metal do chaotic gods "yield" when slain? Bronze? > Devin Cutler replyed: >>This is not so. The value of Gloranthan coins is roughly twice >>its metal value. This is borne out by the value of metal rules >>in Elder Secrets and by the Lokarnos Divine Magic Mint Coin. >From GoG p.54: "This spell must be cast upon a block of gold, causing a coin to separate from the rest of the mass. It turns 10 pennyworths of th egold into a minted coin, called a wheel in common parlance. Coins are commonly worth twice their weight of raw metal, and wheels are no exceptions, being worth 20 pennies each in lands where their legality is recognized. Each wheel weighs approximately 17 grams. and one ENC of raw gold provides the raw material for exactly 60 wheels." Not quite. The prices in ES IMHO are given for Rune Metals, i.e. pure metals. RQ2 tells us: "Unalloyed, or pure, metals, such as iron, lead, tin, and copper, prevent a person from using magic unless he is ''sealed'' to the Rune connected with that metal. [...] Note that all coins are alloyed, as are gold and silver ornaments." Bolgs, Clacks and Wheels all are originally sacred items of esteem by certain groups of Gloranthans, whose esteem somewhat wore off to neighbouring peoples. To quote RQ2: "The coinage of Glorantha is based on silver. While both gold and copper are used as coins, silver is by far the most common monetary metal. Silver coinage was first introduced into Glorantha by the Lunar Empire [I don't quite believe this. What kind of currency was used by the Malkioni? Even with focus on Dragon Pass, the Jrusteli and EWF will have used and thus introduced silver coins.]. The generic term for silver coins used over the continent is the Lunar [better: lunar, no capital for the coin, according to Sandy], in honor of the Lunar Empire. However, in the empire, the basic silver coin is referred to as an Imperial. In Sartar it is called a Sovereign, and in the city of Corflu, run by various guilds, it is called a Guilder. All of these coins are roughy equivalent in value. Note that the Lunar, abbreviated n the rules as L, is worth about one pre-WW II English pound, or five US dollars." This MUST have been written from the Dragon Pass viewpoint exclusively, and seems to disregard even nearby Holy Country. Don't make the same mistake in RQ4! "Gold was the first coinage of the world, brougt to the people by the enigmatic Sun-Wheel Dancers [Gold Wheel Dancers]. In their honor, gold coins are still called Wheels. Gold, however, is scarce and very valuable. One golden Wheel equals 20 Lunars of silver. Gold is still mainly used as a means of settling debts between nations rather than individuals." Or by devout solar worshippers. Do the Sun Domers accept clacks, the metal of subservient earth, as units of currency? "Copper coins were invented by the dwarves. As is usual with any innovation brought out by that most inventive race, humans shrink from acknowledging the contribution. The copper coin is called a Clack, or often just a Copper. It takes ten Clacks to equal one Lunar." Is this still valid? The invention must have been made by Openhanded dwarfs to deal with outsiders, then, since parts of the machine don't need to be paid. RQ3 severely lacks information beyond Glorantha Book's note on p.9: "Most people make transactions in kind, rather than in coinage, although some powerful rulers or governments do mint coins on a regular basis. Such financial measures as moneylending, bookkeeping, and banking are rarely used. Only the most advanced cultures of Glorantha, such as the Lunar Empire, have entered in the economic stage in which these factors become significant." This note implies that all lands under Lunar influence, as well as all of the west, the east, and the Pamaltelan coast, which are culturally more advanced than the upstart Lunars, have these practices to some extent. > If this is how RQIII treats money, then R:AG should change the > rules. The idea that people value metal twice as much because > it is shaped into coins is silly. I'm no economic historian, > but I doubt any Gloranthan society is complex enough to issue > fiat money. Sorry, but if any cult says that e.g. kauri shells which are prepared a certain way on a certain island are worth a lot to the deity, because they please the deity, then these things are worth that much. E.g. as a convenient way to pay off cult duties. > Even if one accepted the idea that wheels are token coins, the > Coin Wheel spell is unreasonable. A divine magic spell that > creates a single wheel! The merchant cast the spell, makes a > profit of 10 lunars, and then has to spend an entire day > regaining the spell. As a merchant has a 16 lunars standard of > living; so he loses 6 lunars in the end. This economic failure ought to be corrected, true, but then coining is one of the cult duties the Lokarnos priest has. Since the Solar society propagates stasis I'd expect the value of a wheel to vary little, if at all, within their cultures. Cultures indifferent to Solar believes (Pelorian peasants, Orlanthi hill men, westerners) might apply a fluctuation based on availability and origin of the coin. To have a set value for the lunar actually is an insult to Lunar philosophy, which embraces fluctuation and (cyclical) change. A devout Etyries merchant might value it higher on days of full moon... The Holy Country guilders or west Manirian Issarian issues ought to behave normally as far as coins go. If you don't know the mint stamp, deduct some of the value, etc. Include money exchange fees in the service prices. The monetary policies of the West are still subject to philosophical discussion (do the principles of interest and inflation conflict with church doctrine, and if so, which church), and won't be resolved before "How the West Was One" at Convulsions . They lie mostly outside of the focus on Dragon Pass, anyway (although I just came up with a scenario idea for my planned Hendriki RQ:AiG-campaign). One advantage of temple-coined wheels (or dwarf-minted clacks) might be that they cannot be clipped without destroying the "magic" of the coin. With silver coins, however, Trickster has all the fun. I wonder what role Bolgs do play in the Holy Country, before and after Belintar's arrival. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05620; Tue, 1 Feb 94 08:27:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25409; Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:26:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 9:27:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 9:26:39 EST From: fkiesche3@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Daffey of L'Orange Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 09:32:02 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C0014D1A46@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> SAVE THE DUCKS!!!! Fred Kiesche (FKiesche3@aol.com)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21583; Tue, 1 Feb 94 10:43:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05852; Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:42:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:43:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:42:21 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's crit/special rolling method Date: 01 Feb 1994 11:20:50 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C2445464F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hey! I never said I *like* this method! I was just offering it up as a devil's advocate thing. Personally, I'm against the high roll under skill wins contests rule, and for either 1. best degree of success wins (special beats normal, etc) and highest skill wins if degrees are tied and there has to be a winner. 2. best degree of success wins, and highest margin of success in same degree is the winner. And I'd stick with the same old critical and special rules, maybe adding some Steve Maureresque super criticals (going from 1/5 to 1/20 to 1/100 to 1/500 to 1/2000 to 1/10000 and so on) if they are necessary for runelevels. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24671; Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:13:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08241; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:13:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:13:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:13:00 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Initiative in RQ. Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:12:50 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C2C7377D5A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, here is how I handled "initiative" problems in my RQIII and my RQIVd2.0 campaigns: I first enforced the "statement of intent" rule, but I did so thus: Statement of intent was done i ..  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24774; Tue, 1 Feb 94 11:14:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08311; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:22 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: my last message Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:14:12 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C2CCED7702@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Please ignore the last message I posted to this list--for some reason the version of Telnet I'm using doesn't recognize ^C inturrupts (I have to use a sequence to send "inturrupt" from my micro to the mainframe).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13103; Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:21:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08924; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:20:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:20:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:19:59 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: A COW! Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:19:51 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C2E4EB623A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Making the standard of barter to be a cow is rather excessive, that would be like defining the standard of exchange for the daily US material economy as $100.00 bills (or maybe $1,000.00 bills)! I think a chicken standard would be a good deal more realistic, either that or a grain standard (then you would also have ready-made archaic divisions of bushel, quart, etc.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13799; Mon, 31 Jan 94 19:23:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27985; Mon, 31 Jan 94 20:22:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 31 Jan 94 20:22:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 31 Jan 94 20:22:33 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:22:25 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1B2EF446F0D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren J. Miller writes: > > Given that some people like Paul Reilly think we should discard the > "lower is better" philosophy in RQ, what is their reason for sticking > with that philosophy for critical and special successes? > > If I wanted to abandon the lower is better philosophy I'd also change > the way crits and specials are computed, so that people didn't have to > divide by 5 or 20. Here's the first thing I'd try. > > Any roll where the ones digit is a 0 and the tens digit is even is a > critical. If it is a success then it's a critical success, if it's a > failure then it's a fumble. > > Any roll where the ones digit is a 0 or 5 is a special. If it is a > success then it's a special success (impale, etc). If it's a failure > it's a botch (if you use that rule). > > This system is also a simple comparison system, just like the high roll > under skill system for skill contests. Do you like it? For the most part > it's simple, but if skills get over 100 then you have to do some weird > stuff to get it to work out the same. [ Stuff about skills > 100% deleted for brevity ] I for one am in favour of Loren's System. It also makes resolving skill contests easy - higest successful roll wins. This system could also be used for combat by making it a skills contest. The system could work as follows: The combatants make a single roll to determine the outcome for the round - the one who makes the highest roll under their attack skill is the attacker the other is the defender,unless a special or critical is rolled in which case the combatant with the higher level of success is the attacker. The defender determines if they parried successfully by checking that their orignal roll was under their parry skill. One possible problem is that special and critical parries would occur less frequently because of the recycled dice roll. Hey it's just an idea that popped into my head - it probably needs some work and should probably be an optional rule. Do others see any merit in these scheme - I'm sorry if something like this has already been dealt with. Cheers, Tim Leask ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17525; Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:58:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09486; Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:28:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:28:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:27:47 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: redoing criticals and specials. Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 12:27:23 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C306163490@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I read through the proposal Loren put up and my head is spinning. Maybe I'm just a geek, but I prefer 5% and 20% of skill % to determine special and critical (AND I prefer that low rolls remain better than high rolls). Why my preference--well, I just took one sentence to explain how to derive the chance of getting a special or a critical, no?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28560; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:04:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25212; Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:45:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:45:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:41:28 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Ducks, Ducks And, More Ducks Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 14:39:16 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C6409C7699@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: David Dunham >> Subject: Ducks, Ducks And, More Ducks >> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 12:04:51 PST >> >> edition Pendragon. I don't think I'd be very likely to buy a new game >> that's 280 pages long [RQ3 in the new printing], it's just too >> intimidating. And not only are big games intimidating, they're more >> expensive. I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow sales too much. >> I've NEVER seen a campaign with a duck PC. (Duck NPCs, yes -- one GM was >> very fond of 'em.) Ditto. >> And I also think ducks don't have the importance to Glorantha (or GMs) of >> dragonewts. It may be true that Aldryami and Mostali aren't player species, >> but given that you have Elves and Dwarves, it's vital to let people know >> that in Glorantha, they're very different from AD&D, more important than Dragonnewts are central and alien, and must be included. Aldyami are also alien, and must be described to set them clearly apart from "elves" ( a term we perhaps should try to avoid, for the same reason ) Dwarves are alien, but not so far from prior conceptions as the aldryami. Humans probably have the least contact with these guys, as well. Drop 'em. Ducks are stupid and fun, though I have always hated them. Put 'em in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26503; Tue, 1 Feb 94 16:45:31 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03928; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:45:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:45:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:38:32 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Warerans Date: 01 Feb 94 17:10:02 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C8341B1480@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ___________ Sandy said: > Some people persist in spelling the dominant Genertelan racial type > "Wareran". Despite possible misprints of which I am not aware, the > name is "Wereran". I am in hopes that this misspelling can be > corrected before it reaches the level of "Pharoah/Pharaoh", "Lhankor > Mhy/Lankhor Mhy", or "Kahn/Khan". Very surprising. I assumed the name came from Warera, the Ludoch Triolini wife of Aerlit and mother of Malkion (thus all humanity). Not one of the published or unpublished sources I've seen ever spelled her name "Werera". There's only one RQ supplement that refers to "Warerans", frequently: the Glorantha boxed set. Where it is always spelled "Wareran". The only place I've ever seen "Wereran" is on yesterday's RQ Daily, in your post. Odd. _____________ Re: Pole Star I like to imagine a Polaris-worshipping general having Star-worshipping captains under him. Like his deity, he stands in the centre and directs. They move, obedient to his command and design. This way, "Initiates" of Polaris would in fact worship other stars under his command (that's the ordinary officers). The Rune Lords (Generals) would be the true Polaris worshippers. I may be playing one this weekend, so I'll let you know what happens. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26421; Tue, 1 Feb 94 16:45:07 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03539; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:39:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:44:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:36:02 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Two Checks?? Date: 01 Feb 94 17:11:02 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C829731EEB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree with David Dunham. The revised mechanism proposed for skill increase by Oliver is still horribly clunky. I would prefer the 1D3/1D6/2D6 gain for Hard/Medium/Easy skills, and am not too bothered by the average 7% gain in an Easy skill. RQ2 had a fixed 5% gain -- not too different. OJ's new system would offer the chance of two 1D6 gains -- again offering the chance of a 12% leap for a single experience check, at the price of a clunkier mechanic. Besides, I have a sneaking feeling that something odd happens to probability when you get one roll for every two checks or two rolls for every check -- the variables are no longer directly comparable. End of story: all skills should get checks when used under stress (checks awarded at the GM's discretion, *irrespective* of success or failure), or when used for protracted periods (e.g. Ride, Speak Other, Crafts, etc.). The skill gain per successful check depends on the ease of the skill. This is simple, requiring no extra work on the part of GM or player. The same mechanic is used for all skill gains. OJ's desired doubling from Hard to Medium to Easy is maintained. The max. 12% gain in an Easy skill is preserved from OJ's system (along with the seldom-considered min. 2% gain). What's wrong with that? On the same lines as that seldom-considered low roll, have people objecting to the Skill vs. Skill rules noticed that, in a contest between 10% and 90% characters, *most* of the time there is *no* contest. As there should be. The current rules reflect this admirably. (Note too that the 90% guy is almost twice as likely to Special (and win) as the 10% guy is to Succeed. Because I play little people most of the time, I feel there is little point in further skewing the rules against us. (I also feel it's not important to have a rule-set that allows the Crimson Bat to take on PCs one-to-one. Unlike some contributors). ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16064; Wed, 2 Feb 94 00:18:37 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07764; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:30:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:30:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:30:23 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Skill Gains Date: 01 Feb 94 17:58:15 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C9116B244F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Aha! Thanks to David Dunham for a parallel thread which suggested this: Perhaps the mechanism for skill gains through experience should be based entirely on 1D6 rolls. Easy skill: roll 2D6 and take the higher die as the experience gain. Medium skill: roll 1D6 for the experience gain (as normal). Hard skill: roll 2D6 and take the lower die as the experience gain. Probability distribution in 36ths is (11 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 3 - 1) whichever way, giving average gains of around 2.53 Hard, 3.5 Medium, 4.57 Easy. The maximum gain for *any* skill is 6 points at a time -- it just happens to come up 30% of the time for Easy skills, 2.7% of the time for Hard skills. Still doesn't have OJ's desired doubling (Hard x1.38 = Medium x1.31 = Easy), and I *still* think I'd prefer 1D3/1D6/2D6 (and stuff the occasional 12%ish increases: not a major problem). But now I've thought of it... ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28769; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:06:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05808; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:06:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:06:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:05:56 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 15:05:51 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C8A91A7FB2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke not only agreed with me but also said: >End of story: all skills should get checks when used under stress (checks >awarded at the GM's discretion, *irrespective* of success or failure), or >when used for protracted periods (e.g. Ride, Speak Other, Crafts, etc.). >The skill gain per successful check depends on the ease of the skill. Which is simple and should be the only rule needed for skill gain. (I never liked the "check everything but roll only a few" idea -- did anyone else?) It's a lot easier for the GM to say, "even though you fumbled your roll, you had the audacity to play your bagpipes before the Esrolian Queen, so you get a check," as opposed to, "Yes, you rolled very well, but you only played one song, and I just remembered that bagpipe is a Hard skill, so you won't get a check. You mean I told you that last time? Then I guess you get a check after all."  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29759; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:20:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07204; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:20:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:20:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:19:59 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: A COW! & Duckjs ! Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:19:40 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C8E4FD7189@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> But cows were used _often_ as a value standard in the Bronze Age, at least from Ireland to India and down into Africa. Toi cut down on # messages, I will also reply to John Medway: >> I've NEVER seen a campaign with a duck PC. (Duck NPCs, yes -- one GM was >> very fond of 'em.) >Ducks are stupid and fun, though I have always hated them. Put 'em in. We have had several Duck PC's and NPC's in our campaign. Well, at least 2 1/2 PCs. Ducks are very popular with Ogre and Troll characters ("Pass the orange sauce")  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02900; Tue, 1 Feb 94 17:51:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08813; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:51:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:51:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:50:50 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIing Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 18:46:50 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C968B16385@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> With respect to the comment on DI being used to cast large extended spells, the spell effects granted by DI are specifically meant to expire once the situation (melee, confrontation, etc.) is over. As to whether this is unbalancing, hopefully this is something playtesting will address - we would like to see DI be fairly terrifying in its effects, but not make the situation hopeless for the other side. A Rune Lord or priest will have access to a large amount of magic, but how unbalancing this is, considering the rarity of DI, is a good question. I'm not too concerned about spells such as Shield 20 - criticals ignore these, and faced with a foe immune to spells and weapons, opponents can flee or get creative (ie drown the foe, drop things on him or her, etc.). I'm more concerned about the ability to spread spells among other initiates. In any case, as people run it, they'll hopefully have situations in which DIs occur, and we'll get feedback as to how well this mechanic seems to work. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03689; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:05:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09698; Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:05:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:05:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:04:53 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 16:00:04 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C9A498223F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Mon, 31 Jan 1994 devinc@aol.com wrote: > I can easily see an Orlanthi Runelord fighting Lunars, Chaos, etc. in his 90% > cult time, all of which make for good adventures. In addition, intrigue and Redundant, to a Wind Lord. :) ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04362; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:18:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10380; Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:18:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:18:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:18:08 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 16:13:45 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1C9DD1070F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Mon, 31 Jan 1994, David Cheng wrote: > I understand there is a significant contingent of players who think > the whole Duck thing is a farce, and they would like to see Ducks > exterminated from the game. I think Ducks are a perfectly valid, > though misunderstood, race. Gee, David, I say that Ducks are a perfectly valid, despite being understood, race. Personally, I don't see why in a land of werewolves, jack o'bears, centaurs, satyrs, minotaurs, and broos, there isn't room for ducks. How difficult could it be to write up ducks? ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08421; Tue, 1 Feb 94 18:57:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12299; Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:56:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:57:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 19:56:52 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: DIing Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 16:56:47 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CA826A1D0A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >With respect to the comment on DI being used to cast large extended >spells, the spell effects granted by DI are specifically meant to >expire once the situation (melee, confrontation, etc.) is over. That wasn't clear from the wording.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24367; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:03:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14240; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:40:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:40:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:39:54 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Getting two to four copies of several Digest messages... Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 17:39:46 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CB3A123BE1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Am I the only one getting between two and four copies of various peoples posts (especially Loren's and Mr. Medway's)? If so, ignore this, but if not, could some in charge kind of person fix the problem? Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11996; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:02:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14863; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:57:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:02:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:57:25 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Getting two to four copies of several Digest messages... Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:57:12 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CB84D10C29@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am also receiving multiple copies. I recommend that no-one else answer after they see this, to avoid straining already overloaded mailers... - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13980; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:43:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17439; Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:43:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:43:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:43:26 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:42:34 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CC49326E7D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Can I just say that I like the proposed new mechanic, and I think that it is very clever, and PLEASE DO NOT USE IT. RQ needs some consistency. Please, just lets stick with ' lower is better' , which we all know and understand, and which, more importantly, is already the way RQ (and published stuff which we need to maintain compatibilty with) does it. Actually I prefer, as a slightly more complex rules (but one which Pendragon finds the need for as well) the rule 'best level of sucess wins, other wise lowest roll' ie 03 beats 05 - unless 05 is a critical and 03 is only a special. Or 40 beats 70 - unless 40 is a failure and 70 is a sucess. I like this more than the RQ4 maneouver style contest of sucess level, which results in stalemate more than half the time. It also works the way RQ has always worked. I don't wish to appear a whining conservative (well, those of you who followed my input know that I am not at all), but on this particular issue I feel that it very definately should come down to conservatism - the marginal gain is very small, and it is a very big change to the game system (even if it looks similar probability wise, it will not go down well with a largely conservative RQ2 audience that we are trying hard to win back). RQ4 should appear to be a simple and natural transition. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11392; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:43:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00891; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:20 EST From: imlac@acs.bu.edu (Eric Johnson-DeBaufre) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:35:44 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E281035521@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03374; Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:36:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19855; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:36:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:36:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:36:12 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 22:36:00 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CD2A5454D2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Is anyone else getting between two and four copies of some messages from the list?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21758; Wed, 2 Feb 94 01:59:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20485; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:49:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:49:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:49:14 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Recent comments Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:48:22 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CD61FC2113@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > 2) Ducks. Everyone knows the importance of ducks in Glorantha. > Where else can you turn when you run out of trollball trollkin? > Seriously, their omission had nothing to do with the ancient > council of conspirators that drove the ducks from their > ancestral home of Ganderland and has been the secret driving > force behind their slow extinction ever since....honest . > Actually, they were simply left out because the creatures section > is not quite complete. Ducks and a few other creatures are planned > for inclusion, once we trim a few other creature descriptions down > to size (elementals in particular), so fear not. > Can I make an extremist suggestion here? I feel that a major goal of the RQ4 effort should be to absolutely minimize the number of supplements that need to be reissued. In accordance with this, I am in favour of making the Divine magic Rune Lord/Acolyte/Priest rules deliberately vague (so that GOG is assumed to supersede where appropiate), keeping pretty much the same hit location tables at least for non-humans (so that Gloranthan Bestiary is still perfectly useful) and in general keeping a perspective on rules design that means that nowhere is compatibilty destroyed where the benefit of the the new rules is small enough that the need to reissue a valuable old supplement is worse than the problem fixed (please bear this general principle in mind when considering various rules nitpicks, guys). But there is one area where the new rules definately supersed the old ones, and the supplements that use them, and they so they should, because the new rules are a big improvement. This is character creation. Now, in order to ensure that valuable old supplements do not need to be reissued, I suggest a bold step - including all the updated parts in RQ:AiG This could take a fair few pages, aybe 10 or so -BUT THINK OF THE ALTERNATIVE. Waiting 3 years before AH/Chaosium get around to reissueing Elder Secrets and the Players book of Genertela. I think that all the character creation rules from both these supplements - including all the silly non-humans - should be included in RQ-AiG, along with any updates to old supplements deemed necessary. Only the absolute minimum of rules is needed, no description or whatever. NB: part of my drive for this strategy comes from seeing the update from Shadowrun 1 to 2. This change involved very major changes to the rules, including reworking most of the combat system and the magic rules - and they needed to re-release only one of at least a dozen supplements. Part of the reason was a summary of updated rules for various gadgets and critters in the back of the rulesbook. Lets make the RQ changeover between editions as easy, especially considering the disasters caused by the need to re-release all the RQ2 supplements, most of which still haven't been done. [RQ:AiG is driven by the need for a ] > viable alternative system of Gloranthan magic that can compete with, > but is different from divine and spirit magic. The characteristics > of Gloranthan sorcery are that it is skill based, and potentially > soul destroying. I agree with the skill based bit, but where does the soul-destroying bit come from? I think that you hve been listening to priestly propaganda. Sorcery is potentially soul-destroying - but so are divine and spirit magic, they just won't admit it. Just ask the Malkioni -'No, sorcery is the only magic that is inherently soul-preserving, stressing self-reliance and independance. What a strange question, have you been listening to barbarian heathens again?' NB. my comments are based on RQ4d2.0, and the RQ4 sorcery draft 1.0, as I have not seen RQ:AiG yet, but comments by those who have seem to indivate that the system has changed little. Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, > even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or > easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally > reflect this. Well, I am not convinced. The only sorcery we have is the sorcery that does allow this. WHile I agree that it needs to be toned down, it does not need to be as completely destroyed as you version does Personally, I think that skilled sorcerers can maintain many small spells or cast long ones if they put their mind to it (though they probably do not do so all the time), and I have only Olivers word that they don't :-) Gregs comments that I have here not as cut and dried on the subject as Olivers either, I seem to recall. Unlike divine magic, the expenditure of POW is not > a requirement to be a successful sorcerer. Sorcerers can cast and > maintain spells without ever resorting to the use of POW. However, > much as with DI, sorcerers have the ability to create extraordinary > effects in desperate situations by expending POW. That's more the > flavor we're looking for, namely that there exists this temptation > to partially destroy one's soul in exchange for great, if transient > power. Well, I am sorry to tell you, but it is not much of a temptation. Very few people are likely to even bother putting much effort into building up range and duration to a high level under the current rules, when they can spend their time much more profitably on Intensity and Multispell. And unless their Duration is ridiculously high, it is unlikely that they would bother using the extended tables, when they can just go and enchant something that is going to be far more useful generally. Sorry, but this is one thing about RQ4/AIG that I just hate - the desire to completely remove the extended range/duration as a viable option. (and I am sorry, but permanent POW for very dull and difficult 1-use effects is not a viable option) > We're also very interested in any comments we get from people > actually running the rules as to balance, playability, ease of use, > etc. Part of our goal is to allow schools to differentiate themselves > by the use of unusual maniplations, which may have very different > effects than the manipulations and basic mechanics described, but we > would like to at least present a consistent system of basic sorcery > mechanics. > Thanks again for all your comments and input, > > Oliver Jovanovic > jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu > > > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20312; Wed, 2 Feb 94 01:40:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21801; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:22:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:22:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:22:34 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:19:39 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CDF0391E1C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell says: # As one of the people who objected to the 1d3/1d6/2d6 idea in the first draft # I'd better speak up. My main worry was that Easy skills with 2d6 would # seriously unbalance the progression of characters to rune lord level: # those cults with Easy skills needed for rune level would have a lot more # rune levels than those with a lot of Hard skills. I know this isn't a big # problem for people like Nick who play characters around the 40%-60% skill # level, but it'd be a problem in high power campaigns. I think this is a moot point for two reasons: 1) How many cults, especially those that PCs favor, have Easy skills required for Rune Lord status? 2) I think this puts the cart before the horse. The focus for making Rune Lord should not be a binary checkoff of five skill percentages. Let's keep the good skill advancement rule, and rewrite the way we recognize cult RuneMasters. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24566; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:12:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23860; Wed, 2 Feb 94 00:20:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 0:20:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 0:20:19 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG vs GoG Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 21:20:07 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CEE6AE2350@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake said: >I am in favour of making the Divine >magic Rune Lord/Acolyte/Priest rules deliberately vague (so that GOG is >assumed to supersede where appropiate) I would assume that RQ:AiG, being a later work, supersedes. Obviously, this sort of thing should NOT be left to assumption, but clearly stated. >in order to ensure that valuable old supplements do not need to >be reissued, I suggest a bold step - including all the updated parts in RQ:AiG >This could take a fair few pages, aybe 10 or so -BUT THINK OF THE ALTERNATIVE. >Waiting 3 years before AH/Chaosium get around to reissueing Elder Secrets and >the Players book of Genertela. I think that all the character creation rules >from both these supplements - including all the silly non-humans - should >be included in RQ-AiG, along with any updates to old supplements deemed >necessary. Only the absolute minimum of rules is needed, no description or >whatever. I imagine nothing will be reissued as a result of new rules. We're far better off getting new works. [broken record warning] And once again, an otherwise good idea ends up bulking up RQ:AiG. This is going to end up as a monster work that will be so big that nobody can find anything, and beginners are going to steer clear of. Let's say we want to double the RQ players. That means (at least) half of all copies have to sell to people who already have them. It's a mistake to design the game for those who already like it. We like what there is. The people who didn't like it don't like what there is. Therefore, it should be different somehow. Obviously, putting back a cool default world is one difference. But I'll bet more people are turned off by RuneQuest being too complex for their tastes than by it being not detailed enough. I don't believe you can do Glorantha justice in a single volume. There's nothing wrong with supplements, and those supplements could eaily overlap existing ones and provide more detail. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29919; Wed, 2 Feb 94 05:47:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25877; Wed, 2 Feb 94 01:12:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 1:12:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 1:11:55 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Tue, 01 Feb 1994 22:11:46 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CFC2E02DAC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> John Medway replied to me: >I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the >new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow >sales too much. I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? I seem to be the only person bothered by this, but then, if you subscribe to this list, you're probably a pretty hard-core fan. Does anyone know if Avalon Hill has done any market research on this? The problem is, RQ:AiG is fairly well done, and it's hard to know what to cut (I've seen many places that editing could tighten up the prose and save some words, but that's a minimal savings). I've only seen requests to put more stuff in. There's more stuff _I'd_ like to see in the product, but it might be far better to put it in a supplement. One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook (problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). The detailed shaman rules could go in a Prax sourcebook (again, such a work may not be ready for publication within a month or two of RQ:AiG). All optional combat rules could go into a "Gods of War" supplement, which detailed Humakt, Yanafal Tarnils, Wachaza, etc. Oliver implied that while the supplement route wouldn't cost the gamer that much, it would be a lot more work, and thus wouldn't happen.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22687; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:29:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28838; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:29:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:29:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:28:52 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: redoing criticals and specials. Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 00:28:13 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D20B460324@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Bryan J. Maloney (jacobus@sonata) writes: >Maybe I'm just a geek, but I prefer 5% and 20% of skill % to determine >special and critical (AND I prefer that low rolls remain better than high >rolls). The reason why I prefer the original system is that I feel it encourages better mental arithmetic. Rather than just looking for numbers on dice you are actually using precentages. As someone who encountered role playing at the age of eleven, and now has a compartively innumerate step-son who is only interested in very simple war games, I recognise the benefits that learning and playing a role playing game can bring. Keep it simple, keep it arithmetic, is my advice. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22887; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:36:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28971; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:36:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:36:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:36:08 EST From: Brian Jackson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 8:34:26 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D22A4D661E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Stop picking on them poor little Ducks. When I introduced Ducks to my players (who are all new to RQ) they thought I was taking the mick, but now they love them. SAVE THE DUCKS !!!! Brian Jackson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23985; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:52:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29224; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:51:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:51:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:51:39 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 3:52:01 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D26C7D70CD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David and Graeme - to address a few of your concerns - extended duration is still a viable option, without the expenditure of POW. Essentially, a manipulation called maintain allows you to maintain extended spells (of roughly up to skill/10 in Intensity, twice that amount with a familiar). In addition, through the expenditure of 1 point of POW, you can add another extended spell (through Maintain or Duration). Frankly, if you gave a spirit or divine magician a chance to maintain a spell (say a Protection 6, Strength 6, Bladesharp 8, etc.) at a cost of 1 POW, I think they would jump at the chance. Also, sorcery (and other spells) have been somewhat rebalanced. In addition to changes to specific sorcery spells (ie many are Easy skills), it is much harder for spirit or divine magicians to obtain large cult or spirit magic spells. Thus, although a sorcerer has a greater initial investment of time learning spells, he or she can accumulate far more spells than a spirit or divine magician, and eventually gain access to spells of far greater intensity. Among the local playtest groups, the current system seems to balance fairly well, and sorcerers do occassionally burn POW (generally in desperate situations). However, we're far less concerned with how this system functions compared to RQIII than how well it functions on its own, as a viable system of magic, one thing we hpe to get feedback on from those of you running the new sorcery rules. Hope that clarifies things somewhat (since I don't think you have access to a copy of the new rules, at least not yet). Oliver P.S. I too am getting multiple copies of messages, though there does not seem to be a clear pattern as to which messages get duplicated.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24101; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:54:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29257; Wed, 2 Feb 94 03:54:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:54:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 3:54:19 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Ad copy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 3:54:36 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D277D610E1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Folks, we'd appreciate your input (comments and suggestions welcomed) for some initial ad copy for RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha. Some sample copy follows. Thanks, Oliver RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha A game of epic roleplaying - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Explore the ancient magics of the world of Glorantha. - Probe the forbidden secrets of the God Learners. - Bring the light of the Red Moon and the civilization of the Lunar Empire to the dark lands of the savage Orlanthi. - Save your people from the decadent Lunar Empire, which embraces the worship of chaos and seeks to shackle your gods and people. Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back. In 1978, RuneQuest took the gaming world by storm, setting the standard for what roleplaying games would become. In 1994, Adventures in Glorantha will do it again. Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, how to create an adventurer, and provides you with the detailed mechanics and comprehensive background material needed to begin play in Greg Stafford's magical world of Glorantha. The game provides everything you need to begin your adventures in Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides innovative rules and comprehensive background material, and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths of mythic reality. In Adventures in Glorantha, you explore the land of Dragon Pass, where mile long dragons sleep, mistaken for mountains and hills, or a myriad of other places, lands and cultures. Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can learn to use magic. You can call on the gods to become their avatar to defeat your foes...but at what cost? Crisis is at hand - it the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces of the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers...these are the bad guys? Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the good guys? First there came the renaissance, now is the time for the reformation. Leave the mundane world behind and begin your adventures in Glorantha. And, for your entertainment, some of the ones that didn't make it past the first cut : Enjoy a mythology so rich and original, Joseph Campbell would turn livid with envy. Face minions of chaos so horrifying, H.P. Lovecraft's hair would turn white. Join cults so terrifying, David Koresh would flee in horror. In my opinion, the greatest game ever written. Sacrifice your eternal soul for power unimaginable... Worship a hundred different gods of death...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28389; Wed, 2 Feb 94 04:49:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01100; Wed, 2 Feb 94 05:49:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 5:49:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 5:49:40 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: character sheet Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:50:27 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D464230AAB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In rq-playtest you write: >(Anyone who'd like my RQ4 character sheet, let me know. Like RQ:AiG, it's >available only on paper, so email your address or a SASE >David Dunham >532 N 71st St >Seattle, WA 98103-5127 ) Henk Langeveld Steenbes 9 NL-3823 CC Amersfoort The Netherlands -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19141; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:25:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19581; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:24:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:24:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:24:35 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 12:11:36 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EAF9AF24E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell: > Replying to David Cake replying to Oliver Jovanovic > One question for those who have the draft: exactly how skill based is it? > I've heard about the Maintain skill, so there is at least one more > manipulation, but is it still one spell = one skill? Good question. To continue it: do related spells have to be paid for full? I.e. a does character who knows form/set bronze, form/set and animate wood have to spend the same amount of time to learn animate bronze as Joe newcomer? > The reason I ask is that in RQ3 it was significantly harder to become > a sorcerer than the other magicians. You basically had to design a sorcerer > from day one, whilst you could become a priest or runelord (or to a > lesser extent a shaman) during play. The basic problem was the need to learn > a _lot_ of skills: if you wanted to be able to cast them without 20 > minutes of Cereony then it was even harder, as you have to learn a lot of > skills and then train them to a high level. The advantage to trying to do > this was that a powerful sorcerer was the most effective magician, at least > on the mundane plane. My only attempt at running a sorcery-user myself under RQ3 (I'm cursed to be the eternal GM) was a soldier (5 years)/apprentice sorcerer (5 years) who proved to be quite successful and effective, but a long way from abusively so. More powerful spells just took a lot of time to be cast reliably. So what? The real problem was that two point spells and 8 point spells (my free INT then, having neither familiar nor bound INT spirits) had exactly the same difficulty, and took the same amount of extra time for ceremony. Casting time is more than a small problem for spell-slingers in stress situations, and works effectively as a limit to overly powerful spells. By making long-lasting spells need *large* amounts of time which fellow characters use for training etc. gives an incentive to sorcery-users to abstain from abusing this option. I'd say a month-long spell warrants at least one day in preparation, a year-long spell a week, etc. > Now most of the advantages of being a sorcerer (very long duration and > range spells) have gone, but it has been made more difficult to become > at all effective, since manipulation is based on skill (a change I applaud > BTW). If the number of skills that need to be learned hasn't been reduced, > or the sorcery spells made more effective than those in the RQ draft 1.0, > then I can see no reason for players to want to become sorcerers, and I > doubt sorcery would last as a technique against Divine and Spirit magic. Range in fact never was a problem on the powerful side. The basic range of piddly 10 metres made most combat uses of sorcery dependant on the Range skill. To reach approx. spirit spell range, one had to spend 2 to 3 extra MP per try, which severely hampers the POW 14 character. >> Sorcery is potentially soul-destroying - but so are divine and spirit magic, >> they just won't admit it. Just ask the Malkioni -'No, sorcery is the only > Especially DI's: they can destroy souls faster than any Tap spell or > vampire. I always liked C.J. Cherryh's quote for Ischade in Thieves World where she accuses Molin Torchholder: "You think you are better than us just because you sell your soul in one piece, while we sell ours piecemeal?" I think this is how sorcery works, if not properly guided by a greater force - on Glorantha either the Invsible God, or Eastern philosophy. Just like Illumination has its dark side, this self-reliant magic has its dark sides, such as God Learnerish or Arkat-like behaviour. >>> Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, >>> even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or >>> easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally >>> reflect this. > Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having > better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance > to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that > there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. If coupled with some knowledge of the target condition (in your example characteristic) only. (Although the fairly common Tap INT would be coupled to the extremely uncomon Increase INT). This works better for the , or variations of certain spells. And it would be what I expected from RQ3 sorcery way back when I bought it. >> Sorry, but this is one thing about RQ4/AIG that I just hate - the >> desire to completely remove the extended range/duration as a viable option. >> (and I am sorry, but permanent POW for very dull and difficult 1-use effects >> is not a viable option) > Total agreement here! Limited agreement from my side. I repeat myself, but for Mostali the stabilize spells are perfectly valid, e.g. because they get an automatic annual POW increase for behaving as part of the machine (by casting their stabilize spell). This could work for human sorcerers as well. If the POW expenditure is kept, the sorcerer certainly ought to become trained in spending and *regaining* POW, as would anyone making enchantments. So: *If* by spending POW there is a near certainty of regaining POW within reasonable time (e.g. one Gloranthan season) in addition to normal POW gain, these rules make more than sense to me. Only this would make long-lasting spells a bit more attractive, again, and the original problem still hangs on. The above proposed option of seriously increased casting time might limit that, though. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00193; Wed, 2 Feb 94 05:55:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02045; Wed, 2 Feb 94 06:55:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 6:55:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 6:54:56 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 03:54:04 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D57AAB1794@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Here is a suggestion I would like to throw into the pot and see whether it gets cooked ... Currently the planned release appears to be too fat, hence possibly too expensive for the casual buyer. And if the casual buyer did buy he/she might be so frustrated by either the numerous references to out of print, rare or expensive material or by the complexity of it all. Having experienced role players recommend a product is good but if only experienced role players can actually play the game then the publishers are in trouble. Since RQ1 and RQ2 has been published the variety provided by the gaming market has exploded. Everything to the the complexity and excellence of Champions to the simplicity and elegance of FUDGE. This is I am thinking that maybe the material in RQ:AiG might be better broken down into a number of volumes aimed at differing markets. Here are the books I would propose, with titles that are choosen purely to suggest their contents: Basic Roleplaying: Fantasy Adventures Anywhere. Support the generic market, provide the core rules. RuneQuest: Adventures in Dragon Pass. Provide the rules and background to adaquately cover Dragon Pass. RuneQuest: Design your own Glorantha. To be used with either of the above books. Extend Gorathana, rewrite parts or create your own. For RuneQuest has two advantages. The simplicity and adaptability of Basic Roleplaying and the excellent concepts behind the Gloranthan setting. Prehaps these advantages warrant more targeted marketing. Glorantha is a two edge sword in some ways. For although it is an excellent setting too much has been defined. Unless a game master new to this world is encouraged to write his own Gloranthan material the task of collecting all the material you need would be awesome. By the way how many cows is RQ:AiG, in its current form, envisaged to cost when it reaches the shelves? Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00816; Wed, 2 Feb 94 06:26:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05939; Wed, 2 Feb 94 07:26:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:26:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:26:16 EST From: zca41122@rpool1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Wagner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubsribe RQ playtest discussion Ralf Wagner Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:25:33 +0100 (MEZ) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D6005C3D76@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> unsubscribe RQ playtest discussion Thanx Ralf Wagner  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01963; Wed, 2 Feb 94 06:47:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06337; Wed, 2 Feb 94 07:47:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:47:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 7:47:22 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:46:02 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D65A78394D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I have not seen RQ:AiG so take the following with a kg of salt... David Dunham wrote: > I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... 1. In the UK, that was initially because of the ridiculous pricing strategy. 2. The world has moved on since then. RQ2 would not, IMO, sell all that well if it were being introduced for the first time right now. > Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly > dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a > 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in > becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? I would be (and am) more put off by having to buy endless supplements just to get the core system. > One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook > (problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). No, (IMO) sorcery has to be done right and done in the core rulebook. Having introduced the third magic system in RQ3 (even though perhaps badly), it must be fully supported (and fixed!) in RQ4. The customers expect it. > The detailed shaman rules could go in a Prax sourcebook (again, such a work > may not be ready for publication within a month or two of RQ:AiG). I understand that the shaman rules are incomplete anyway; if they are not complete enough to run a shaman for an extended period of time then I agree that they should be separated out. > All optional combat rules could go into a "Gods of War" supplement, which > detailed Humakt, Yanafal Tarnils, Wachaza, etc. I do not like this idea much. IMO even optional rules should appear in the core system or not at all (if the optional rules are taking up too much space, they should be looked at by a very critical eye with a view to removing the ones that do not improve the game markedly). IMO the only rules which can reasonably appear in supplements are the ones which add a whole new dimension to the game; e.g. another magic system, an alchemy system, ... not ones which tweak the base ruleset. > Oliver implied that while the supplement route wouldn't cost the gamer that > much, it would be a lot more work, and thus wouldn't happen. If it would be a lot more work then it WILL cost; if not in money (to pay off the folk who spend all that time working) then in delays to products. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10310; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:25:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15664; Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:25:00 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:25:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:24:43 EST From: Kiliki To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:11:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D8F9EC0021@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> -> -> John Medway replied to me: -> >I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the -> >new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow -> >sales too much. -> -> I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... -> -> Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly -> dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a -> 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in -> becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? -> -> I seem to be the only person bothered by this, but then, if you subscribe -> to this list, you're probably a pretty hard-core fan. Does anyone know if -> Avalon Hill has done any market research on this? -> -> The problem is, RQ:AiG is fairly well done, and it's hard to know what to -> cut (I've seen many places that editing could tighten up the prose and save -> some words, but that's a minimal savings). I've only seen requests to put -> more stuff in. There's more stuff _I'd_ like to see in the product, but it -> might be far better to put it in a supplement. -> -> One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook -> (problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). -> -> The detailed shaman rules could go in a Prax sourcebook (again, such a work -> may not be ready for publication within a month or two of RQ:AiG). -> -> All optional combat rules could go into a "Gods of War" supplement, which -> detailed Humakt, Yanafal Tarnils, Wachaza, etc. -> -> Oliver implied that while the supplement route wouldn't cost the gamer that -> much, it would be a lot more work, and thus wouldn't happen. -> -> -> -- | Chris Cooke - cookec@mmlab.UUCP cookec@mml.mmc.com | | Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug... |  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13990; Wed, 2 Feb 94 09:55:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18064; Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:54:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:55:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:54:15 EST From: Kiliki To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & cost Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:52:00 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1D977E70E5D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> -> Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly -> dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a -> 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in -> becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? As some of you recall, I started a new RQ3 campaign about 6 months ago. My ave game runs about 8-10 people( I prefer 6-8 but have run as many as 12). Only 2 of my players had previous RQ experience(I didn't). We have now spawned a second RQ3 campaign(with 5 players) starting for the 1st time this saturday. So far, 4 purchased the "Deluxe Boxed Set" and 1 "New Bound Deluxe Book". I know of 5 more definite(including a 2nd for myself) and 2 more "maybes". My point? The market is there, all it takes is a successful campaign! Yes, my players and I wish the price was lower BUT it hasn't stopped sales... Speaking of which, is there any SoloQuest material? Maybe issuing material of that nature would help with new sales? Can anyone offer suggestions on how to acquire SoloQuest I & II? -- | Chris Cooke - cookec@mmlab.UUCP cookec@mml.mmc.com | | Pinfeather Blandrake - Shaman of Ducka Fowl, Duck Point |  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17737; Wed, 2 Feb 94 10:42:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22011; Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:41:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:41:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:41:06 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: 02 Feb 1994 11:40:34 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DA3FD7567C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Here's how I'd reword your copy. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha A game of epic roleplaying Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy roleplaying game worlds has been updated and expanded for today's roleplaying audience. In Dragon Pass slumber dragons and giants that are so huge they are mistaken for mountains and hills. Foul broos and hungry trolls skulk through the hills, hunting farmers on their steads, and in Boldhome rebels plan bold strokes against the encroaching Empire. - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Search out arcane, ancient magics - Probe forbidden secrets - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes or save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar Empire. In 1978, the first edition of RuneQuest set the standard for roleplaying games that would follow. With the world of Glorantha, RuneQuest brought roleplayers out of the dungeon and into an entire world brimming with adventure, romance, tragedy, and slapstick comedy. This new edition of RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system, making it even easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting and remaining consistent with the previous rules so that if you have old RuneQuest materials you can continue to use them with this new edition of the rules. If you have already been introduced to RuneQuest and Glorantha, this new edition will bring you to a new level of understanding. If you have never seen Glorantha, then within these pages you will discover a rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, how to create an adventurer, and provides you with the detailed mechanics and comprehensive background material needed to begin play in the magical world of Glorantha, which Greg Stafford began to write about in 1965. The game provides everything you need to begin your adventures in Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides innovative rules and comprehensive background material, and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths of mythic reality. Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can learn to use magic. You can call on the gods to become their avatar to defeat your foes... but Divine Intervention has a high price. Crisis is at hand - it is the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces of the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers... these are the Lunar invaders. Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the Orlanthi tribes defending their homes. Your character can help decide who wins and what is the future course of the world. And I like this one of the ones that didn't make it. > Worship a hundred different gods of death... 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23087; Wed, 2 Feb 94 11:30:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25430; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:29:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:30:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:29:19 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: iconoclasm Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 12:34:36 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DB0D675DFE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Brad Furst Newton from UC442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu Sun Jan 30 23:32:45 1994 notes "I bet you've changed move rates to fit the 6 sec. round; why change the move rates and not the rates of fire? What was so wrong about the RQ3 12 sec. round that made you decide to scrap it and use this strange 6 sec. (approx.) thing? (If this has already been thoroughly fought out, I don't want to dredge up old boring stuff from last year; I am curious as to the reasons for the change, though.)" Oliver From JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU replies "One of RQIII's big problems is that you can cover 30 meters in the time it takes to exchange a single set of blows, which leads to a number of problems." What problems? Please specify. A heavywight boxing match has fewer telling blows in its 3-minute round than RQ in five rounds. I expect your own experience in martial arts shows such also. Peter Maranci inquires "About the function of this playtest list: should we note when we agree with a point that we see? Is volume of agreement something Oliver and Co. need to know? I've seen a number of points I've agreed with, and in fact some points I wanted to make have already been made by someone else. Should I register my opinion anyway? Maybe some sort of simplified Yes/No endorsement system using the subject lines only should be used." I myself would indeed choose to see that affirmative endorsements are registered here. I will do so (see here). Peter then declares "I much preferred the old version of Shimmer. No, that's not strong enough -- I REALLY preferred the old -5%/point Shimmer, and so does everyone I know." And DDunham@radiomail.net at first agrees "I think most of our gaming group does too. However, one pointed out that the current spell does mean that the attacker can just roll normally, without having to worry about the defender's spells, which is a useful speedup/ simplification. I have always been annoyed at the RQ2 "Defense" and the subtractive Shimmer. I want attack rolls to be straight- forward and arithmetic-scarce. I much prefer the newer Shimmer. Let's (for me) call the old spell "Defense" since its parameters match the Defense of RQ2. SHIMMER (Variable, Ranged, Passive) This spell blurs and distorts the target's visual image making it easier for them to evade a foe's attacks. Each point adds 10 percentiles to the target's Dodge skill and 5 percentiles to the target's parry skills. David Dunham coreectly shows the "Bottom line: ducks would be nice, but there's no space. You all disagree on my prioritization. But if I'm right and adding more and more worthy stuff makes RQ:AiG LESS good, what would you cut to allow ducks to fit?" Indeed, let us each declare our own priorities. I would start by cutting back on anything that can be obtained from *any* other RQ3 source than the _Deluxe_Edition_ (for example, magic items that can be found in _Elder_Secrets_). Occasional redundant reiterations for clarification or completion *must* be weighed against that which cannot be obtained elsewhere, like Ducks (I know there is a tiny bit in E.S. but ducks are not listed in the table of contents of E.S.) Michael Schwartz c/o tfalk@sils.umich.edu notes that "Aldryami and Mostali are very inhuman species in RQ...not very enjoyable to play except when the entire campaign is based around the particular culture, or the PCs are outcasts.... and David Cheng requests "So, find some room for the Ducks. I could make an argument for cutting Aldryami or Mostali, as both these races have less interaction with humans on a day-to-day basis. But I don't think it will come to that." Note that Aldryami and Mostali have more than enough (except good art) in _Elder_Secrets_. Speaking of ducks, I wonder if duck-lovers have obtained *RQ Adventures Fanzine* from grendel@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu Put up or shut up. I agree with ddunham@radiomail.net "I don't see Mastakos, Gagarth, Polestar as important cults; put it on the "remove due to space limits" list. None of them can be played with this volume anyway (since they provide rune magic not in this work)." And again I agree with ddunham@radiomail.net "And the 1.5* damage is confusing.... I much like "It might be simpler to allow two rolls for damage, pick the highest." JM is quoted: Even *advanced* societies of antiquity, with coin and currency systems, conducted the bulk of trade, especially on a lower level, with barter. This is the way the people would think, buy and sell. This is very misleading. Advanced societies of antiquity traded commodities "in kind" but fixed the values according to weight (often precious metal). Most of the extant documents of Egyptians or Babylonians or whoever simply record endless lists of agreements of Merchant-A, who will give up (for example) grain valued at 3 shekels, and Merchant-B, who will give (for example) cloth valued at 2 shekels and papyrus valued at 1 shekel. Perhaps Joerg Baumgartner is an iconoclast like me. He reminded us "Don't fix what ain't broken!" Paul Reilly responded (about dice rolling, but appropriate generally) "There's nothing wrong with your proposed way, except that thousands (I hope) of RuneQuesters are used to doing it another way.... Same argument can be made elsewhere - there is a certain cost in changing anything over, and the new way should be a distinct improvement, in some sense, if it is to replace the old way. RQ3 fatigue needed to be fixed. RQ3 sorcery need to be fixed. Much of the other stuff after that, maybe we could leave well enough alone. Time and movement was okay with me in RQ3; AP and ENC was okay with in RQ3; six kilograms per SIZ was okay with me. from BradFurst@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01052; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:02:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28673; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:12:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:12:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:12:02 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:11:50 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DBC3C6185D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly replyin to Dave Cake: > Actually I prefer, as a slightly more complex rules (but one which >Pendragon finds the need for as well) the rule 'best level of sucess wins, >other wise lowest roll' ie 03 beats 05 - unless 05 is a critical and 03 is only >a special. Or 40 beats 70 - unless 40 is a failure and 70 is a sucess. > I like this more than the RQ4 maneouver style contest of sucess level, >which results in stalemate more than half the time. Today I find myself (unusually) disagreeing with Dave Cake. The 'lowest roll wins' method is bad for the following reason: the less skilled person usually wins if she succeeds at all. This is just wrong. A 90% master potter should almost always make a better pot than her 30% apprentice, EVEN IF THE LATTER SUCCEEDS. I can do a detailed probability breakdown if anyone is interested. _ paul reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28829; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:20:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29389; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:20:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:20:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:20:00 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:17:41 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DBE5BB2781@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: JOVANOVIC@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu >> Subject: Ad copy >> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 3:54:36 -0500 (EST) >> >> Worship a hundred different gods of death... Yeah, that's a great one alright. That'd *really* turn parents on. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28659; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:18:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29081; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:18:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:18:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:18:00 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:17:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DBDD345D72@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. Our group never found much of a problem with long-range sorcery - once we moved to Sympathetic Targetting for long-range spells (and took away the incredibly crocked 'cast through a Sense Projection as if you were there' rule.) How has long range been a problem? How did the spells get targetted at long range? - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29366; Wed, 2 Feb 94 12:27:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29884; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:16 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:07 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DC04C8254F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). This would be better for several reasons: 1. _Most_ characters don't use much sorcery, even in the West. Very few in Dragon Pass. Thus having an extra section in the rulebook that _everybody_ buys seems wrong to me - it's forcing players in campaigns with no sorcerers to buy rules they don't need. 2. Sorcery should be _mysterious_ and _alien_ to most central Genertelan characters. This is a lot easier if they haven't read the Sorcery rules. Even in a Western campaign, certain schools should _not_ have all their powers well-known. Galvosti, for example. 3. It gives us more time to playtest, and me more time to push our version of Sorcery :-) (This is really a serious post, despite the joke at the end.) - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13754; Tue, 1 Feb 94 20:39:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17194; Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:39:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:39:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 21:38:47 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:37:33 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CC356B38F9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I agree with David Dunham. The revised mechanism proposed for skill > increase by Oliver is still horribly clunky. I would prefer the 1D3/1D6/2D6 > gain for Hard/Medium/Easy skills, and am not too bothered by the average 7% > gain in an Easy skill. RQ2 had a fixed 5% gain -- not too different. OJ's As one of the people who objected to the 1d3/1d6/2d6 idea in the first draft I'd better speak up. My main worry was that Easy skills with 2d6 would seriously unbalance the progression of characters to rune lord level: those cults with Easy skills needed for rune level would have a lot more rune levels than those with a lot of Hard skills. I know this isn't a big problem for people like Nick who play characters around the 40%-60% skill level, but it'd be a problem in high power campaigns. I quite like the best of 2d6/worst of 2d6 system you propose though: the difference isn't nearly so extreme, and I prefer it to needing multiple check boxes. > End of story: all skills should get checks when used under stress (checks > awarded at the GM's discretion, *irrespective* of success or failure), or > when used for protracted periods (e.g. Ride, Speak Other, Crafts, etc.). Agreed. > The skill gain per successful check depends on the ease of the skill. Another option is to make it harder to get a successful increase from a check for a hard skill ie add 20% to you skill for a hard skill, subtract 20% for an easy skill for the purposes of making the check. All increases would be the same, just easy skills would increase more often. > Nick Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06790; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:31:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01593; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:46:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:46:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:46:05 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 10:45:53 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DC551205A6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> That's more ad copy than I care to read.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03527; Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:06:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03246; Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:06:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:06:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:06:14 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 11:06:06 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DCAB0243EF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> What to cut: Hold in the sorcery section. Reason, it is not used by any of the listed traditions. All optional combat rules. Reason: While I like them they are most useful to combat between high level types. Publish them in Tales of the Reaching Moon and if RQ IV sells, they can be printed with something else. Aging an Inaction Reason: I do not recall any serious problem with inactive adventurers. If there is, the GM can handle it on his own. Most of the Guidelines on DI Reason, they can be replaced by the much vaguer and shorter RQ II guidelines with little loss of playability. The loss of permanent POW means that DI abuse, unlike other things tends to be self limiting. The Array of Chaos Reason: this is most used by GM's and is being covered inch by inch in the scenario packs anyway. The World of Glorontha Reason: Not only is this info availiable in the support title of the same name, it is not worth much without a map.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01076; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:16:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04360; Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:19:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:19:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:18:18 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 11:14:56 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DCDE794C81@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A workable sorcery system is in fact what a lot of us out here are waiting for and expecting from RQ IV. Cut all of shamanism first & if necessay the beginning and ending Gloronthan background chapters first. My reasons: Sorcery is what people are waiting for. Though the new shaman rules look good, I have not heard anything like as much demand for improved shaman rules {though it is a good idea}. The Glorontha stuff, though useful and important for new players is not much good without a map and has already appeared in World of Glorontha  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05921; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:10:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21339; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:09:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:09:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:09:42 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:09:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CDB9485A81@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes: > > Can I just say that I like the proposed new mechanic, and I think that > it is very clever, and PLEASE DO NOT USE IT. > RQ needs some consistency. Please, just lets stick with > ' lower is better' , which we all know and understand, and which, > more importantly, is already the way RQ (and published stuff which we need to > maintain compatibilty with) does it. Not that I care that much which system is used I just like to point out a couple of things. Published material is unaffected to any great extent, stats are more or less unchanged from existing works - other proposed changes have far more compatibility problems (e.g. alterations to armor values, damage bonuses, weapon damage, fatigue , hit locations etc). I don't really think it is that a big a change to the game system, after one session people would pretty much have the hang of it (IMHO). All we are talking about here is how to interpret a dice roll for goodness sake. Even with the existing system it's not immediately obvious if you have fumbled or rolled special or critical without consulting a table, especially considering the frequency with which rolls are modified for some reason or other. > I don't wish to appear a whining conservative (well, those of you who > followed my input know that I am not at all), but on this particular issue I > feel that it very definately should come down to conservatism - the marginal > gain is very small, and it is a very big change to the game system (even if > it looks similar probability wise, it will not go down well with a largely > conservative RQ2 audience that we are trying hard to win back). RQ4 should > appear to be a simple and natural transition. You mean that RQ4 is targeted primarily at the existing RQ2 audience ? Well if nothing of signficance changes from RQ2 to RQ4 (ignore RQ3) what makes you think they would bother to buy it ? I thought the idea was to produce something that was a significant improvement over RQ2, and that at the same time would appeal to the majority of the RQ audience whilst maintaining as much compatibility with published material as possible ( and with some luck attracting new players to RQ). Someone also made the (excellent) point that if it ain't broke don't fix it, the problem is not everyone agrees on what is broken. Some people consider the current RQ combat system too slow to resolve combat, while others seem to enjoy an entire evening spent on one combat. I can appreciate both points of view. In my undergrad years when I had plenty of time on my hands to play RQ long combats were fine - now that my playing time is greatly reduced long combats can be very annoying, especially if they don't advance the plot. Changes to the combat system which retain the %skills as there basis have almost zero compatibility problems with published material - since the basic mechanics are described only in the rule books - which RQ4 would replace. I'm not saying that the Miller/O'Reilly system is perfect or necessarily the way to go - but at least we should think about alternatives. enough of my prattling Tim Leask ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10203; Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:20:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09838; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:20:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:20:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:19:47 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 12:19:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DDE4E21844@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> 1) How many cults, especially those that PCs favor, have Easy skills >> required for Rune Lord status? > > Those who have 2 handed spear as a skill, that's who. (At least it >was easy in the 2.0 draft) Easy Attack: Crossbow, Knife, Throw, and Tools. Hard: Atlatl (and off-hand attack) Easy Parry: Shield Parry; Hard: 1hAxe, 1hFlail, 1hHammer, 1hMace.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08606; Tue, 1 Feb 94 22:55:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22804; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:54:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:54:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:54:43 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Recent comments Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:53:47 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CE79734B1A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Replying to David Cake replying to Oliver Jovanovic > [RQ:AiG is driven by the need for a ] > > viable alternative system of Gloranthan magic that can compete with, > > but is different from divine and spirit magic. The characteristics > > of Gloranthan sorcery are that it is skill based, and potentially > > soul destroying. > I agree with the skill based bit, but where does the soul-destroying > bit come from? I think that you hve been listening to priestly propaganda. One question for those who have the draft: exactly how skill based is it? I've heard about the Maintain skill, so there is at least one more manipulation, but is it still one spell = one skill? The reason I ask is that in RQ3 it was significantly harder to become a sorcerer than the other magicians. You basically had to design a sorcerer from day one, whilst you could become a priest or runelord (or to a lesser extent a shaman) during play. The basic problem was the need to learn a _lot_ of skills: if you wanted to be able to cast them without 20 minutes of Cereony then it was even harder, as you have to learn a lot of skills and then train them to a high level. The advantage to trying to do this was that a powerful sorcerer was the most effective magician, at least on the mundane plane. Now most of the advantages of being a sorcerer (very long duration and range spells) have gone, but it has been made more difficult to become at all effective, since manipulation is based on skill (a change I applaud BTW). If the number of skills that need to be learned hasn't been reduced, or the sorcery spells made more effective than those in the RQ draft 1.0, then I can see no reason for players to want to become sorcerers, and I doubt sorcery would last as a technique against Divine and Spirit magic. > Sorcery is potentially soul-destroying - but so are divine and spirit magic, > they just won't admit it. Just ask the Malkioni -'No, sorcery is the only Especially DI's: they can destroy souls faster than any Tap spell or vampire. > Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, > > even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or > > easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally > > reflect this. Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. > Sorry, but this is one thing about RQ4/AIG that I just hate - the > desire to completely remove the extended range/duration as a viable option. > (and I am sorry, but permanent POW for very dull and difficult 1-use effects > is not a viable option) Total agreement here! Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24037; Wed, 2 Feb 94 02:52:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22962; Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:58:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:58:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Feb 94 23:58:33 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:57:21 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1CE89C61292@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng replies: > 1) How many cults, especially those that PCs favor, have Easy skills > required for Rune Lord status? Those who have 2 handed spear as a skill, that's who. (At least it was easy in the 2.0 draft) > > 2) I think this puts the cart before the horse. The focus for making > Rune Lord should not be a binary checkoff of five skill > percentages. Let's keep the good skill advancement rule, and > rewrite the way we recognize cult RuneMasters. > Oh, I agree! But if we retain the old rune lord system, then the new skill difficulties will make it much easier to minimax Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14436; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:01:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13722; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:01:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:01:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:00:54 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 14:58:41 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DE945E3616@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) >> Subject: re: game size >> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:27:07 EST >> >> >One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >> >(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). >> >> I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the >> basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). >> This would be better for several reasons: All of which seem perfectly valid to me. When RAG presents Divine Magic, it has a social context. Ditto for Shamanism. Not so for Sorcery. It would be nice to have for Carmanians and others who are outside the target area of the game ( Dragon Pass ), but it would be better to give Sorcery more space, and a background appropriate for it. We can also slip out the Mostali, since their magic won't be explained, and add in the Ducks, while we're at it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15003; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:06:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14160; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:06:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:06:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:06:02 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:03:47 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DEAA4322ED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Raymond D Turney >> Subject: re: game size & price >> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 11:06:06 -0800 >> The World of Glorontha >> Reason: Not only is this info availiable in the support title of the same >> name, it is not worth much without a map. That's against the focus of this new version. we want something new people can pick up and play without other supplements. *Then* they'll buy the other supplements. I would definitely agree about needing a map, but I assume there will be one. A quality color one like in Sun County, though not on the inside cover, would be wonderful. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15912; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:18:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14936; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:18:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:18:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:18:05 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:18:37 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DEDDB84EA6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >>One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >>(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). Let me cast my vote against this. > I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the >basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). >This would be better for several reasons: > >1. _Most_ characters don't use much sorcery, even in the West. Very few >in Dragon Pass. Thus having an extra section in the rulebook that _everybody_ >buys seems wrong to me - it's forcing players in campaigns with no sorcerers >to buy rules they don't need. Not all GMs want to run Orlanthi in Dragon Pass. Besides, it gives those Lunars, traditionally cast as bad-guys, an extra edge. For me, Sorcery was one of the reasons why I bought RQ3. Of course, after reading the rules, my friends and I had some good laughs, and put the game into storage. It is very important to me that RQ have a published, working set of Sorcery rules. I for one, will probably never use Shaman, but I'm glad they are in the rulebook, in case I change my mind. >2. Sorcery should be _mysterious_ and _alien_ to most central Genertelan >characters. This is a lot easier if they haven't read the Sorcery rules. >Even in a Western campaign, certain schools should _not_ have all their >powers well-known. Galvosti, for example. This issue won't be solved by having separate suppliments, as the players can just get their hands on "The Compleate Sorceror", or "Western Pack" and read it themselves. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04686; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:18:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15334; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:23:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:23:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:23:35 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: iconoclasm, cows, runeLords Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 16:28:52 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DEF50E5DF5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Brad Furst Oliver mentioned this for ad copy: "It allows you enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths of mythic reality." This is in the rules? I don't find it. "Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers...these are the bad guys? Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the good guys?" I hope this heralds the end of Lunar bashing. "Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back." This seems to me to be rude to the other guys. But I instead like "Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. Explore the ancient magics of the world of Glorantha. Probe the forbidden secrets of the God Learners. Bring the light of the Red Moon and the civilization of the Lunar Empire to the dark lands of the savage Orlanthi. Save your people from the decadent Lunar Empire, which embraces the worship of chaos and seeks to shackle your gods and people." paul@phyast.pitt.edu insisted "But cows were used _often_ as a value standard in the Bronze Age, at least from Ireland to India and down into Africa." Please cite references, especially compared to a single tool, weapon, meal, or article of clothing. Compare O. R. Gurney: _The_Hittites_: The medium of exchange in the Hittite kingdom, and indeed throughout the Near Eastern world of that time, was silver (or for small denominations lead) in bars or rings, and measured by weight...." (p.84). Dave Cake From davidc@cs.uwa.oz.au "Can I make an extremist suggestion here? I feel that a major goal of the RQ4 effort should be to absolutely minimize the number of supplements that need to be reissued.... I myself am already annoyed with compatibility issues with SC, RoC, SotB, and DLoD. The extra step of conversion of the scenarios is a big p.i.a. to me the referee. David Cheng suggests, and I agree Rune Lord should not be a binary checkoff of five skill percentages. Let's keep the good skill advancement rule, and rewrite the way we recognize cult RuneMasters. from BradFurst@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10008; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:21:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17135; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:47:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:47:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:47:00 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:46:47 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DF591930BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't know that I like the two check method either, but even if it is used, no one should need to change the character sheets. Maybe this is a dumb and obvious suggestion, but just in case, here it is. Simply make a "hash-mark" or single line through the box when getting a check. Upon getting a second check, just make a mark the other way turning the line into an "x". Maybe for a third check one could just block in the box. Anyway, this is easier than squeezing all those extra check boxes onto the sheet. It is still easier to just not have multiple checks. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19426; Wed, 2 Feb 94 15:52:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17767; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:52:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:52:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:52:28 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG : sorcery Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 13:52:07 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DF70643086@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Whew, I've finally gotten my a mail system up and running again. 400 messages to read since the RQCon. I guess it serves me right for not logging on while on holidays. I liked the rules, especially with the sorcery in them. Why? Well there are two markets the rules have to satisfy in order for it to be successful. 1. Appeal to the current RQ players. Many people like sorcery, and want to use it in their games. We run a campaign in Ralios and NEED to have sorcery. 2. Appeal to new players. For this we need to keep the rules centred and focuses on Dragon Pass. With a little compromise I think it can fulfill both objectives. And the playtesting for this version should really help it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27107; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:29:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22141; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:53:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:54:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:48:17 EST From: klyfix@ace.com (Klyfix) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Broad Opinions Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:04:53 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E05E9B26A3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Stuff I like: The Gloranthan background information is what should have been in RQ3; lots more interesting than the "Fantasy Europe" stuff. And we can now create decent Gloranthan characters without having to own two or three suppliments. The new version of the Familiar spell is a tremendous improvement. Adding a First Aid roll to the Heal roll when re-attaching limbs makes good sense. And the new version of Form Set (substance) is pretty decent; the old version lent itself to abuse by the creative. Stuff I'm not so fond of: Why is Shimmer now Parry/Dodge Sharp? The logic of the shimmering not affecting an archer's chance to hit you if you aren't aware he's there escapes me; sort of like camouflage that only works if you can see your opponent. Perhaps it could be changed to allow for a dodge under circumstances when it otherise would be impossible. I'm more accepting of the build system than I was initially, but I'm still against the notion of charging a background point for picking up a skill from another profession. A higher cost for picking up an outside skill at the same level as your profession might be okay, though. It seems odd to me that in the description of the Dragon Pass area, ducks are mysteriously absent... V.S.Greene | klyfix@ace.com | Boston Mass., sorta Celebrate Groundhog Day, eat pork sausage!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21792; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:22:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20004; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:22:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:22:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:22:10 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Minimal RQ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 14:21:58 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1DFEF2C1FF2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Thanks everyone for giving the size of the game some serious consideration. I'm sure we won't come to agreement, but I hope we can show Oliver, Michael, and Carl that there's some alternatives to being a kitchen sink game. Remember, it's not which sections are bad, but which sections are less important to the core product that's going to introduce new people to RuneQuest and Glorantha. (Despite the typo in an earlier message, I'm not concerned about selling to the existing market. At least half the purchasers have to be new players so we double the number of RQ players. When you get right down to it, our opinions are meaningless since we're going to buy RQ:AiG anyway, whether it has sorcery or not.) The decision has been made to focus on Dragon Pass (and neighboring Prax). I don't think that's open for discussion. So rules for Malkioni magic aren't as appropriate as those for Orlanth worship. Obviously, it would be nice to have both, since sorcerers live nearby. And suggestions to remove Glorantha and make a generic version probably won't be listened to, either. I don't want people to have to buy supplements to get the core system. Like RQ2, we need a system that lets you adventure in the most adventerous and well documented parts of Glorantha. I also assume the final product will have both maps and illustrations. [BTW, if any of you have received my RQ:AiG character sheets yet, let me have any comments. I think I've sent out all but the non-US copies.] 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22099; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:26:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20216; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:26:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:26:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:26:29 EST From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:27:32 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E0018E24B2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, >> even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or >> easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally >> reflect this. > Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having >better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance >to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that >there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. Sorcery has a number of advantages. It is flexible. You can learn both death and healing magic without every claiming that you are some sort of evil illuminate. Sorcerors don't have to gather together with a few hundred fellow initiates five times a year to keep their magic from going away. Sorcery spells grow in power as your skill grows. You can cast Disrupt for three decades and you'll still only do 1d3. The feudal western societies prosper because they have specialists who know a lot about fighting (knights), and specialists (wizards) who cast powerful magic on the knights adding to their shock value. A sorceror does not fight a rune lord; a knight, backed by a wizard's magic, fights the rune lord. I do agree with Paul, Graeme, George, and others that the RQIII range table worked fine. Mark S.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23004; Wed, 2 Feb 94 16:36:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20670; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:33:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:36:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:33:06 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 14:33:01 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E01DC60375@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha >A game of epic roleplaying The game of mythic roleplaying [this is the High Concept, what RQ delivers that no one else does] >Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave >the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back. Sounds negative. And your new buyers won't know where Glorantha went (whatever Glorantha is). >provides you with the detailed mechanics Don't use the gamespeak term "mechanics" >For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides Is this for beginners or advanced players? You're mixing your message. (And if you must leave something like this in, use a term other than "advanced;" perhaps "mature" or "experienced?") >innovative rules and comprehensive background material, >and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, >a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you >enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the >inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths >of mythic reality. [Later] you've got too much detail about Glorantha. Why not just say something about "a magic land where even farmers cast spells" and "where your adventurer can walk into the myths that made the land." Remember, the high concept is MYTH, not Epic (RQ is epic only in the time needed to play a combat; Pendragon is better for epics because it better portrays epic scope). >First there came the renaissance, now is the time for the reformation. What audience is this targeted at? I like Loren's version better (except the last 3 paragraphs should probably go away). It emphasizes people and story, rather that setting. Is he really a marketing student or what?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27956; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:32:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25053; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:32:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:32:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:32:29 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shimmer Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:31:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E11B3711BF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> How are other poor visibilty conditions handled, e.g., mist, smoke, etc.? Is there anyone who thinks that they should be handled by a Dodge bonus rather than an Attack penalty? If not, then leave Shimmer the traditional way. - Paul reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09773; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:07:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26818; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:57:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:57:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:57:16 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shimmer Date: 02 Feb 1994 18:56:58 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E184F81703@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul's right. The shimmer spell description should simply state that the spell obscures the target with a haze, and that this obscures the vision of anyone who wants to attack him to the tune of -5% per point. It seems to me that the only reason why anybody complained was that some GMs must like having secret information, like combat modifiers, from their players, and they picked on Shimmer which was a perfectly reasonable spell under the old mechanics. Keep shimmer as it was. Defense, however, is another thing entirely. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02617; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:27:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28814; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:27:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:27:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:26:47 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re-revised ad copy Date: 02 Feb 1994 19:25:49 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E202F3016A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This is my re-revised copy, with changes as per suggestions by David Dunham and others. I kept an awesome line from the original (Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods) but revised almost everything else. The stuff about handling beginning roleplayers and "advanced" roleplayers was unneccessary. We're trying to sell Glorantha here, the coolest setting around, not the system (which is also cool, but of secondary importance). If AH can get permission, the ad copy should also mention the designers of Gloranthan material, and any other hit games they've worked on, because in the case of Glorantha that *will* make sales. Besides, designers should have their names on the outside of the box. Finally, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps in the information about previous editions of RQ. The original copy made it look like this was the 2nd edition of RQ. I also thought we should say that RQ3 was a good thing, since you never admit to laziness when you're trying to look good. Despite the marketing hype, the additions are accurate---mostly. And no, I'm not a marketing student. I yam what I yam. ----------------------- Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy roleplaying game worlds, a labor of love designed by the same people who designed Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Pendragon, and DOOM!, has been updated and expanded for the roleplayer of today. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha The Game of Mythic Roleplaying In the heart of Glorantha, in a land called Dragon Pass, dragons and giants so huge they are mistaken for mountains and hills slumber away the centuries, waiting for some brave hero to awaken them. Foul broos and hungry trolls skulk through the hills, hunting farmers on their steads. And in Boldhome rebels plan bold strokes against the encroaching Empire. - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Search out arcane, ancient magics - Probe forbidden secrets - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes or save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar Empire. In 1978, the 1st edition of RuneQuest set the standard for other roleplaying games. With the world of Glorantha, RuneQuest brought roleplayers out of the dungeon and into an entire world brimming with adventure, romance, tragedy, and even slapstick comedy. With the 2nd and 3rd editions RuneQuest raised the stakes for organization and graphical presentation in roleplaying games. This 4th edition of RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system, making it even easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting and remaining consistent with the previous rules so that those who have old RuneQuest materials can continue to use them. If you have already been introduced to RuneQuest and Glorantha, the 4th edition will bring you to a new level of understanding. If you have never seen Glorantha, then within these pages you will discover a rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying in Glorantha. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, guides you through the creation of an adventurer, and gives you the rules and background material you need to begin exploring the magical world of Glorantha, which Greg Stafford and his friends have been discovering ever since 1965. This game of mythic storytelling provides everything you need to begin your adventures in Glorantha. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04679; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:58:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01000; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:57:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:57:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:57:30 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shimmer Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:56:16 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E286054BE5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul r. here. Loren says: >Paul's right Have to agree with Loren on this one :-) I thought of another argument for this, prompted by Loren's comment: >some GMs must like having secret information, Secret modifiers are appropriate for some things, but Shimmer (to judge by the name) is a _visible_ effect. When you're aiming at a guy who looks like a heat mirage, you know that it is hard, just as if you were aiming through smoke. Thus, since the target is visibly shimmering, you _know_ there is a negative modifier (i.e., your character knows it's a hard shot.) Oh, I rule that Shimmer applies to Darksense as well. (mirage effect would)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05720; Wed, 2 Feb 94 19:14:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01677; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:13:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:14:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:13:42 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re-revised ad copy Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 17:13:34 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E2CB215405@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >I kept an awesome line from the original (Walk >through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods) Yes, I thought that line was cool too. >We're trying to >sell Glorantha here, the coolest setting around, not the system (which >is also cool, but of secondary importance). Exactly. >If AH can get permission, >the ad copy should also mention the designers of Gloranthan material, >and any other hit games they've worked on, because in the case of >Glorantha that *will* make sales. Besides, designers should have their >names on the outside of the box. I agree there (after having to fight to do so with a Newton game which should come out this month). >And no, I'm not a marketing student. I yam what I yam. Just wondered, based on the list's host. >Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy >roleplaying game worlds, a labor of love designed by the same people who >designed Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Pendragon, and DOOM!, has been updated >and expanded for the roleplayer of today. Back? Again, where did it go (only the puny number of us who already have Gloranthan products know that it languished). And labors of love are those you don't get paid for. Is that a good thing to market? >In 1978, the 1st edition of RuneQuest set the standard for other Strike "the 1st edition" for brevity. >With the 2nd and >3rd editions RuneQuest raised the stakes for organization and graphical >presentation in roleplaying games. No need to mention the 2nd and 3rd editions, we're trying to sell _this_ one. Good job on the old & new player aspects.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01914; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:36:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11336; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:36:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:36:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:47 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:09:32 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E6297962A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Sorcery has a number of advantages. It is flexible. It is almost impossible to pick up a new sorcerous ability in a period less than months at any reasonable level. The abilities that a sorcerer develops early in his career are pretty much the same ones that he is stuck with. This is opposed to shamans that learn spells in a day or so, and Priests that often have a wide range of spells available to them, that they can learn in a few days (though not often). The people who are really flexible are the Lunar magicians. > You can learn both death and healing magic without every > claiming that you are some sort of evil illuminate. A quick glance at GoG reveals (aside from the obvious 7 Mothers) Storm Bull: aside from Berserk, teaches Healing, has Heal Wound as a common spell, gets Cure Chaos Wound from CA Orlanth: Thunderbolt, Lightning, Bladesharp, Healing, Restore Health, Heal Wound Babeestor Gor : Axe trance, Slash, Berserk, Bladesharp, Heal Wound, Healing, and Heal Body from Ernalda. Even Humakt has Healing and Heal Wound! It is true that few cults have useful combat magic and Resurrect (only 7-Mothers and Aldrya really spring to mind) the sorcerers can't Resurrect at all! > Sorcerors > don't have to gather together with a few hundred fellow initiates > five times a year to keep their magic from going away. They still have priestly duties, though. I would like to see them get some benefit for this as well. > Sorcery spells grow in power as your skill grows. You can cast > Disrupt for three decades and you'll still only do 1d3. The feudal > western societies prosper because they have specialists who know a > lot about fighting (knights), and specialists (wizards) who cast > powerful magic on the knights adding to their shock value. A sorceror > does not fight a rune lord; a knight, backed by a wizard's magic, fights > the rune lord. > Shamans and Priests grow in both power and flexibility. Sorcerers mostly grow only in power. Your example of knights + wizards vs. rune lords points out a lot of the problem - sorcerers are less able and less flexible than most divine magic users, and frequently less powerful as well. > I do agree with Paul, Graeme, George, and others that > the RQIII range table worked fine. > Yes indeed. > Mark S. >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01895; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11332; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:35 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG : sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:12:59 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E628AA430B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I liked the rules, especially with the sorcery in them. Why? Well there are > two markets the rules have to satisfy in order for it to be > successful. > > 1. Appeal to the current RQ players. Many people like sorcery, and > want to use it in their games. We run a campaign in Ralios and NEED > to have sorcery. > Yep. Before I started my current playtest (Prax) campaign, my campaign was set in Sog City in Fronela. > 2. Appeal to new players. For this we need to keep the rules centred > and focuses on Dragon Pass. > I don't follow this bit at all - the new players have never heard of Dragon Pass, and whats more are unlikely to want to set there games in an area with a remarkable abscence of supplements. Prax maybe. > With a little compromise I think it can fulfill both objectives. And > the playtesting for this version should really help it. > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10770; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:35:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05932; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:32:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:34:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:32:21 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:32:10 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E41AB06E91@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, I've read Piaget, I've read Carnegie, and I've read other experts on learning and cognitive science. None of them say that certain skills are "twice" as hard to learn or "twice" as easy. What is the justification for requiring that an easy skill advance twice as fast as a normal skill and that advance twice as fast as a hard skill? Upon what basis is this decision adhered to? In other words, I would like to understand the reasoning behind this ruling. PS: 1d3, by the way is NOT 1/2 of 1d6 if one looks at averages. The average value of 1d3 is 2 The average value of 1d6 is 3.5 This makes hard skills 1.75 times as hard as medium skills to advance. Now, let us suppose that we do adopt 2d4 as the advance rate for easy skills. The average of 2d4 is 5. This gives a ratio of 10/7 vs. medium skills. Dividing 3.5 by 10/7 gives a result of 2.45, which would translate to 1d4. BUT, multiplying 3.5 times 1.75 gives a result of 6.175, which is either 2d4+1 or 2d6-1. If you want to preserve the ratio, at least honestly preserve it. Why all the math? Just to cast a little shadow on Oliver's assertion that a certain special sitiation is violated by using 1d3/1d6/2d4.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01877; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11316; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:35 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:33:20 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E624556EA9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > David Cake writes: > > > > Can I just say that I like the proposed new mechanic, and I think that > > it is very clever, and PLEASE DO NOT USE IT. > > RQ needs some consistency. Please, just lets stick with > >' lower is better' , which we all know and understand, and which, > >more importantly, is already the way RQ (and published stuff which we need to > > maintain compatibilty with) does it. > Not that I care that much which system is used I just like to point out a > couple of things. Published material is unaffected to any great extent, > stats are more or less unchanged from existing works - other proposed > changes have far more compatibility problems (e.g. alterations to armor > values, damage bonuses, weapon damage, fatigue , hit locations etc). I am even more vehemently opposed to the changes to armor, damage, weapon damage, hit locations. I seem to be in the minority, as many people just see a new pretty mechanic that seem to help (not solve) some problems, but I see a compatibility disaster, the need to reissue every adventure, or have glaring (as opposed to minor) inconsistencies. I seem to be in a minority (most people liked the new damage system when first mooted here), but I think that it is an incredibly short sighted approach. The new damage system is better than RQ2/3, but changes like that are more appropriate to new games, rather than new editions (unless you are a biggy like TSR and have the market share and staff to reissue everything). > > I don't wish to appear a whining conservative (well, those of you who > > followed my input know that I am not at all), but on this particular issue I > > feel that it very definately should come down to conservatism - the marginal > > gain is very small, and it is a very big change to the game system (even if > > it looks similar probability wise, it will not go down well with a largely > > conservative RQ2 audience that we are trying hard to win back). RQ4 should > > appear to be a simple and natural transition. > You mean that RQ4 is targeted primarily at the existing RQ2 audience ? > Well if nothing of signficance changes from RQ2 to RQ4 (ignore RQ3) what > makes you think they would bother to buy it ? I think that there are big changes between the editions, and I think that RQ4 needs to change those parts that need improving (character creation) and build on what was there before. I just think that the easier the change is to understand and explain (without having to explain bizarre new dice conventions) the quicker it will be accepted by the first generation of buyers, who will mostly be the people who have played RQ before and want a nifty new edition. > I thought the idea was to produce something that was a significant > improvement over RQ2, and that at the same time would appeal to the > majority of the RQ audience whilst maintaining as much compatibility with > published material as possible ( and with some luck attracting new > players to RQ). > Actually RQ2 comaptibility is not a real point (though RQ3 is), and also the large number of people who have already played Elric! Call of Cthulhu and otehr BRP games - and who I suspect would find it easier if it worked the same way. > Someone also made the (excellent) point that if it ain't broke don't fix it, > the problem is not everyone agrees on what is broken. Some people consider > the current RQ combat system too slow to resolve combat, while others > seem to enjoy an entire evening spent on one combat. This single change makes very little difference either way - it is a marginal improvement. > > Changes to the combat system which retain the %skills as there basis have > almost zero compatibility problems with published material - since the > basic mechanics are described only in the rule books - which RQ4 would > replace. I'm not saying that the Miller/O'Reilly system is perfect or > necessarily the way to go - but at least we should think about alternatives. > I am talking more about compatibility with existing players than existing source material. I would find the change irksome and probably ignore it. > enough of my prattling > Tim Leask > ================================================================================ > Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in > University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." > Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. > Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- > e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au > ================================================================================ > Cheers dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13506; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:22:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06139; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:37:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:37:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:36:48 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 21:37:05 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E42DC32824@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Medium to long range seemed the worst (200 to 500 meters), as it allowed sorcerers to stay out of missile and spirit or divine magic spell range, yet fire off their own spells. Even worse when mounts or Haste spells were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori characters. On smooth terrain, unaided sight can distinguish figures out to a kilometer - add in vision enhancing spells and it gets worse. A few playtesters playing pirate, East Isles or a trade expedition campaign (I think) also complained about ship to ship range when one side had sorcery and the other did not. A more pressing concern is the use of spells such as Teleport and Homing Circle (or Sight Illusion) to transmit information (or passengers) over large distances instantaneously. I don't see the Imperial Mail as being quite that fast. These don't need much targeting, even at extreme ranges. Did you run mostly city based or forest area campaigns? The problems there were less extreme, other than the messanger service idea mentioned above. Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01852; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11302; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:33 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size & price Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:41:41 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E62431325C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > What to cut: > Hold in the sorcery section. Reason, it is not used by any of the listed > traditions. I think that the sorcery rules are one of the things that people are most hoping RQ4 will fix. > All optional combat rules. > Reason: While I like them they are most useful to combat between high level > types. Publish them in Tales of the Reaching Moon and if RQ IV sells, they > can be printed with something else. Again, high level combat is one of the things that people are hoping RQ4 will fix. > Aging an Inaction > Reason: I do not recall any serious problem with inactive adventurers. If > there is, the GM can handle it on his own. The only problem is - very little space is saved this way (and there is no obvious other place to put it). In any case, aging is quite important as a mechansim to discourage people from creating characters that are old and superskilled (unless the the character creation system has lost the flexibility that let you do that anyway) > Most of the Guidelines on DI > Reason, they can be replaced by the much vaguer and shorter RQ II guidelines > with little loss of playability. The loss of permanent POW means that DI > abuse, unlike other things tends to be self limiting. I have not seen the draft, but I imagine that these too are pretty short and so little space is saved. The RQ2 ones where definately too vague, BTW - for those of use who remember, they were a leading cause of Rune Questions in Wyrms Footnotes, and of optional rules articles. > The World of Glorontha > Reason: Not only is this info availiable in the support title of the same > name, it is not worth much without a map. > There should be some Gloranthan info in the book, but as far as I am concerned, it can be really brief. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01802; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:34:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11270; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:31 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:43:56 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E6240E7DE7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > 3. It gives us more time to playtest, and me more time to push our version > of Sorcery :-) > Is this a joke? I think pushing a different version of sorcery is a very serious priority :-) > (This is really a serious post, despite the joke at the end.) > > - Paul Reilly >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12172; Wed, 2 Feb 94 20:52:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06969; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:39 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Stuff in the book. Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:51:18 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E46D225A4D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, I don't want to see rules without context. In other words, if you're not going to go in-depth into the societies that use "sorcery" like you do for the ones that use spirit magic and divine magic, don't bother with a whole bunch of information on sorcery in the core book. Let sorcery remain mysterious and unknown until you release a book set in a region where sorcery is actually used.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12764; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:01:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07371; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:01:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:01:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:01:33 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:01:41 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E497682626@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The skill costs (half for easy, double for hard) are built into character generation costs and training and research times. Simply put, we decided to design a set of rules where certain skills are harder to learn than others (say learning how to fire a crossbow as opposed to learning surgery, or studying a complex lore). Rather than make these rules overly involved, half cost/time and double cost/time seemed to make enough of a difference, yet not be too difficult to implement. I wasn't suggesting that 1D3/1D6/2D6 was accurate either, only that it was closer than 1D3/1D6/2D4. Only 1D6/2, 1D6 and 1D6 x 2 would really be accurate. If you're willing to trade accuracy for simplicity, I'd be more tempted to go with David Dunham and Nick Brooke's suggestion, which presents a simple, yet interesting mechanic (roll 1D6 twice and take the highest for easy skills, roll 1D6 twice and take the lowest for hard skills). Oliver P.S. David and Loren, thanks for the copy feedback, much appreciated.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01862; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11304; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:34 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:03:10 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E624437509@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Paul Reilly replyin to Dave Cake: > > > Actually I prefer, as a slightly more complex rules (but one which > >Pendragon finds the need for as well) the rule 'best level of sucess wins, > >other wise lowest roll' ie 03 beats 05 - unless 05 is a critical and 03 is only > >a special. Or 40 beats 70 - unless 40 is a failure and 70 is a sucess. > > I like this more than the RQ4 maneouver style contest of sucess level, > >which results in stalemate more than half the time. > > Today I find myself (unusually) disagreeing with Dave Cake. > > The 'lowest roll wins' method is bad for the following reason: the less > skilled person usually wins if she succeeds at all. This is just wrong. > A 90% master potter should almost always make a better pot than her 30% > apprentice, EVEN IF THE LATTER SUCCEEDS. I can do a detailed probability > breakdown if anyone is interested. However the system works well if you are interested only in sucess of failure relative to each other - ie Hide vs. Scan. To explain - the two competing potters does not work well, because we want to get two different results from each - wether it was a sucessful pot, and wether it beat the other. But in Hide vs. Scan there is only one criteria of sucess, and it works well. The 30% Scan ends up seeing the 90% Hide about 20-25% of the time, which seems reasonable Probably degree of sucess (chance to suceed - rolled amount) is the best system but it really stacks the odds against the low skills . It is slightly more cumbersome, but in practive most of the time you only need to actually do the subtraction a fraction of the time - either one fails, or it is obvious which wins on ballpark figures. Yes, that is probably the system I favour for most opposed skill rolls. Thanks for pointing out the problems with what I said earlier. Actually, this level of rules I find very uninteresting, and I really have no strong opinion, but I would rather RQ does not adopt dice conventions wildly different to the rest of the BRP games. > _ paul reilly > David  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01840; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:35:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11283; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:35:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:34:32 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: iconoclasm Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:13:23 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E6241F40F5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I have always been annoyed at the RQ2 "Defense" and the > subtractive Shimmer. I want attack rolls to be straight- > forward and arithmetic-scarce. I much prefer the newer > Shimmer. Let's (for me) call the old spell "Defense" since > its parameters match the Defense of RQ2. > SHIMMER (Variable, Ranged, Passive) > This spell blurs and distorts the target's visual image > making it easier for them to evade a foe's attacks. Each > point adds 10 percentiles to the target's Dodge skill and > 5 percentiles to the target's parry skills. > Actually my group (to whom I have never mentioned the mooted changes to Shimmer) have made comments about its general uselessness. Basically even Shimmer at high levels is not that useful compared to Protection, so no PC actually owns the spell (several own Protection). > Note that Aldryami and Mostali have more than enough (except > good art) in _Elder_Secrets_. Speaking of ducks, I wonder if Unfortunately, with the new character creation rules, Elder Secrets (the rules parts) is now largely outdated, so the inclusion of such stats in E.S. is little use. > RQ3 fatigue needed to be fixed. RQ3 sorcery need to be fixed. > Much of the other stuff after that, maybe we could leave well > enough alone. Time and movement was okay with me in RQ3; AP > and ENC was okay with in RQ3; six kilograms per SIZ was okay > with me. > Character creation and some other areas of magic needed to be fixed as well, but I certainly felt that AP and ENC where not broken. > from BradFurst@aol.com >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01172; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:19:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10777; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:19:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:19:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:19:34 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Second Thoughts on RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:14:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E5E4430304@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> First, let me say it's gratifying that my comments on experience, training etc. have found sympathetic ears. I'd like to make some comments based on further pondering of a few matters. First, character constuction. Ruminating on the rules (can he do that? A COW?), I think they really aren't as bad as they seem at first. This is both good and bad, however: good, because they aren't that bad; bad, because they don't seem as good as they are (you never get a second chance to make a first impression). However, there area still a couple of things that you could do in the 2.0 rules that you can't do in RQ:AiG. Suppose the GM is setting up a Master level campaign, but you want your character to be more of a jack-of-all-trades. You don't want him to just have one primary profession. Now, in the old ("old") system you could just have him buy a couple of professions at the expert level instead. Now you can't do that. So, I propose the following OPTIONAL RULE You may, instead of choosing a single profession of the level of the campaign, choose two professions at the level below (unless the campaign level is novice or trained, of course). You would get all the skills of both professions. You would get the sum of the background points available to the two professions, but they must be spent at the level of those professions, rather than of the campaign. If the two professions have the same value for Magic, Wealth or Reknown, you get the value one greater than that; however, if they have different values, you only get the greater of the two. Example: In a Master level campaign, I decide to play a Lunar Soldier of Noble birth. Since I'm choosing two professions, I take them at the Expert level instead. So, I woudl get Attack, Parry, First Aid, and Scan at 75%, and Attack, Attack, and Parry at 60%. In addition, I would get Speak New Pelorian at 90%, Custom/High Pelorian, Persuade, and R/W New Pelorian at 75%, and a Attack and Parry at 60%. A soldier gets 7 choices, and a noble 4, so I would get 11 choices at the expert level. Nobles and Soldiers both get a 3 in Magic, so this character would get a 4, but the noble gets a 4 in Wealth and Renown as opposed to a 3 for the soldier, so I get the noble's 4. Pretty simple. I think it ought to at least be in the appendices, or at the end of the chapter. Another thing you could do in 2.0 that you can't do in RQ:AiG is have stats trained up in previous experience. Now, this doesn't matter too much in a low-level campaign, but if you're starting off as a Orlanthi Wind Lord with ten points of divine magic, it seems likely you would have trained stats at least once or twice. Now, this can be tricky, since in this system one point for a trained character isn't the same as a point for a master character. So, just say that you can train a stat up for one point for Master, two for Expert, or four for Skilled., and you can spend a maximum of four points on stat training. When you're a third of the way to your max, the cost doubles of course. Next, skill vs. skill resolution. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the best way to go would be to have the highest level of success win, and within that the one who made that level of success by the most winning. I'll enumerate my reasons. One: simplicity. This is very simple. Most people can subtract two-digit numbers, and those that can't are a small enough minority in a poor enough demographic that I think we can risk alienating them. So, it's easier to arrive at than the proposed system, which involves an extra die roll on the resistance table. That's much too unwieldy. Two: universal application. One thing that the Pendragon system doesn't do well is deal with skills greater than 100%. Say, I have a skill of 95%, and Joe Blow has a skill of 250% (in, say, Maneuver). I'm (sensibly) trying to disengage. I roll an 89, and Joe rolls an 88. Now, in the Pendragon system, I'll win this contest about 1/4 the time. In "make it by the most," however, I don't do nearly as well, winning only about 11% of the time. I think the latter figure best reflects the wide disparity in the skill levels. Finally, experience. The three basic systems that have been proposed are the one in RQ:AiG, in which the GM awards skill checks with a frequency inversely proportional to the difficulty of the skill; the one in RQ 4 2.0, in which the increase in a skill in based on the difficulty on the skill (1d3, 1d6, 2d6 for Hard, Medium, Easy respectively); and one that's been mentioned in the list, where you get two rolls per check for easy skills and need two checks for a roll for hard skills. I much prefer the middle one. The middle one is preferable to the first one (the one in RQ:AiG) because it requires much less work on the part of the GM. If the GM is always trying to gauge whether or not a skill deserves a check based on difficulty, then either the differences are going to vanish, or hard skills will never get checks. The middle one is preferably to the last one (the one mentioned on the list) because it requires less bookkeeping. You would have to keep track from one adventure to the next whether or not you had gotten a check in your hard skills previously. I think that intersession bookkeeping should be minimized. Also, it would be difficult to implement consistently. If you are required to get two skill checks for a hard skill to get a roll, then you would get two rolls for a check for an easy skill. Now, do you make the second roll before or after you added the d6 from the first roll? Also, how do you differentiate exactly how far apart in time two checks in a hard skill have to be to merit a roll? Or, if you get two adds for a roll for easy skills, and need to make two rolls to get a 1d6 in a hard skill, then the easy skill reduces to the system in 2.0 (gain 2d6), while for a hard skill you would have to keep track of successful rolls and skill checks simultaneously Bleah. Plus, you can bet that it will be written in such a manner that it can be interpreted in more than one way. Now, how about what values to pick? Someone has mentioned 1d3, 1d6, 2d4 as a possibility, someone else interjections that the ratios betwwen the average gains should be the same, so 1d3, 1d6, 2d6 makes more sense. Actually, the ratio between the average gain of 1d3 to 1d6 is not 1:2, but rather about 4:7. So, to keep that ratio, the average gain for an easy skill should be 49/8, or just over 6. For this value, the closest dice to use would be either a 1d10 or a 1d12. The 1d12 is a little closer, but then you'd get that extreme value of 12 three times as often as for 2d6, so 1d10 would be preferably. The best you could do, of course, would be 2d5 or 3d3, but I don't really think we want to do that... That's all for now. I'm sure you're relieved. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01256; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:20:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10861; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:20:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:20:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:20:35 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:15:17 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E5E8A056C2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Time for yet another long laundry list of gripes and complaints from George Harris. I had a Sam Adams Double Bock with dinner tonoght, and I think those are about 12% alcohol, so forgive me if I'm overly incoherent or sarcastic (ask Mark S. about my sarcasm sometime). I promise, no differential equations this time. "A melee round is a short period of time, the amount of time required to plan and execute two actions." How democratic. Any two actions take the same amount of time for any two characters to plan and execute. If you're a Dex 21 Int 24 Elf casting one disruption and parrying, you don't gain any time on that Dex 7 Int 4 trollkin casting a heal 4 on his maimed leg (remember this guy from the experience section? He's still hanging around). As Tom Lehrer said about the army, RQ has taken the democratic ideal to its logical conclusion. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color or ability. I do see some improvement. At least you can draw and attack in the same round without forsaking your defense. I would, however, like to make a couple of suggestions; changes that would at least give some acknowledgement to the idea that a character that is faster should be able to get more done. Under All Out Attack: Cast Spells. Let a character get off as many spells as sie has time for. This won't make a whole lot of difference, but it does let that Dex 21 Elf get off three befuddles in a round if he doesn't have to dodge. He deserves it. He's small and weak. Under Attack: Physical Attack. First, bring back the fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints about it. Sure, it makes the game a little more flashy and cinematic, but we could use a little of that occassionally. At least put it in the optional rules. Under All Out Attack: Physical Attack. Let some one get off as many bowshots as sie can. This will only ever make a difference for a Dex SR 1 character that can make two or three fastdraws in a row, so it seems a small enough concession to make to satisfy a grumpy old roleplayer who misses the olden days. Ahem. I know I'm probably the only person left in the world who still prefers strike ranks, and *not* dividing the roundup into Move, Declaration, Melee & Post-Melee Move a la Rolemaster (ooh, low blow), so I'll stop griping on this subject. Oh, since I wrote these notes we had out first RQ:AiG combat. There are a couple of things that seemed like they didn't really fit. First, the whole Declaration phase seemed really bad. The idea that all the characters are going to know what all the other characters are going to do threw everybody. I've always thought that declaration of intent was to let the *GM* know what you're doing, not the enemy. I feel enough trust toward my GM that I don't think he'll let my statement of intent affect NPCs' decisions (stop laughing, Mark). Second, the way Parry worked seemed really odd. I like the fact that you can just wait until you are attacked before deciding to parry. This seems to me to fit in with the idea of parry being a reaction rather than deliberate. However, it seems totally wrong to be able to wait until you are hit before you decide to parry. This goes completely counter to my (admittedly untutored) intuitions about parrying. To really drive homehow wrong this is, remember that this applies to thrown weapons as well. So, Big Axe Mike throws his hatchet at me. It hits me, so I decide to parry it. Well, I can see how that might make...huh? Physical Attacks: Special Hit/ "On a special success, a weapon attack does double rolled weapon damage." First, this is unclear, at least to me. Does this mean you roll normal weapon damage (say a 1d8 for broadsword, getting an 8) and then multiply by 2, or do you roll weapon damage twice (so 2d8)? There's a big difference in the distribution. An example here would be nice. Second, I really dislike taking away the *old* special hits. Sure, they're different for three different weapon types, but generally a character only uses weapons of a particular type (except for missile, where pretty much everybody uses impaling), and it doesn't take a whole lot of neurons to keep those straight. Are we aiming this game for people whose lips move while they read? How about levels, classes, and armor that makes you harder to hit (don't say I didn't warn you about the sarcasm)? Besides, the different specials made sense. Crushing weapons work best for folks with big DBs, which is why trolls use them. Impaling weapons go through you and stick. Slashing weapons cut deep. Let's keep these. Don't dumb the game down so much, or only dummies will want to play it. Yes, I saw the optional effects section before I wrote that. Crushing weapons optionally do a minimum of one point for every five points of damage rolled. Did anyone think that through? How often will that matter, especially with the revised armor/weapon tables? Say a troll is hitting with a heavy mace. He's probably got a +4DB, and does 1d8, either *2 or 2d8 for the relevant hit. So, say he's fighting a fellow in plate. That's six points of armor. So, if he rolls a two (after multiplying or on 2d8), he does a total of 6 points, so the crush rule means that one point gets through that otherwise wouldn't. If he rolls anything else, it doesn't matter. Now, suppose a human with a +1 DB is swinging the mace. If he rolls a total of 2, 3, 4, or 5, then the special allows him to do 1 point of damage that he wouldn't otherwise. So, crushing weapons are relatively *more* effective for folks with *lower* damage bonuses (that is, special hits help them more). Is that really the effect you want? I would much prefer the old armor counts half against crushes. That helps the troll a helluva lot more than it helps the human, or the duck. Better yet, restore the old specials, max damage for a slash, double damage and a stuck weapon for an impale, and max (with the change in DB make this *2) DB to half armor for a crush. Is that really so bad that it must be changed? Is it bad at all? I say nyet. Dodge. Let a critical dodge turn a missed attack into a fumble. Please. It'd be fun. Consequences of ENC for Dodge: Again, change this to [Total ENC]-STR. Strength helps you carry things, not size. Hit Locations: Carl Fink says the reason for switching to a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. I say, have the *main* rules be the separate hit locations for missile and melee. If you want to put unified hit locations in for any new creatures, or even for anything that's just a beast, fine. That's not important. Then put in a suggestion for GMs to do away with hit locations *altogether* for arrow fodder in the big combats. That's what's going to take up all the time no matter which hit location chart you use. If they take half their hits in a single blow, they're incapacitated. That'll speed things up a helluva lot more than going to unified hit locations would, and still maintain the realism of a separate table for PCs and "real" NPCs. Page 29, last line: should be "affect," not "effect." Pet peeve. Sorry. It's good to see the effects (here, it is "effects") of various amounts of damage to the various locations spelled out explicitly. Brave for the instant death rules for head and chest, as well. I would prefer a paring down of the number of combat skills necessary. Why not have all the weapons of a group (e.g. 1H Mace) use the same skill, and other weapons in the category (i.e. 1H Crushing) be at 3/4 skill. This would hardly be unbalancing, as most people stick with one weapon anyway, and would certainly save a lot of space on the character sheet, cutting the number of potential weapon skills by more than half. It would also be a tremendous reduction in bookkeeping as well. Suggestion: for each point of STR a character is below that required to use a weapon, reduce the damage done by one point. Leg armor is 2/6 the encumbrance of a full suit. 2/6? Let's stick with simple fractions and call 1/3 1/3. Nearly halfway through. Time for the big ramble, though, so you might want to bail out now. I am growing steadily more dubious about the wisdom and necessity of completely changing the damage and armor values of nearly everything in the game. One of the results of this, adn I fear the most significant one, is that RQ:AiG will be unusable without a great deal of work with almost every RQ scenario and "mechanical" resource that has ever been published, including the half dozen or so excellent sourcebooks of the RQ Renaissance. I'm not saying that this would kill off the renaissance, but it certainly won't do it any good. As I recall, one of the major impetuses (impetus? Impeti?) for this revision was that a not particularly brawny fellow armed with a dagger (1d4+2, impaling) could fairly easily maim the arm (or, indeed, leg) of a not particularly wimpy victim (say, a trollkin). Now, I don't think this is a good thing either, but I don't think that this (IMHO) minor problem justifies, nor that its solution requires, such a drastic and sweeping revision. Changing the point of death from 0 HP to negative total HP has already moved RQ out of the realm of the Far Too Deadly, and I believe this revision will take us just as far in the other direction. A dagger should not do 1d4+2 points of damage. That, on average, is as much as a light mace, or a quarterstaff, or a rapier does (and since it's an impaling weapon, under the old rules average is more important than maxima [if that's not clear I'll try to explain, but don't hold your breath; as I type I've got >100 messages in my mailbox]). So, lower it. Make a dagger do 1d3+1. Much more reasonable, at least in the trollkin's point of view, and it causes many fewer compatibility problems. It is also true, however, that the current damage table (1d4 for 25-32, 1d6 for 33-41 etc.) is far too generous, as it was not revised when SIZ went from 3d6 to 2d6+6 in the last major revision (hmm, need to be careful in thinking through and playtesting all the ramifications of revisions...good thing we're doing that). That is also solved much more easily than changing DB from a die roll to a straight add. Why not just shift everything up five points from the 2.0 draft, so you get +1d2 for 26-30, +1d4 for 31-35, etc. Of course, to me the nature of the DB table is less of an issue, because I agree it needs to be revised. Still, does the entire weapons table so desparately need to be altered that it's worth making all previous related material (or RQ:AiG itself) so much more difficult to use that it's virtually obsolete. {I realize there's some hyperbole here, but, hey. So sue me.} Spirit Combat: I agree that this doesn't really belong in the combat chapter. Sure, spirit combat takes place during combat, but so does spellcasting. Move it to the Shamanic Practices chapter (more on that [probably much] later). This system does seem much less cumbersome than the one in the 2.0 draft, though. Some of the special combat options don't seem like they would work with the mechanic described in the intro to the section, particulatly Steady and Grapple: Throw. Also, bring back the Prepared Fire tactic (or do you *really* hate bowmen?). Why have artificial breakpointsin the way SIZ affects knockback? Just say every point of SIZ over 10 is subtracted from rolled damage for purposes of calculating knockback. That way you get rid of a clunky table, and anyone using the optional rules is going to be able to do simple subtraction. That's all for now, stay tuned for the exciting Economics critique! -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15269; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:53:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11013; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:26:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:26:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:26:23 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 20:26:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E6015A75EE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I've always been a fan of rolling twice as opposed to varying dice sizes.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04638; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:17:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13142; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:17:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:17:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:16:54 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Doubling and skills Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 21:16:50 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E6D8D9593F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Okay, I've read Piaget, I've read Carnegie, and I've read other >experts on learning and cognitive science. None of them say that >certain skills are "twice" as hard to learn or "twice" as easy. I assume there's justification for some skills being easier than others? (Most relevant to RQ, almost any book on the subject asserts that the Crossbow supplanted the Longbow because it required less training.) If we have Hard, Medium, and Easy skills, I too don't see any absolute need that the differences be double. >I'd be more >tempted to go with David Dunham and Nick Brooke's suggestion, which >presents a simple, yet interesting mechanic (roll 1D6 twice and take >the highest for easy skills, roll 1D6 twice and take the lowest for >hard skills). This is obviously not doubling, but should be as easy to remember as d3/d6/2d6.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06133; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:42:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14081; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:42:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:42:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:42:29 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 21:42:12 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E745F118E6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >"A melee round is a short period of time, the amount of >time required to plan and execute two actions." I applaud the much more playable "you can do two things" than the complexity of SR. (In fact, there's really no need for SR at all any more, but that's another story.) > bring back the >fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints about >it. I guess I never complained publicly. It was definitely a cool idea, but it Didn't Work. It was really messy, especially for GMs trying to accurately run a group of archers. My players all loved it, I (as GM) hated it. >Dodge. Let a critical dodge turn a missed attack into a >fumble. Please. It'd be fun. I dodged your arrow, so your bow broke? I don't think so. (Besides, I like the speedup of not having to roll if the attack missed.) >Carl Fink says the reason for switching to >a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much >space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the >time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in >a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between >unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. It saves this GM mucho time. (You said you were a player, not a GM, and therefore you're not qualified to speak on time-related issues. OK, maybe I'm being sarcastic, but no rules ever bother the players. It's the GM who's the bottleneck.) > Then put in a >suggestion for GMs to do away with hit locations *altogether* for >arrow fodder in the big combats. Why have a rule if you're going to tell people not to use it? > I would prefer a paring down of the number of combat >skills necessary. Why not have all the weapons of a group (e.g. >1H Mace) use the same skill, and other weapons in the category >(i.e. 1H Crushing) be at 3/4 skill. Yes (see, I can agree with you :-) > Why have artificial breakpointsin the way SIZ affects >knockback? Just say every point of SIZ over 10 is subtracted >from rolled damage for purposes of calculating knockback. That >way you get rid of a clunky table, and anyone using the optional >rules is going to be able to do simple subtraction. And I agree with this too!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18353; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:59:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19017; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:59:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:59:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:59:03 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Game Size & Format Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 01:10:26 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EA8CCD4E0C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A few comments on the size/format debate. The primary way RQ will turn off new people is by doing what was done with RQ3 and with Basic D&D. That is, by issuing the same game in many formats. Not only does it confuse new prospects who are not certain that if they buy the "Deluxe Set" they are getting the same stuff that is in the "Gamemaster's Set", but it gives the idea to potential buyers that the issuing game designers/company do not know what they are doing. The purchase of a significant new roleplaying system is an investment, in both money and (if you are a GM) time. The return on one's investment comes not only with the core rules, but with the proposed supplements, scenarios, etc that follow. If the core rules are issued in a haphazard fashion, a potential buyer must only assume that the future products will be issued in a similar manner. The gist of all of this is that, more importantly than deciding whether to issue a really large single book, a single boxed set of several books, a three-ring binder set what upcoming areas to be inserted, or a small set of core rules followed by supplements, is that whatever is done must be done CONSISTENTLY. Do not issue a single hardbound book, and then issue a boxed set with the same rules split into several different books and with a bonus scenario. Do not issue a basic boxed set or book and then a deluxe boxed set or book. All of these devices sow confusion amongst the general buying public. Instead, decide on a format and make that the one and only format. My vote for format would be a core rule system in three ring binder format (much as ASL or the AD&D monster manuals). While I have no idea if the three-ring approach is too expensive, it certainly allows for errata and supplements to be inserted seemlessly into the rulebook. It also allows TOTRM and other mags to have articles and optional rules which can be substitutued. Finally, it allows GMs to add or delete from their rulebook any optional rules that they deem worthy of inclusion/exclusion. Probably, in any form, the core set should include ALL rules (from Shamanism to Sorcery). A second book/chapter should include a GoG type writeup of cults, and the third book/chapter should have monsters, etc. I know we are trying to integrate Glorantha into the rules this time, but obviously, the world of Glorantha is too voluminous to even begin to include in a set of core rules. Why try? Simply have the core rules give the nuts and bolts of Gloranatha (the cults, the monsters, etc) and leave the cultural/philosophical/socialogical aspects to supplements. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11261; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:40:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16098; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:39:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:39:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:39:34 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:39:26 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E839946D2E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I would like to propose a more sophisticated view of our market, which will clarify why I am so strongly opposed to eliminating sorcery and so relatively willing to cut the Glorontha material in the first and last chapters if we have to. An FRP sells primarily to potential GMs, and only secondarily to players. Reason: If a player buys a system, would like to try it, but does not happen to know any GM who runs it, he has few options. If he is himself energetic, willing to do the work, and able to lead people to follow him into trying it he can GM it himself. In this case he may generate further sales to his new players. Of course, if this is true he is also a potential GM. If not, he reads it and puts it on the bookshelf generating no further sales. If well off he may buy some more support material, but then again he may not. In short, only the GM is an engine driving further sales. Once this is understood, our market falls into four categories: a) GM's and groups who now run RQ {either II or III}; b) Potential GM's who played RQ II, liked it and Glorontha, but would not follow Chaosium and Avalon Hill into RQ III with its non Gloronthan setting, and unworkable sorcery system. c) Potential GM's who bought RQ III and for one reason or another rejected it. d) Potential GM's with no prior exposure to RQ. Group a) those who already play RQ, is important for two reasons. First, if at all possible it would be good to bring the RQ II diehards back into the fold and buying scenario packs. Second, many of these groups will buy one or two copies of RQ IV to evaluate it. We want them to convert, and the rest of them to buy copies {and replacement copies, etc}. IF RQ IV is not what they want, this may not happen. REFUSAL OF EXISTING GM's TO SWITCH IS AFTER ALL WHAT KILLED RQ III. If what they most want from RQ IV is a workable sorcery system, and I think this is true; publication of RQ IV without sorcery would be a disaster. The other advantages of RQ IV, while real, might not be discovered because disappointment with the absence of sorcery leads groups not to adopt it. To these groups, cutting Gloronthan history that can be found in WoG {which they already have} is reasonable. My proposal to cut shamanism is based purely on not having head a large demand for upgraded shaman rules. Group b) Potential GM's who played RQ II but would not adopt RQ III are important because THEY ARE THE LARGEST GROUP OF COMPETENT GMs AVAILABLE to increase the pool of good potential RQ GMs. I think there are a fair number of people who have played for ten years, and used to like RQ. As evidence I offer the ridiculous prices being asked for RQ II and Cults of Prax in flea markets, etc. Melee and Wizard, DragonQuest, Swordbearer, etc, also from the 78-82 era are not similarly marked up. Given the small size of the current RQ community, I think our fastest way to grow is to entice some of these GM's back. The basic reasons some of them left were that RQ III with no Glorontha and no sorcery, disappointed them, and they had hopes that Hero System, Warhammer, etc would solve the basic rules problems associated with RQ. Again, if you want to get these people back, you have probably got to offer a workable sorcery system. Group c) Those who saw only RQ III and did not like it, is regrettably small. If there were more of them, more copies of RQ III would have been sold. Jokes aside, I am not pushing to recruit these people because most of them have no sentimental attachment to RQ leading them to buy the first copy of RQ IV. Also, they do not seem to constitute a bloc with unified desires easily understood by analysis. Group d) New GM's, is where RQ's long run future has to come from. But most GM's of any system start out as players of that system, who for one reason or another switch or resort to GMing. As such they are now, or will first become, players in a group with a GM who has already played RQ. This means they probably have to be reached by a technique that appeals to existing GM's. Frankly, I tend to think an expensive basic book, which people will bitch about and only buy one or two copies per group of at first for evaluation purposes, is a lesser evil than cutting a lot of the good stuff. After all, AD&D is neither cheap nor short. Sorcery is almost the last thing I would cut because many of the potential GMs we want to appeal to really want a workable sorcery system from RQ IV. I agree that some of the other stuff in RQ IV may be more valuable in the long run, that shamanism is theoretically more useful than sorcery given the prevalence of packs set in Prax and our Dragon Pass setting, etc. The customer is not always right, quite often he does not know what he really wants till he tries it. On the other hand, if you do not give an initial batch of customers what they want, they may never try your product and thus never find out about the other stuff they did not know they wanted till after they found out about it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12337; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:51:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16354; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:51:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:51:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 1:51:27 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:51:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E86C5B47D6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The purpose of not rolling for parries till after you see if you have been hit it to streamline combat by not having people waste time rolling when their enemy has missed. Frankly, I'm not so hot on changing armor and damage values either. While the new values may play a bit faster, a lot of scenario packs and rolled up character use existing RQ III values, and I hadn't heard a lot of complaint about that aspect of RQ III.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12726; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:04:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16614; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:04:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:04:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:04:21 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: iconoclasm, cows, runeLords Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:04:13 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E8A348346B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Agreed, i'm pro-Lunar. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12900; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:06:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16626; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:06:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:06:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:06:31 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:06:20 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E8AC8234BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Favor reduction of number of combat skills by elimination of weapon specificty. - Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14201; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:41:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17476; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:41:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:41:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:41:09 EST From: Erik Schumann To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsub Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 08:40:36 +0100 (MET) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E940510809@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> UNSUB -- ====================================================================== Erik Schumann | schumann@kirk.fmi.uni-passau.de | 2:2494/22.11@fidonet ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eduard Hamm Str. 18 | This space is for hire 94036 Passau | Your Ad could be placed here Germany | For pricelist contact one of the adresses ======================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15261; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:52:33 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17664; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:52:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:52:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:52:24 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: 03 Feb 94 02:48:16 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E9707010A4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Raymond Turney's recent discussion raised a point I find odd. > b) Potential GM's who played RQ II, liked it and Glorontha, but would > not follow Chaosium and Avalon Hill into RQ III with its non Gloronthan > setting, and unworkable sorcery system ... > The basic reasons some of them left were that RQ III with no Glorontha > and no sorcery, disappointed them, and they had hopes that Hero System, > Warhammer, etc would solve the basic rules problems associated with RQ. > Again, if you want to get these people back, you have probably got to > offer a workable sorcery system. The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. Add to the mix that it was hugely expensive, completely unsupported, and required large amounts of work to update existing games, and you had a terrible mixture for disillusion. Maybe things were different in the States. Maybe some of the RQ2-loyalists on this Net can tell their own stories. I think a Glorantha-heavy rulebook (i.e. packed with Gloranthan titbits to illustrate/illuminate the rules, *not* filled with pages of stodgy "facts") is *more* appealing to alienated RQ2ers than a "fixed" sorcery system. If having "no sorcery" disappointed them, why the heck did they stay with RQ2 (& no sorcery)? I now believe that giving a Gloranthan context for sorcery is the key to RQ:AiG, that the authors have gone the right way about it (though I disagree on some details), and I emphatically do not think it should be cut from the draft. (I do think more should be added on Lunar magical effects -- Glowline, Phases, etc. -- but that's another story). BTW, for people who have not seen the latest draft: Oliver & Co. have taken pains to produce new short-form write-ups, not just for Religions (similar but not identical to GoG format) but also for Shamanic Traditions and Sorcery Schools. Short-forms are much the same length for any of the three forms of magic, which is a good "selling point". (Might be worth posting a couple of them to the Net, so you can see what I mean). All of the examples are focussed on the Dragon Pass, Prax and Holy Country region, though stuff from inside the Lunar Empire is covered too, of course. Thus the existence of huge amounts of sorcerous magic in the East and West is discussed in a couple of paragraphs (where the existence of differences from the standard rules is emphasised), but the schools actually detailed are those of God Forgot, 3EB, Arkati, Trader Princes, Carmanians, and two from the Lunar College of Magic. Plus a few Saint Cults (Arkat, Talor and Paslac). There is no write-up in RQ:AiG for Hrestoli, Rokari, etc. -- for any of the big Western churches -- so Paul's dream of a Malkioni supplement with distinctive magic for the West could still come to pass. BTW again, I too dislike OJ's "justification" of soul-destroying magics. Sorcerers would say the same of priests' divine magic and DI's. This is a (mistaken) perception of another culture's way of doing things, not a good model on which to build rules. Plus, as others have said, there is little "temptation" to burn POW for minimal, temporary gains. I still like my "fix", which has the advantage of being entirely compatible with the rules as written -- you just need to keep track of when you spend POW, and work out rules for recovery/reusability. So I don't mind if it's not adopted by the authors: as I've commented before, it's a doddle to add things to a rulebook to suit your game, but a bugger to take them out... ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15217; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:49:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17600; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:49:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:49:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:49:45 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Evangelizing; Ray's missive Date: Wed, 02 Feb 1994 23:49:39 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E965151F27@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think I've mentioned Steve Jackson Games does something like this; here's the description of a file uploaded to CompuServe: "Metropolis is looking for GMs to run demo games and tournaments at regional cons, and we're willing to offer free products and t-shirts as incentive. This letter spells it out. Email Terry or leave me a message on the Industry board for more information." I hope Avalon Hill does something similar to promote RQ:AiG. Ray Turney wrote a long (and with narrow margins and double spacing, it looked longer) message on why he thought RQ:AiG couldn't sell without sorcery. I'll try not to get into a big argument, but 1) I never saw sorcery as being broken; 2) it was highly impractical to run shamans under RQ3 or any RQ4 draft until RQ:AiG. While there may not have been noise, I think it was broken and is now greatly improved. (Only specialist spirit magic was broken, and if sorcery was broken, it was probably broken at all levels, so more people were exposed to it). I suspect most people who never switched to RQ3 are out of the hobby. That was 10 years ago! While it's obviously impossible to satisfy all of us, I don't think it's too hard to come out with an RQ:AiG that most of us will buy (even if it has to leave ducks or sorcery for a supplement). That should be a no-brainer -- I think Avalon Hill's learned from the RQ3 pricing mistake. What's a lot harder is to do a game that will attract people who don't play RQ. It's always going to be something of a premium game, but I think it can attract a lot more people than now play it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16706; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:31:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18448; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:31:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:31:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:30:59 EST From: Eric Rowe To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Skill vs skill, and more heresy Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 00:30:40 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EA15142898@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > But in Hide vs. Scan there is only one criteria of sucess, and it works >well. The 30% Scan ends up seeing the 90% Hide about 20-25% of the time, which >seems reasonable Reasonable? Seems to make the 90% hide barely worth rolling. > David eric  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16750; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:32:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18510; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:32:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:32:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 3:32:00 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 00:31:27 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EA196212AE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >... If you're willing to trade accuracy for simplicity, I'd be more >tempted to go with David Dunham and Nick Brooke's suggestion, which >presents a simple, yet interesting mechanic (roll 1D6 twice and take >the highest for easy skills, roll 1D6 twice and take the lowest for >hard skills). I'm more than willing to trade accuracy for simplicity. I definitely favour the 1D6 roll twice mechanic that you describe above. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18609; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:05:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19146; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:03:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:04:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:03:43 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Evangelizing; Ray's missive Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:04:19 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EAA0B31993@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From ddunham@radiomail.net Thu Feb 3 00:24:22 1994: > >Ray Turney wrote a long (and with narrow margins and double spacing, it >looked longer) message on why he thought RQ:AiG couldn't sell without >sorcery. I'll agree that it is wrong to say the product won't sell without sorcery, if that is a correct summary of what Ray said. However, the fact that RQ2 didn't have sorcery is no proof that old RQ2 players don't care about sorcery. >I'll try not to get into a big argument, but 1) I never saw sorcery as >being broken; 2) it was highly impractical to run shamans under RQ3 or any >RQ4 draft until RQ:AiG. I for one considered RQ3 sorcery to be laughable. The shaman rules were also flawed. >I suspect most people who never switched to RQ3 are out of the hobby. That >was 10 years ago! Here's some anecdotes about my RQ group, of which Ray is now a member (however, he wasn't back when RQ3 came out). We all universally hated RQ3, but continue to play a RQ2 varient to this day. Our current group is a strange mix of RQ2 and RQ3 characters, so a good RQ4 would be really useful for us. Basically, everyone RQ player I knew in the old days hated RQ3. I have no idea if this was typical or not. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18717; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:08:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19218; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:08:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:08:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:08:11 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:08:45 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EAB3CA49E1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Favor reduction of number of combat skills by elimination of weapon >specificty. - Ray Turney So do I. I also think all melee weapons should have a 1/2 simliarity; similar weapon groups should be 3/4 similar. The special tactics skills (Feint, Flurry, etc), if kept, should not be weapon specific. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18942; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:16:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19377; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:16:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:16:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:16:17 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Magic Systems and Conserving Size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:15:27 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EAD6540961@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I would argue that removing sorcery or shamanism rules from the RQ:AiG release is a Bad Thing. Having three *strongly differing* magic systems was one of the greatest strengths of RQ3. But, hey, I like Fatigue, so what do I know? Dustin (dustin@OCF.Berkeley.EDU)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20371; Thu, 3 Feb 94 03:48:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19953; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:48:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:48:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 4:48:12 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ducks Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:48:57 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EB5E8628A8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> _________ |Carl Fink: | | Is anyone else getting between two and four copies of some messages |from the list? |_____________________ This is about the Playtest or the Daily? I can answer for the Daily: I was getting bounced messages for one 'mckinney' who's account had expired. Instead of the standard 'postmaster' or 'mailer-daemon' these message come from a 'user database account'. How foolish of me not expecting that. Cheers... -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20687; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:05:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20201; Thu, 3 Feb 94 05:05:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:05:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:05:11 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:03:56 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EBA70A4A90@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke writes: > The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the > introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with > it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic > ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously > removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. That is not my experience from the gamers in Oxford. Some people were *pleased* that the rules had been de-Gloranthised, as they did not run games in Glorantha, but in their own made-up worlds (personally, I never saw any problems in applying the rules to non-Glorantha, but it had put others off). I recall no comments saying "they shouldn't had added it" and lots saying "they ought to have gotten it right"! > Add to the mix [...] Vehement agreement here! > If having "no sorcery" disappointed them, why the heck did they stay with RQ2 Possibly because, like myself, they had already added e.g. C&S Basic Magick [sic] to the RQ2 rules, along with various incremental improvements pointed to by other Chaosium games (e.g. the creation of the "Agility" category of skills). It was rather disheartening to find (after forking out huge sums of money) that the RQ3 Sorcery rules seemed to be in no further advanced state of playtested-ness than my own; at least I knew how to get around the glitches in my own system! -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26512; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:06:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27538; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:05:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:05:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:05:38 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:10:16 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EEA9153AF7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My edits on Olivers ad: > - Probe the forbidden secrets of the God Learners. Cut this, this ought not be encouraged, and outsiders don't know about GLs anyway. Maybe keep the forbidden secrets somewhere else. 1. > Forget realms best forgotten, run from the shadows, leave > the masquerade behind...Glorantha's back. In 1978, RuneQuest > took the gaming world by storm, setting the standard for > what roleplaying games would become. In 1994, Adventures > in Glorantha will do it again. 2. > Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to > roleplaying. It tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game > is, how to create an adventurer, and provides you with the > detailed mechanics and comprehensive background material > needed to begin play in Greg Stafford's magical world of > Glorantha. The game provides everything you need to begin > your adventures in Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. I'd say 1. and 2. are mutually exclusive in whom they address. 1. is good for expert gaming mags, while 2. is addressed to newcomers, who probably wouldn't have read this far. Put 2. in computer magazines etc, and get 1. into White Wolf and similar. > For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ I don't like the sound of this. This seems to exclude newcomers. How about: "To explore the depths of the world, AiG provides ..." > innovative rules and comprehensive background material, > and the best developed game world in existence, Glorantha, ^^^^ You don't get the job as second best fighter in town, but there exist about half a dozen of worlds with as extensive description, and about as much depth. E.g. Middle-Earth, Harn, Tekumel. Insert "one of"? > a world in which creation has not stopped. It allows you > enter a world unlike any other, where you can learn the ^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ Stress this? > inner mysteries of the gods and venture on unexplored paths > of mythic reality. Huh? I had to read this twice over, to really understand it, and not because I am no native speaker of English. And I think I know RQ and Glorantha... > Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can > learn to use magic. This is important, because this is what makes the system different from the class oriented rpgs the vast majority plays (yes, AD&D). > You can call on the gods to become their avatar > to defeat your foes...but at what cost? I am familiar with the word "avatar". Is the teenage college boy, too? > Crisis is at hand - it the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces > of the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. > Benevolent missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick > soldiers...these are the bad guys? Barbaric warriors, savage > beast riders, dangerous rebels...these are the good guys? I like this paragraph! It catches most of the feeling the Dragon Pass region offers. > First there came the renaissance, now is the time for the reformation. Cut this. > Leave the mundane world behind and begin your adventures in Glorantha. Ok, so how do the graphics look? A glimpse at the map, and maybe the helmeted heads of a Lunar officer (Fazzur?) and a Sartarite rebel (Starbrow?)? Include a female element, maybe it works to attract some females to rpgs and RQ in special. > And, for your entertainment, some of the ones that didn't make it past > the first cut : Rightly so. Loren's rephrasing: > Here's how I'd reword your copy. > RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha > A game of epic roleplaying > Glorantha is back! One of the first and most complete fantasy > roleplaying game worlds has been updated and expanded for today's > roleplaying audience. > In Dragon Pass slumber dragons and giants that are so huge they are > mistaken for mountains and hills. Foul broos and hungry trolls skulk > through the hills, hunting farmers on their steads, and in Boldhome > rebels plan bold strokes against the encroaching Empire. > - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with > the bones of the gods. > - Search out arcane, ancient magics > - Probe forbidden secrets > - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes > or save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar > Empire. Better. > In 1978, the first edition of RuneQuest set the standard for roleplaying > games that would follow. With the world of Glorantha, RuneQuest brought > roleplayers out of the dungeon and into an entire world brimming with > adventure, romance, tragedy, and slapstick comedy.[CR] This new edition of > RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system, making it even > easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting and remaining > consistent with the previous rules so that if you have old RuneQuest > materials you can continue to use them with this new edition of the > rules. [CR] If you have already been introduced to RuneQuest and Glorantha, > this new edition will bring you to a new level of understanding. [CR] If you > have never seen Glorantha, then within these pages you will discover a > rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, > generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. Good text, but too long in one paragraph. Note the inserted [CR] > Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying. It > tells you what a fantasy roleplaying game is, how to create an > adventurer, and provides you with the detailed mechanics and > comprehensive background material needed to begin play in the magical > world of Glorantha, which Greg Stafford began to write about in 1965. > The game provides everything you need to begin your adventures in > Glorantha with this game of epic storytelling. cut for gaming mags, keep in some form for non-gamer targeting > For the advanced player, [...] see above > Glorantha is a world of magic and magicians, where anyone can learn to > use magic. You can call on the gods to become their avatar to defeat > your foes... but Divine Intervention has a high price. better, but see above > Crisis is at hand - it is the time of the Hero Wars, where the forces of > the Lunar Empire will confront an uneasy alliance of foes. Benevolent > missionaries, well meaning officials, homesick soldiers... these are the > Lunar invaders. Barbaric warriors, savage beast riders, dangerous > rebels...these are the Orlanthi tribes defending their homes. Your > character can help decide who wins and what is the future course of the > world. I liked Oliver's version of this better. Combine? David Dunham: >>RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha >>A game of epic roleplaying > The game of mythic roleplaying ^^^ > [this is the High Concept, what RQ delivers that no one else does] Yes >>Forget realms best forgotten, [...] > Sounds negative. And your new buyers won't know where Glorantha went > (whatever Glorantha is). Yes >>provides you with the detailed mechanics > Don't use the gamespeak term "mechanics" Rules? doesn't sound better to me. >>For the advanced player, Adventures in Glorantha provides > Is this for beginners or advanced players? You're mixing your message. (And > if you must leave something like this in, use a term other than "advanced;" > perhaps "mature" or "experienced?") Yes. > [Later] you've got too much detail about Glorantha. Why not just say > something about "a magic land where even farmers cast spells" and "where > your adventurer can walk into the myths that made the land." Remember, the > high concept is MYTH, not Epic (RQ is epic only in the time needed to play > a combat; Pendragon is better for epics because it better portrays epic > scope). I disagree. If Glorantha is the focus, then the ad needs to stress that. Else: why is Glorantha the focus? > I like Loren's version better (except the last 3 paragraphs should probably > go away). It emphasizes people and story, rather that setting. Is he really > a marketing student or what? I'd go for a compromise. And: marketing comes with selling a product... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26499; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:05:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27499; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:05:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:05:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:04:47 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:24:10 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EEA5727E31@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes cites: >>>One idea would be to yank Sorcery and put it in a Western sourcebook >>>(problem: the rest of that sourcebook probably isn't ready). > Let me cast my vote against this. Mine, too. I'm going to playtest in Heortland, with Aeolian and Rokari Malkioni believes clashing. I'm going to have Fazzur as the liberator from Rokari religious oppression to the heavily Orlanthi-influenced Aeolian heresy... Paul Reilly: >> I'd actually favor this. I'd rather have a combined book with the >>basic Sorcery Rules and a "Sects of Malkion" section (like Cults of Prax). >>This would be better for several reasons: >>1. _Most_ characters don't use much sorcery, even in the West. Very few >>in Dragon Pass. Thus having an extra section in the rulebook that _everybody_ >>buys seems wrong to me - it's forcing players in campaigns with no sorcerers >>to buy rules they don't need. If you play a character from Seshnela or Loskalm, and you don't use sorcery, you don't use magic. Is this appropriate for Glorantha? >>2. Sorcery should be _mysterious_ and _alien_ to most central Genertelan >>characters. This is a lot easier if they haven't read the Sorcery rules. >>Even in a Western campaign, certain schools should _not_ have all their >>powers well-known. Galvosti, for example. > This issue won't be solved by having separate suppliments, as the players > can just get their hands on "The Compleate Sorceror", or "Western Pack" > and read it themselves. As much as I look forward to see such a thing, I don't expect it in this millennium. (Prove me wrong, please!) Meanwhile, we'll have to do without this, based only on what the rules give us. So let the rules give us enough to make at least educated guesses., and the supplement will come sooner than otherwise. The eastern and southern parts of Glorantha will be delayed even more, but there seems to be less actual interest or familiarity. And as much as I like the Paul&Mike sorcery system, if we can get RQ4 out ASAP, I can live with a detailed write-up as optional rules. I think only a few things need to be changed to incorporate that concept. If possible, think over the Paul&Mike system! -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23241; Thu, 3 Feb 94 05:29:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21730; Thu, 3 Feb 94 06:28:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 6:28:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 6:28:18 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:27:11 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1ED09B4579C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney wrote: > The purpose of not rolling for parries till after you see if you have been > hit it to streamline combat by not having people waste time rolling when > their enemy has missed. I have run this way for a long time; the rationale being that you parry a blow which otherwise would hit. This is (a) easier to run, (b) makes combat with several (low-level) opponents not quite so deadly, (c) helps to fix the RQ2 weapon breakage problem (the ability to parry a later attack is sufficient encouragement not to use it hacking your foe's weapon apart). OTOH, the rationale is doubtful and RQ3 fixed the weapon breakage problem anyway. >[on changing armour and damage values] > I hadn't heard a lot of complaint about that aspect of RQ III. There has certainly been some complaint on this list about over-effectiveness of armour and weapons. Perhaps the dagger example is a red herring; I have run dagger as doing 1d4+1 since RQ2 exactly because IMNSHO the value 1d4+2 was wrong. However, RQ3 made armour much more effective than in RQ2 and also increased the average damage bonus. I did not like the results; that lightly armoured characters are not as viable as they were in RQ2. The only ways to get RQ3 players not to be incredibly well armoured are (a) economics and (b) fatigue. Economics is not effective in the long term, and the fatigue rules slow down a melee which has already been extended by the excessive armour. So yes, I believe there is a problem with RQ3 armour and damage; in the interests of playing rules vaguely similar to other RQ players I certainly applaud the attempts to fix it. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24537; Thu, 3 Feb 94 06:07:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22466; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:07:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:07:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:07:33 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:06:42 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EDB12833A1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I was thinking of something more like this: Form/Set would be a single > spell, with modifier to the skill dependent on the material ie > > Water +20% > Soft Wood 0 > Hard Wood -10% > Bronze -20% > Granite -40% > Iron -80% > etc > > This would modify the manipulation limit as well as chance of success > > One other reason I like this is to simplify characters: it's easier to > record and keep track of Form/Set 86% than Form/Set Wood 92, Form/Set Bronze > 70, Form/Set Water 30, Form/Set Iron 12 etc. > > Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > > > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) > proposed a few months back, with spells like Form/Set matched with > knowledge skill like Iron Lore, > Or, ahem, modesty forbids me, the sorcery draft I posted here a while ago, and now on soda.berkeley.edu (thanks to Henk and Shannon). I will probably produce a new draft as soon as I get my RQ:AiG, basically RQ:AiG sorcery (unless it turns out I really hate parts of it, which is quite possible :-)) plus this sort of flexible subject for spells. I still think sorcerers get a raw deal as regards flexibility, and I think that this system compensates them somewhat by making it easier to be a real expert in a limited area of sorcery, like element magic, or illusion, or emotion magic. > > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24675; Thu, 3 Feb 94 06:18:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26103; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:18:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:18:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 7:18:16 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:17:26 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EDDEF36864@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Nick Brooke writes: > > The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the > > introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with > > it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic > > ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously > > removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. > I think that while some people where disappointed by the general introduction of sorcery, I think that most where prepared to accept it as Gloranthan, but put off by the rules. > >If having "no sorcery" disappointed them, why the heck did they stay with RQ2 > Maybe the used the two pages of rules that Greg wrote in 'Son of Sartar' (posted here some time ago) - basically RQ2 Rune magic with a %age skill! :-) > -- > ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. > (malcolm@nag.co.uk) > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26406; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:02:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27345; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:02:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:02:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:02:28 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:01:41 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EE9B805991@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >"A melee round is a short period of time, the amount of > >time required to plan and execute two actions." > > I applaud the much more playable "you can do two things" than the > complexity of SR. (In fact, there's really no need for SR at all any more, > but that's another story.) > Yep. Especially the way spells and missiles are now clear. > > bring back the > >fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints about > >it. > > I guess I never complained publicly. It was definitely a cool idea, but it > Didn't Work. It was really messy, especially for GMs trying to accurately > run a group of archers. My players all loved it, I (as GM) hated it. > I have no complaints - but my player that uses it is not a bowman. Why not just remove it for missile weapons? (but allow it for thrown). Anyone have any problems with it other than with bows? > >Carl Fink says the reason for switching to > >a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much > >space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the > >time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in > >a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between > >unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. > Can I just make the plea for compatibility again? > > Why have artificial breakpointsin the way SIZ affects > >knockback? Just say every point of SIZ over 10 is subtracted > >from rolled damage for purposes of calculating knockback. That > >way you get rid of a clunky table, and anyone using the optional > >rules is going to be able to do simple subtraction. > Yep > And I agree with this too! > > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27487; Thu, 3 Feb 94 07:39:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28688; Thu, 3 Feb 94 08:39:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:39:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:39:06 EST From: kenrolston@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 08:44:26 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EF37EF6AEC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Way too wordy. Writing ad copy is the art of the slogan. And designing an ad is the art of graphic presentation. I presume the ad is primarily targeted at folks who haven't owned or played RuneQuest. (If that ISN'T true, if the ad is targeted at current or lapsed RQ gamers, then ignore my objections -- the copy is fine.) References to forgotten realms, shadowrun, and masquerade are pointless. Public acknowledgment of the ancient traditions of RuneQuest are irrelevant to the reader unfamiliar with RQ, and renaissance and reformation have negative implications. All the reader wants to sense is that this is something new he ought to check out. The first few lines you have are the best at this; phrases like God Learners, bones of gods, Lunar Empire, Hero Wars give an immediately sense of the unique and original. Other flavorful fragments that communicate originality and alien setting are names and titles, like Provincial Governor Sor-Eel, the Sun Dome Templars, Mistress Race Trolls, and Talor the Laughing Warrior. By the way, I hate writing ad copy, and am not particularly good at it. The Title and Headline should jump out and grab, and the rest of the text should just stay out of the way of the graphic... something like: RUNEQUEST A UNIQUE SYSTEM FOR A UNIQUE WORLD OF MYTH AND MAGIC Yeah. Yuk. But that's what it should look like. Ken  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29721; Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:50:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25933; Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:46:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:50:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:46:21 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:44:50 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E156787E7B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Sorcery has a number of advantages. It is flexible. It's far less flexible than spirit magic taught by a shaman. It's much easier for a shaman or priest to change their array of spirit magic over a week or so than it is for a sorcerer to change his spells. Since it takes so long to learn effective sorcery spells with the one spell = one skill, I would say that sorcerers are less flexible than the other spell casters. > You can learn both death and healing magic without every > claiming that you are some sort of evil illuminate. So can shamans, or priests of gods like Orlanth with many associate cults, by either getting the spells the associates or joining the other cults as acolytes and getting all their spells. >Sorcerors > don't have to gather together with a few hundred fellow initiates > five times a year to keep their magic from going away. The lack of a social aspect for sorcery is a defect IMHO, when they are meant to be the priests in Western culture. > Sorcery spells grow in power as your skill grows. You can cast > Disrupt for three decades and you'll still only do 1d3. Well shamans grow in power as their fetch grows, and priests do so as their sacrificed divine magic does. In my opinion it's much easier - and with the new rules more effective - for them than for sorcerers. The feudal > western societies prosper because they have specialists who know a > lot about fighting (knights), and specialists (wizards) who cast > powerful magic on the knights adding to their shock value. The polytheists prosper because they have specialists who fight, called Rune Lords, and specialists who know magic, called priests. They even have specialized cults like Humakt and Chalana Arroy to make them even more effective.. A sorceror > does not fight a rune lord; a knight, backed by a wizard's magic, fights > the rune lord. > Fights two rune lords, to keep the no. of rune levels the same > Mark S. > Have to run. Continue later. Graeme  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06692; Thu, 3 Feb 94 09:52:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07943; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:52:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:51:35 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 9:54:45 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F16D31171D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I just want to make a brief comment in reply to some things. A lot of people are calling to cut this or that from RQAG. This playtest draft is ~210 page, and is still missing a section or two; once these and art and maps are added, it will be pushing 300 pages or more. This is, I agree, a decent sized game, much larger than RQ2, somewhat more than RQ3. But RQ2, despite it's many die hard adherants, did not feature a complete game world. It wasn't until the Cults books were released that anything other than tantalizing glimpses of Glorantha were given. We want to do more with this, to allow players to start playing with *no* supplements. Once they're hooked, they will buy all the Gloranthan material they can find. But let's hook them first. If you look at the game market now, those games which are successful contain a game world that is well, if not fully, described in the basic rule set; Shadowrun, Vampire/Werewolf/Mage, Cyberpunk. And all of these weigh in at or around the 300 page range, or more. This does not seem to cost them sales, and I don't think mere size will cost RQAG sales. Don't get me wrong, I think we should make RQAG as streamlined as possible. But I also think we need to keep the cultural context of Glorantha. The religious descriptions with the thumbnail cult writeups, and the shamanic traditions (the new shamanism rules are, IMO, the best thing about this draft, even if I have problems with their implementation) are examples of what's good about RQAG. The sorcerous colleges are not done nearly as well, IMO, and should be fixed. And I agree that the text can be tightened up in a lot of places. Lets not gut RQAG because we think size won't sell. The gaming marketplace suggests otherwise. ---- Boris  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07070; Thu, 3 Feb 94 09:58:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08436; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:02 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 07:56:09 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F188C63BAA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke writes: >The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the >introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with >it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic >ruleset allowing you to play magicians in pointy hats, simultaneously >removing Rune Lords and all the other wonders of Glorantha from the book. I can not agree more. An advantage of RuneQuest as it was before RQ3 came out as generic product was that to gain in magicial power you had to advance socially, either within your tribe, your guild or your cult. There was a social and magical status quo. That status quo encouraged the myths to thrive as these formed the basis for the many and complex alliances which composed Dragon Pass culture. Thats not to mention the ducks ... :-) Introducing sorcerers into that environment is like introducing printing presses. There would be profound social change. The baby was thrown out with the bath water. The rules themselves added very little and the background was discarded. >Add to the mix that it was hugely expensive, completely unsupported, and >required large amounts of work to update existing games, and you had a >terrible mixture for disillusion. I felt that RuneQuest 3 should have been called Basic Roleplaying 2. The fact that RQ3 carried the RuneQuest title means we have the somewhat bizarre situation that people are complaining about the presence of Runes in a RuneQuest publication! :-) Sometimes I wonder ... -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11839; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:43:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12531; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:43:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:43:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:42:45 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:43:23 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F2478A5FD1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> kenrolston@aol.com: >By the way, I hate writing ad copy, and am not particularly good at it. The >Title and Headline should jump out and grab, and the rest of the text should >just stay out of the way of the graphic... something like: > RUNEQUEST > A UNIQUE SYSTEM FOR A UNIQUE WORLD OF MYTH AND MAGIC >Yeah. Yuk. But that's what it should look like. More like:-) |> /\ |\ u n e \Q u e s t A Unique System For A Unique World Of Myth And Magic >Ken -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14070; Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:56:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13705; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:55:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:56:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:55:09 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 10:58:05 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F27C5D4B41@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > kenrolston@aol.com: > > >By the way, I hate writing ad copy, and am not particularly good at it. The > >Title and Headline should jump out and grab, and the rest of the text should > >just stay out of the way of the graphic... something like: > > > RUNEQUEST > > A UNIQUE SYSTEM FOR A UNIQUE WORLD OF MYTH AND MAGIC > > >Yeah. Yuk. But that's what it should look like. > > More like:-) > > |> /\ > |\ u n e \Q u e s t > > > A Unique System For A Unique World Of Myth And Magic > > >Ken > And for the graphic ... say have Larry Elmore (or someone with a similar style) do a scene of a Bison Tribe Uroxi fighting a really horrible looking broo, small and in the foreground. In the background, airbrushed in all misty, have Storm Bull himself, bleeding on the ground with the Devil standing over, with this *big* chunck of rock about to descend. That should get some attention. ---- Boris  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 3-Feb jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue. #RE: Doubling and skills Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15252; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:10:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15056; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:09:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:10:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:09:09 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:08:55 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F2B8393244@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hrm.... I think I'll pull out me spreadsheet and run some math to see just what the roll 2d6 take the higher/roll 2d6 take the lower actually comes out to be. It does sound like a marvelously quirky and wierd way of doing things, though, and every new game that has really made a splash does SOMETHING wierd with dice (if you hadn't noticed).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16062; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:17:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15773; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:17:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:17:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:16:56 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:14:16 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F2D95A0EBC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # That's more ad copy than I care to read. # Yes, Ray's comment is backed up by what they teach us in the evil MBA Marketing classes. Far too much copy. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24454; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:41:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23264; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:41:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:41:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:40:50 EST From: klyfix@ace.com (Klyfix) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The Complete RuneQuest Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:32:39 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F43F5815F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I notice that there's some belief that RQ:AiG is going to be too big, and parts should be left out or it should be released in parts. I think one of the virtues of it ( heck, its BIGGEST virtue ) is the sense of completeness; the sense that it won't be necessary to buy three or four suppliments to be able to actually play. Keep sorcery in; we don't all want to be spirit magicians or divine cultists. Keep the Gloranthan stuff; the most successful RPG's of the last few years ( Shadowrun, Vampire and the other Storyteller games ) have had a well developed background as the main selling point. Keep shamans; they're poteintially really cool. The one thing that might be seperated out is the non-player creatures. A revised creatures book, perhaps combined with the old Gloranthan Beastiary, would be a good addition.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17721; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:34:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17294; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:15 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Ad Copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:03 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F32347603C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> One thing that has bothered me about the ad copy thus far: All of the emphasis on the "return" of Glorantha. I know that the idea of Glorantha's triumphant return mail appeal to us Grognards, but if RQ:AiG is meant to attract NEW people, stressing the "return" of a game world may just prompt the mental question "What was wrong with it the first time around?" I say to drop the emphasis on "return to Glorantha" and just present the game as a unit. Move the "return" stuff to a less central place in the ad copy. The theme should not be how RuneQuest has gone back to Glorantha. The theme of any advertisement should be how great RuneQuest and Glorantha are to somebody who's never SEEN the game before. Why? Grognards will pick up the game once they've noticed that it is set in Glorantha, they won't need to be told that it's a "return" (unless they're seriously stupid). New folks won't care that a game is "returning" to a setting they've never even heard of in the first place (and they won't care that the "return" is being made by a game system they've never even heard of in the first place). Let's put it this way--Every time I have EVER stated to non RQ oldfarts that RQIV was to return to Glorantha, I got a completely blank "So what?" The lesson I learned from this was that it doesn't matter what something is returning to from a marketing standpoint if people have no idea what that point of return was in the first place. Perhaps my experience is unique--but that may be because I purposively sought out people who have never heard of RuneQuest, Glorantha, etc. for the Pavis setting playtest I ran of the last draft. Remember, there are a LOT more gamers who have never even HEARD of RuneQuest or Glorantha than there are gamers who have heard of either.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17963; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:37:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17509; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:37:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:37:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:37:04 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Minimal RQ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:34:42 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F32F541B8C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham sez: # RuneQuest and Glorantha. (Despite the typo in an earlier message, I'm not # concerned about selling to the existing market. At least half the # purchasers have to be new players so we double the number of RQ players. # When you get right down to it, our opinions are meaningless since we're # going to buy RQ:AiG anyway, whether it has sorcery or not.) # {And some other good stuff} While I agree with the thought that we have to sell to new players to succeed, I feel I must comment on the last part of this paragraph. RQ:AiG has to appeal to as many of us old-timers as possible, as we're going to be the ones out there evangelizing it. If _we_ don't have 99% faith in the quality of the product, it won't move. _RuneQuest_ is an old, stale name. I think it's a big mistake to try and trick the market into thinking it's a "new thing." Instead, we should try to convert current attitudes from "old & stale" to "a long-time classic, but updated and improved." My personal theory is that only a tiny percentage of buyers will pick up a game on a whim. Most hold out until they've received some "word of mouth," be that formal reviews in magazines, or more importantly and widespread, opinions from other respected gamers. As per my essay in the RQ-Con program book, we've got to help spread that all-important word of mouth to the uncleansed masses. To be motivated enough to do this, we've got to believe in the product ourselves. So, to get down off the soapbox and back to D. Dunham's point, I think we, the RQ opinion leaders/future evangelists, have to feel that our opinions have been heard and debated enough that the product is the very best it can be, within limits of budget, time and effort available. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19190; Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:47:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18304; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:47:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:47:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:46:49 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 11:51:10 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F358E94006@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Hrm.... > > I think I'll pull out me spreadsheet and run some math to see just what the > roll 2d6 take the higher/roll 2d6 take the lower actually comes out to be. > > It does sound like a marvelously quirky and wierd way of doing things, though, > and every new game that has really made a splash does SOMETHING wierd with > dice (if you hadn't noticed). > Here's the distribution on roll one die with a bonus die (as they call it in Over The Edge). Just reverse for one die with a penalty die. Odds for rolling 1 6 sided dice, with a bonus die. 1 2.7778 2 8.3333 3 13.8889 4 19.4444 5 25.0000 6 30.5556 Average = 4.4722 I got this from a routine I wrote to give me the averages for the random method of characteristic generation, which is also roll one extra die and drop one. Turns out that the sum of the average of the characteristics is 90. Even with APP only costing half price, it seems that more than 80 points should be given for the deliberate method, or else the bonus die eliminated from the random method. The results obtained are just too different. ---- Boris  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09603; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:04:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05608; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:03:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:03:51 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Shimmer: DM 0.02 Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 18:57:10 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F6A1AD16D3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> V.S.Greene > Stuff I'm not so fond of: > Why is Shimmer now Parry/Dodge Sharp? The logic of the shimmering > not affecting an archer's chance to hit you if you aren't aware he's > there escapes me; sort of like camouflage that only works if you can see > your opponent. Perhaps it could be changed to allow for a dodge under > circumstances when it otherise would be impossible. Good question. While I think that introducing a parry-enhancing spell is an overdue Good Thing, I liked shimmer for the special effects alone. And it is sure more fun than the generic darkness spells other systems use for just this effect, as someone (David?) pointed out. A reversed shimmer spell would be nasty, too, and certainly a trickster spell. "aim" or something, also good for hunting. And needs to overcome MP for living targets. Might work for one hit location only? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09616; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:04:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05704; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:04:32 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ray Turney's market analysis Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 19:14:50 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F6A49A663D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney's market analysis: > An FRP sells primarily to potential GMs, and only > secondarily to players. Good point. A lot of groups I know rotate their GM, though, and thus one group consists of say five GMs. > In short, only the GM is an engine driving further > sales. Agreed. > Group a) those who already play RQ, is important for > two reasons. First, if at all possible it would be > good to bring the RQ II diehards back into the fold and > buying scenario packs. I have met only a few RQ2 diehards. Most RQers I know in Germany have been very willing to buy whatever quality RQ3 stuff appeared, which seemed useful for their campaign and within reasonable pricing. > Second, many of these groups > will buy one or two copies of RQ IV to evaluate it. We > want them to convert, and the rest of them to buy > copies {and replacement copies, etc}. IF RQ IV is not > what they want, this may not happen. REFUSAL OF > EXISTING GM's TO SWITCH IS AFTER ALL WHAT KILLED RQ > III. Most existing campaigns will adapt the new rules to their campaign, and not vice versa, I'd expect. The regular campaigns which started pre-RQ3 will become a tumble of RQ2 through 4. Only if new groups or campaigns evolve, one can expect RQ4 to be played in pure form. > If what they most want from RQ IV is a workable > sorcery system, and I think this is true; publication > of RQ IV without sorcery would be a disaster. What they want is a variety of magic systems, designed to fit into the world. Sorcery, Lunar magic, divine and spirit magic, and as much other stuff as possible - dragonewt magic, darkness demons, disease spirits, elf bows, dwarf muskets... > My proposal to > cut shamanism is based purely on not having head a > large demand for upgraded shaman rules. Apart from RQ, only a few games offer "sticks and shamanism" style cultures. To cut this, would be to cut another strength of the game. On the other hand: To release it separately, might attract folk... > Group b) Potential GM's who played RQ II but would not > adopt RQ III are important because THEY ARE THE LARGEST > GROUP OF COMPETENT GMs AVAILABLE to increase the pool > of good potential RQ GMs. How available are these? How do we contact them? Most of these people will be out of the community where news about new games spread automatically, that's school and university. Most will now have families, time-consuming jobs, and no contact to gaming society. > I think there are a fair > number of people who have played for ten years, and > used to like RQ. As evidence I offer the ridiculous > prices being asked for RQ II and Cults of Prax in flea > markets, etc. Do you know the bidders? Take me, someone who contacted RQ first in 87, 3rd ed, and now rabid for the good ole stuph. > Melee and Wizard, DragonQuest, > Swordbearer, etc, also from the 78-82 era are not > similarly marked up. Pre-issue 90 White Dwarf get fantastic prices, too. > Given the small size of the > current RQ community, I think our fastest way to grow > is to entice some of these GM's back. How big was the RQ2 print run? How big was the RQ2 community? And how many of these still play RQ? > Group c) Those who saw only RQ III and did not like it, > is regrettably small. If there were more of them, more > copies of RQ III would have been sold. Jokes aside, I > am not pushing to recruit these people because most of > them have no sentimental attachment to RQ leading them > to buy the first copy of RQ IV. Also, they do not seem > to constitute a bloc with unified desires easily > understood by analysis. In Germany and lots of other countries, the majority of roleplayers belongs to this group. The roleplaying wave reached the non-English language countries around 1983, when RQ2 had run out and RQ3 was on the horizon. I'd guess that there are at least half as much English language copies of RQ sold in Germany (mostly the GW edition) as are German language ones (~3000, if my info is correct, the first print run in hardback has just been replaced by a softcover edition). Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium might amount to again half as much English copies. All these, and a lot of people using translations, will be interested in the new edition, and probably buy it. > Group d) New GM's, is where RQ's long run future has to > come from. But most GM's of any system start out as > players of that system, who for one reason or another > switch or resort to GMing. As such they are now, or > will first become, players in a group with a GM who has > already played RQ. This means they probably have to be > reached by a technique that appeals to existing GM's. This is the main American target group, and maybe the British and Australian, too. If RQ gets hot once again in the English language area, the rest will follow suit, but these form the primary market RQ4 needs to conquer. > Frankly, I tend to think an expensive basic book, which > people will bitch about and only buy one or two copies > per group of at first for evaluation purposes, is a > lesser evil than cutting a lot of the good stuff. > After all, AD&D is neither cheap nor short. Nor clear, or easy to play from the book alone. It does have a lot of back-up from similar computer games, from Nethack via Ultima to Pool of Radiance. Too bad Glorantha or RQ-like mechanics have no presence on that market. I have yet to see the rules to know what might be cut, but I wouldn't worry too much about volume. Look at the other successful systems on the market: Pendragon 4th ed and Ars Magica 3rd ed exploded in volume compared to previous editions, and Earthdawn does well with lots of pages, too, from what I hear. White Wolf storyteller games are weighty, too. What these games offer which the RQ3 AH rules don't are illustrations which (in some cases alone) prompt the customers to buy the rules. For RQ:AiG to be a success, the rules need interior artwork the quality of the RQ-Renaissance covers (Dorastor included, which would have looked even better if the window frames had been visible) as well as first class inks. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23211; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:26:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21601; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:25:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:25:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:24:47 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Yet another stab at ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:23:53 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F3FADA5F60@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, now I'm going to re-revise the re-revision of the revision, just to be a pain. I severely cut the wordage--the rule I learned for grant pre- proposals (which are just special purpose advertisements) is that every unnecessary word drops your chance of acceptance by 5%. (Maybe a little steep, but I like the premise.) I also "stupified" the language, dropping gerunds and long words in favor of short synonyms or simpler verb forms and tried to make the language less intellectual and more visceral. Yes, there are a few places where the strict denotative meaning is a little obcure, but the impact is what is emphasized. (Example: I really rewrote the first sentence, what do I mean by "primal?"--let the psychoanalysts discuss that, I just wanna sell games.) More justifications to forestall critiques: I rearranged the order of a lot of stuff. The hype should all go first, the history afterwards. The reason: Those impressed by history and pedigree will wade through hype to see "what's really under the hood"; those impressed by hype have no patience for "dull stuff". Basically, I'm following the established principles of rhetoric--grab their attention with the short stuff and then squeeze for all it's worth. This means that you have to keep it short, keep it simple, keep it attention-getting. Remember, so long as it is honest, what it "means" is not necessarily as important as how it feels. Here goes: _______________________________________ Glorantha, one of the most complete and primal worlds of roleplaying, a labor of love by the same people who wrote Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Pendragon, and DOOM!, has been updated and expanded for the roleplayer of today. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha The Game of Mythic Roleplaying - Walk through a land of myth, armed and armored with the bones of the gods. - Uncover arcane, ancient magics - Probe forbidden secrets - Bring Lunar civilization to the savage Orlanthi hill tribes - Save your people from the decadent, chaos-embracing Lunar Empire. In the heart of Glorantha, in a land called Dragon Pass, dragons and giants so huge they are mistaken for mountains slumber away the centuries, awaiting a hero to wake them. Foul Broos and hungry Trolls prowl the hills, hunting farmers in their very homes. And in Boldhome, rebels plan daring strikes against the encroaching Empire. RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha is the perfect introduction to roleplaying in Glorantha. This game of mythic storytelling provides everything you need to begin your sagas in this magical world of wonders. Glorantha was discovered in 1965 by Greg Stafford. In 1978, the 1st edition of RuneQuest set the standard for other roleplaying games. RuneQuest brought roleplayers out of the dungeon and into the world of Glorantha, brimming with adventure, romance, tragedy, and slapstick comedy. The 2nd and 3rd editions of RuneQuest raised the stakes for organization and graphic presentation in roleplaying games. This 4th edition of RuneQuest continues the evolution of the game system. - It is now even easier to use Glorantha as a roleplaying setting. - This new edition remains consistent with the previous rules. If you have already been introduced to Glorantha, this edition of RuneQuest will bring you to a new level of understanding. If you have never seen Glorantha, within these pages you will discover a rich, satisfying setting with terrifying monsters, cruel enemies, generous friends, and the greatest scenery in the universe. _______________________________________ This game will also cure warts, remove unsightly blemishes, drive out fleas and cockroaches and increase anyone's sex appeal to truly aphroditic proportions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23637; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:31:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22112; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:30:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:31:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:30:34 EST From: burt@tonto.ptltd.com (Burton Choinski) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:30:16 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F4138E35B0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Much as I hate to, I must leave this discussion. I'm drowning in mail and not likely to provide much input without a hardcopy. Plus, I am sort of out of gaming mode. If some kind soul could mail me the listserver controll address, that would be great. Thanks for the discussion, guys. -- Burton  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23811; Thu, 3 Feb 94 12:33:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22322; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:32:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:33:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:32:24 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: evangelizing Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:32:09 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F41B6367E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Okay, the full poop on SJG's evangelicals vis GURPS and other products (taken straight from the SJG Gopher server--didn't know they had one, did you?): 1: SJG will do massive support for SJG events at conventions to the point of providing prizes, SJG promotional material, official AADA sanction for Car Wars, etc. They are also willing to see if they can get someone from SJG to the con--providing that the con pays the expenses of travel and lodgings etc. 2: SJG will match funds for any GURPS-related article published in any other wide-distribution professional magazine--what this means is that SJG will match what one is paid by, for example, Dragon Magazine for getting a GURPS article into that magazine. 3: SJG has excellent editors and art editors, who will brook no crap. (Not really "evangelical" but definitely something that SJG has in their favor.) Now, White Wolf could also bear looking into in the areas of marketing. (Certainly NOT in the areas of system design, writing, or editing.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01515; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:11:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24969; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:00:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:00:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:59:58 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:59:21 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F491084E94@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris writes: > And for the graphic ... say have Larry Elmore (or someone with a similar > style) do a scene of a Bison Tribe Uroxi fighting a really horrible > looking broo, small and in the foreground. In the background, airbrushed > in all misty, have Storm Bull himself, bleeding on the ground with the > Devil standing over, with this *big* chunck of rock about to descend. > That should get some attention. An extremely graphic idea but it could be problematic. The fact that the embodiment of Chaos is called the Devil is bad enough but featuring him on the front cover, unless he looks like a toad or something totally undemonic, strikes me as a really bad idea. You guys have fundementalists in America and unless RQ:AiG is planned to be marketed on the publicity gained by being publicly declaimed by those who leap on band wagons this could could be a bad mistake. Even a bleeding Storm Bull could lead to allegations of advocations of self-imolation. Very unpleasant. This not to mentioning the all male combat scene with someone fighting a baltent and hideous monster. How about a party of experienced and varied troop of adventurers, from alligned Cults, in a very uneasy negotiation with a pack of Trolls, complete with attendent Trollkin. This might put forward an important part of RuneQuest, that monsters are people too and essentially evil in their nature as they are in some other backgrounds. You could go to town on all the trappings of both sides to reflect the richness of the Gloranthan background. Feature runes, really lived in armour and other personal and heraldic effects. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00377; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:58:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09886; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:58:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:58:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:58:36 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:07:39 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E58AD1374E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > > John Medway replied to me: > >I dunno if this is a real problem. Look at the size of Champions or the > >new version of GURPS. They're pretty sizeable too. Doesn't seem to slow > >sales too much. > > I could argue that the 120 page RQ2 was more popular than the 280 page RQ3... And I could argue that the ~500 page AD&D 1st edition (DM Guide, Monster Manual and Players Handbook) was the most successful FRPG of all. You needed all three books to play. > > Maybe I'm wrong, but _I'm_ put off by huge works, and I'm a fairly > dedicated gamer. Would you become a gamer if you thought you had to read a > 300 page tome? If you weren't a gamer, would you be more interested in > becoming one if you had to buy a $15 book or a $30 book? I _like_ the bigger books. When I look at a new game, I prefer to see a 300 page book to a 150 page. I especially like knowing I'll get a complete game without having to fork out for supplements. Also, in Australia, the difference is more like a A$35-A$40 vs A$50-A$60 for what we have to fork out. (The first price is what Dorastor is selling for now; the second is what the EarthDawn book is costing). Price doesn't seem to scale linearly with page number. Of course, the original RQ3 came out costing A$80. That's about US$55, at the current rate of exchange. I suspect RQ won't be attracting new gamers directly, at least not unless it becomes a really big hit. Non gamers have usually only ever heard of AD&D, or are introduced to gaming by someone else. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27890; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:08:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25783; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:24 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:08:16 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F4B4FF068C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think we must have run some things differently. I thought that concentration for sorcery dictated at best a slow walk, but you write: >Even worse when mounts or Haste spells >were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly >on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori If your campaign allowed casting while galloping away from charging enemies, we certainly were running sorcery differently! We had some Western battles with the sorcerers hanging back in a 'baggage-train' type of situation, they were relatively immobile. Church-supported tradition dictated that they not be attacked. (Outland PC mercenaries violated this though...) Anyway, under my assumption of slow-moving sorcerers, let's look at a charging enemy closing on them: 200 to 500 meters - this is Range 5, no? Usually needed at least Intensity 5 to do anything that would quickly take someone down. Thus, 10 SR casting time + Dex SR. Only 50% of a sorceror's spells work, roughly (unlike divine magic.) So at this range, only one spell per 25 Strike Ranks hits a closing enemy. And you still have to overcome their MPs. At infantry charge rate (6m /strike rank), in 25 strike ranks the infantry crosses 150 meters, so the sorcerer gets in about one successful cast before they close to missile range, two before they get to melee range. Cavalry charges are worse - a sorcerer will be lucky to get off one successful spell. Adepts can do better, of course. Anyway, this doesn't seem too bad. Oh, and each of these long range spells burns off ten or twelve MPs. Can't do too many of those. Ship to ship combat is different, the captain and crew handle the movement so the sorcerer can sit at long range for a long time. This doesn't seem too bad to me. We have some rules about magic crossing water that might come into play here. Concerning long distance communication: Yes, it's unbalancing. The other systems have it as well, tthough: A shaman can send long distance magical messages - consider a spirit with 15 POW, its service being to carry a message. Can cover 1080 km in a day under RQ3 rules. Temples have long distance communication as well (divination). How we solved it in my campaign: We ruled rivers and oceans and mountain ranges and storms and fires (the powerful elemental forces) are magical barriers, adding to the Intensity needed to punch a spell through them Thus Orlanthi attack under cover of storms, etc. It's hard to scry over the oceans, especially during the Closing. Trying to Teleport over the ocean (without Open Seas, at least) would bring the same sort of trouble as taking a ship out. >Did you run mostly city based or forest area campaigns? A mixture of terrain types, probably more city and forest than plains, but plenty of other things as well. With long-range sorcery and Sympathetic Targetting, people were really worried about their hair and nails falling into the wrong hands. It sounds as if most of the Range problems were with quick-cast spells. How about using linear range for quick-cast and exponential range for rituals (at one hour per point of cast). This is competitive with the rate at which shamans can send spirits - in the example above a shaman could send a spirit a thousand kilometers in a day. On the old exponential table, a ranged spell (as to send a message, Intensity 1 sound illusion or telepathy) with a range of 1000 km would take 17 hours to cast, not far off from the shaman's rate. And if you add in the 'natural forces are a barrier to magic and require extra Intensity to punch through' you get some pretty interesting effects. - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29220; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:28:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27151; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:24:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:28:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:23:44 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: 03 Feb 1994 14:21:27 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F4F67F077B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver writes: > Medium to long range seemed the worst (200 to 500 meters), as it allowed > sorcerers to stay out of missile and spirit or divine magic spell range, > yet fire off their own spells. Even worse when mounts or Haste spells > were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly > on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori > characters. On smooth terrain, unaided sight can distinguish figures > out to a kilometer - add in vision enhancing spells and it gets worse. The problem is that extended range is definitely something that Sorcery can do. Just look at Zzzzabur's antics, or at the tales of sorcery in our own legends, or at what Milamber did in Ray Feist's books. One of RQ's meta-rules is to value versimillitude over game balance, and I think it should remain that way, so keep the exponential range manipulation. To control the use of Range in these big-sky settings change the societal rules, not the game rules. Range manipulation would be a skill restricted to wizards whom the king can trust. This skill allows wizards to be walking artillery platforms, and should be restricted just like any other military secret. Sorcery needs some kind of context like this, even if we don't have room for the whole shebang. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29597; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:31:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27737; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:10 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:31:08 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F51639503A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. Ray Turney has some convincing arguments for why SOrcery should be in RQ:AiG. I think I'm convinced. If it is included, let's make sure people are happy with it. How many people are playtesting the Sorcery rules? Oh, and count me in the 'preserve some compatibilty' camp, for rules that weren't broken. We should try not to lose the RQ3 GMs mentioned by Ray as part of the market. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29783; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:34:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:31 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:33:16 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F520286FE6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ----- Begin Included Message ----- >Favor reduction of number of combat skills by elimination of weapon >specificty. - Ray Turney Agree. -Paul Reilly, who has fought in SCA for 16 years and has picked up many oddball weapons & been able to use them with 5 minutes practice.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29881; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:35:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28053; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:35:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:35:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:35:00 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:34:53 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F52692774A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Agree with Graeme's analysis. The Mostali _do_ have some network; the Nidan Mountains give orders to dwarf colonies 1000's of km away.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03284; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:45:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28413; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:41:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:41:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:40:48 EST From: wire@world.std.com (A Son of the Silent Age) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:40:31 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F53F566AA7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> unsubscribe wire@world.std.com (sorry...I'm really interested, but there's just too damn much volume...) doug  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02708; Thu, 3 Feb 94 13:58:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29779; Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:30 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Doubling and skills Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 14:58:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F58AE359F7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jacobus writes: >I think I'll pull out me spreadsheet and run some math to see just what the >roll 2d6 take the higher/roll 2d6 take the lower actually comes out to be. Here is a breakdown Probability of rolling a High roll Low Roll 6: 11/36 1/36 5: 9/36 3/36 4: 7/36 5/36 3: 5/36 7/36 2: 3/36 9/36 1: 1/36 11/36 Mean: 161/36=4.47222... 91/36 = 2.52777... Mean for 1d6 = 3.5 -paul reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04434; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:57:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01106; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:12:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:12:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:12:02 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Artwork for advert Date: 03 Feb 1994 15:09:59 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F5C4A20E2E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Rather than another martial scene to attract the Warmallet kids, why not use Griselda and Wolfhead stealing into a troll hideaway, or some such scene? Emphasize something besides butchery to attract women to the game. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03093; Wed, 2 Feb 94 22:48:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11904; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:47:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:47:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:47:40 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Second Thoughts on RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:45:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E65C3513E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George W. Harris writes: > Two: universal application. One thing that the Pendragon >system doesn't do well is deal with skills greater than 100%. >Say, I have a skill of 95%, and Joe Blow has a skill of 250% (in, >say, Maneuver). I'm (sensibly) trying to disengage. I roll an >89, and Joe rolls an 88. Now, in the Pendragon system, I'll win >this contest about 1/4 the time. In "make it by the most," >however, I don't do nearly as well, winning only about 11% of the >time. I think the latter figure best reflects the wide disparity >in the skill levels. Let's see, convert to Pendragon, you have 19 skill, Joe Blow has 50 skill. You roll d20 and try to get 19 or less, Joe rolls d20 and adds 30 to the result. Highest roll wins ===> You Lose! I take it you mean "using highest roll under skill" to mean "Pendragon System". Pendragon itself gives skills above 100% a much greater advantage than RQ does. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04190; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:08:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12717; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:08:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:08:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:08:10 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:06:08 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E6B37E29E5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver J. writes: >Essentially, >a manipulation called maintain allows you to maintain extended spells >(of roughly up to skill/10 in Intensity, twice that amount with a >familiar) A few question from the RQ:AIG (aside: I think it's a fine name!) deprived: a)Do you mean "A number of spells equal to Maintain/10, each with a strength of Intensity/10" or "maintain spells with a total combined Intensity of Maintain/10" b) Are familiars still meant to be Gloranthan canon for Western Wizards? I've always found them inappropriate for the West. >In addition, through the expenditure of 1 point of POW, >you can add another extended spell (through Maintain or Duration). Is maintain permanent? >In >addition to changes to specific sorcery spells (ie many are Easy skills), >it is much harder for spirit or divine magicians to obtain large >cult or spirit magic spells Both of these changes are good news, especially the second. Bladesharp 7 can really unbalance the game. Thanks for the info. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09752; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:07:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05866; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:07:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:07:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:07:01 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:06:54 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F6AF41218E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To Paul Reilly, thanks for the support on sorcery and weapon specificity. That post was a little long given the amount of email on this, so my critic has a good point there.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10151; Thu, 3 Feb 94 15:13:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06304; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:13:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:13:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:12:59 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:12:51 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F6C8AD1D67@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> So long as your for adding sorcery, I do not care what convinces you. Thanks for reading my posting.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07034; Wed, 2 Feb 94 23:44:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB14158; Thu, 3 Feb 94 00:44:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:44:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 0:44:09 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Changes for changes sake ? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:43:55 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E74D1178DA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes: > I am even more vehemently opposed to the changes to armor, damage, > weapon damage, hit locations. I seem to be in the minority, as many people > just see a new pretty mechanic that seem to help (not solve) some problems, > but I see a compatibility disaster, the need to reissue every adventure, or > have glaring (as opposed to minor) inconsistencies. > I seem to be in a minority (most people liked the new damage system > when first mooted here), but I think that it is an incredibly short sighted > approach. The new damage system is better than RQ2/3, but changes like that are > more appropriate to new games, rather than new editions (unless you are a > biggy like TSR and have the market share and staff to reissue everything). I agree wholeheartedly with David on this issue. The things that (IMHO) NEED fixing from RQ3 are: Sorcery Fatigue Character Generation Economics Other improvements should only be made if they have minimal incompatibility with published material. This would mean that if existing players don't like the new way something is done they can continue using the old way without much trouble. Cheers, Tim Leask ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16859; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:14:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11534; Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:14:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:14:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:14:00 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:12:03 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F7CD080D27@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # And for the graphic ... say have Larry Elmore (or someone with a similar # style) do a scene of a Bison Tribe Uroxi fighting a really horrible # looking broo, small and in the foreground. In the background, airbrushed # in all misty, have Storm Bull himself, bleeding on the ground with the # Devil standing over, with this *big* chunck of rock about to descend. # # That should get some attention. # ---- # Boris No,no,no... Larry Elmore would never consent to doing a cover where there were no scantily-clad, perfectly-toned women. -DC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17851; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:30:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12553; Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:29:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:30:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:29:51 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fastdraw; Sorcery; Armour; newcomers Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 14:29:41 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F810A92F5F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I've been posting an awful lot lately; I'll try to cut back. David Cake: >> > bring back the >> >fastdraw skill. I never had, heard or saw any complaints >> >> I guess I never complained publicly. It was definitely a cool idea, but it >> Didn't Work. It was really messy, especially for GMs trying to accurately >> run a group of archers. My players all loved it, I (as GM) hated it. >> >I have no complaints - but my player that uses it is not a bowman. Why not >just remove it for missile weapons? (but allow it for thrown). >Anyone have any problems with it other than with bows? Fastdraw for melee weapons would be OK; you'd have to state that it's rolled at the same time as the attack (NOT at the end of the previous round) and would negate the 3 SR (or if we simplified to Elric's rule, DEX Ranks) penalty for the attack. Joerg: >If you play a character from Seshnela or Loskalm, and you don't use >sorcery, you don't use magic. Is this appropriate for Glorantha? No. But RQ:AiG is not necessarily the only rules you'd need to play in arbitrary parts of Glorantha (AiG is really Adventures in Dragon Pass). You might also need "Wizards of the West." The lack of sorcery in a new product wouldn't affect new players at all. It would affect us RQ3 players, but we could continue to use RQ3 sorcery until WotW came out. (Note that from discussion with Oliver, it's highly likely that sorcery will remain in AiG.) Malcolm Cohen: >However, RQ3 made armour much more effective than in RQ2 and also increased the >average damage bonus. I did not like the results; that lightly armoured >characters are not as viable as they were in RQ2 Ah, I hadn't thought of that, but you remove all lingering doubts about the incompatibility of the new damage & armor rules. David Cheng: >While I agree with the thought that we have to sell to new players to >succeed, ... >RQ:AiG has to appeal to as many of us old-timers as possible, as we're >going to be the ones out there evangelizing it. If _we_ don't have >99% faith in the quality of the product, it won't move. Agreed, but we're probably looking for different things (like a better RQ) than people who don't know the game (who'd just be looking for a cool game in a great setting). We know Glorantha, so we crave more details. A newcomer might well be snowed by them. RQ:AiG may not be a radical change for us RQ players, but it will be for AD&D players! Paul Reilly: If 2d6/worst and 2d6/best give a mean of only +- 1 from 1d6, they're probably not the way to handle Hard and Easy skill increase. Too bad.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:50:39 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14243; Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:50:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:50:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:50:08 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Three-Bean Binders Date: 03 Feb 94 17:36:19 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F867423A15@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler said: > My vote for format would be ... three ring binder format Excuse me while I laugh hysterically. This is a running joke here in the UK (which is to say, for something like half the market for English language RuneQuest). At conventions, you would be laughed off stage for proposing it. > I know we are trying to integrate Glorantha into the rules this time, > but obviously, the world of Glorantha is too voluminous to even begin > to include in a set of core rules. Why try? Because it's there, and it's possible. It's only "obviously" impossible to you, but then your priorities are different from most of the contributors'. Maybe if we cut the rules for 1000%+ skills and Martial Arts duels against Cwim, we can find room for even more Gloranthan background... > Simply have the core rules give the nuts and bolts of Gloranatha (the > cults, the monsters, etc) and leave the cultural/philosophical/ > socialogical aspects to supplements. You think that'll sell new players on the world background? And if not, what's the point? ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02143; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:07:28 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16073; Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:17:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:17:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:17:41 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "Aim" battle magic Date: 03 Feb 94 17:55:34 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1F8DCE6386B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg DM 0.02'd: > A reversed shimmer spell would be nasty, too, and certainly a trickster > spell. "aim" or something, also good for hunting. And needs to overcome > MP for living targets. Might work for one hit location only? I'll certainly add my tuppence to that! What a fine spell for all kinds of users. Should it be Temporal (say +5% per point for any missile to hit for the next 5 minutes), or Transient (+15% per point for the next shot only)? This is neat, like those old Mostali grenade matrix spells -- why cast Speedart on your one-shot missile when you can cast it on the target and keep plugging away? Probably a Hunter cult spell only. Probably not for the basic rulebook. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14259; Thu, 3 Feb 94 01:43:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17486; Thu, 3 Feb 94 02:43:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:43:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 2:43:37 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:42:13 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1E94AF6451D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver J writes: > Medium to long range seemed the worst (200 to 500 meters), as it allowed > sorcerers to stay out of missile and spirit or divine magic spell range, > yet fire off their own spells. Even worse when mounts or Haste spells > were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly > on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori > characters. On smooth terrain, unaided sight can distinguish figures > out to a kilometer - add in vision enhancing spells and it gets worse. I admit I did see such behaviour in Griffin Island, but I doubt it's going to be as much of a problem with Range/10 manipulation limit, and spell/5 limit. The sorcerers won't have 15-18 points of manipulation to play round with. The spell it was worst with was Smother, which has been changed. > > A few playtesters playing pirate, East Isles or a trade expedition campaign > (I think) also complained about ship to ship range when one side had > sorcery and the other did not. > Well that's the advantage of having Sorcery, isn't it? A shaman using spirits can attack at long range too, though it's easier to defend against the spirits. > A more pressing concern is the use of spells such as Teleport and > Homing Circle (or Sight Illusion) to transmit information (or passengers) Actually Telepathy is the obvious spell for messages. Good for party communications as well. > over large distances instantaneously. I don't see the Imperial Mail > as being quite that fast. These don't need much targeting, even at > extreme ranges. It already exists: in WoG it says that Temples have a means of long range communication, which I suspect means Divination. Shamans can communicate by friendly spirits, or at worst discorporate and carry the message themselves. Anyway, the Range/10 limit means that 100% Range skill would get you a maximum Range of 10 * 2^10 metres = 10.24 km. Enough to move around a city or a nearby domain, but not to set up a continent spanning mail network. (The people with 200% skill who could set it up are too busy running Brithos or having doctrinal disputes in the West; I think the Mostali _should_ have such networks) Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03134; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:43:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:43:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:43:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:42:49 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG nitpicked some more Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 17:42:39 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FB48293903@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The term "Mechanics" bothers me; it's awfully game-speak-y. Maybe you could call it "Procedures?" (E.g. "Procedure for Power Gain" rather than "Mechanic of Power Gain.") 115 The Aldryami Arrows mention ignoring hit modifiers from vegetation. That's easy to do, since no such modifiers exist. 115 I like the fact that enchanters can limit their enchantments for free -- at least to themselves. This helps with the tattoo problem ("he's got a matrix, skin him!"). Would it be too generous to make the free limit on the _recipient_ of the enchantment? Given that every spirit magic spell has the God Learner name as a common name, redefine the italic entry to be "other common names" and delete the standard one from the italics. In several cases, this will give you a line back. 119 More terminology problems: Control talks about spirit magicians using Control spells to force spirits into binding enchantments. But spirit magicians make Spirit Traps. It's priests and sorcerers who have the Binding Enchantment spell. 119 The sentences about Bladesharp and Bludgeon increasing critical chance are true but misleading. Depending on the character's skill, and where it rounds, a single point of the spell might increase the critical chance. Simply say "+5 percentiles (affecting the chance to special or critical)" which is shorter. 119 You've made it sound like Coordination can't change Melee SR. 120 Detect Antelope is the laughing stock of my campaign. I don't see how your Detect Bison is any better -- it's still a Ranged spell. Or did you mean that Detect and Detect work at any range (different from other Detect spells)? 121 The description of Fanaticism leaves a hole; if someone is in melee combat but is defending not against his melee opponent but against missile fire, then what? (Or, someone is moving, without any foes; is his Dodge affected?) 121 Does a Heal 9 heal 2 points of general hit points, or 1? (You should probably drop "(or greater)" which leads to this confusion.) 122 As GM, I HATE Lightwall. My players have it, and they also have arrows. This means that opponents have to charge in blindly, receiving arrow hits, or run away out of arrow range, still receiving arrow hits (the new MV rates may help slightly). Maybe nobody else has problems with it, but I don't like it. It makes 100 m^2 of light, which usually ends up as something 3 metres high and 33 in circumference. 122 Instead of "language sent," shouldn't Mindspeech be "language whispered"? 122 So even if someone is using Second Sight, a troll could cover itself with a blanket and not be seen, and attack the magician? Do you normally see someone's aura only through the eyeslits of their helmet? 123 So Slow 5 will pin most humans, with no chance of moving? Surely you can come up with a way to integrate running (trading actions) and the new Fatigue system (even tho said system is technically optional). 173 So Resist Damage prevents critical hits from landing (unlike all other physically protective spells)? If so, you should say so explicitly, otherwise "any physical and magical armor" could be presumed to include R.D. 177 Regain Life: In RQ, if you can sever it, it's probably a limb, not an organ. (Ignoring Malign Earth goddesses...) 195 Can a horse kick a fallen target? (Did you mean "can only trample" or "can trample only" is the queston.) 199 There is no hit location table for centaurs. (There are no centaurs in the game, but since you've changed all the other tables, you probably have to provide the new centaur table, too. Centaurs are much more common than ducks as PCs in Seattle, for what it's worth...) 205 The Kralori calendar can be deleted from this work. I'll be playing tonight (as opposed to GMing), so should have more questions/comments. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20930; Thu, 3 Feb 94 04:14:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20342; Thu, 3 Feb 94 05:14:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:14:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 5:14:36 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:13:36 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1EBCF3A2524@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This is Graeme replying to Joerg replying to me replying to David Cake replying to Oliver... > > Well if they aren't made significantly more effective, either by having > > better spells or less skills (say the skill Tap to tap any stat, or Enhance > > to replace the various Enhance (Characteristic) spells), then I doubt that > > there would be any Sorcery in Glorantha. > > If coupled with some knowledge of the target condition (in your example > characteristic) only. (Although the fairly common Tap INT would be > coupled to the extremely uncomon Increase INT). This works better for > the , or variations of certain spells. I was thinking of something more like this: Form/Set would be a single spell, with modifier to the skill dependent on the material ie Water +20% Soft Wood 0 Hard Wood -10% Bronze -20% Granite -40% Iron -80% etc This would modify the manipulation limit as well as chance of success One other reason I like this is to simplify characters: it's easier to record and keep track of Form/Set 86% than Form/Set Wood 92, Form/Set Bronze 70, Form/Set Water 30, Form/Set Iron 12 etc. Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) proposed a few months back, with spells like Form/Set matched with knowledge skill like Iron Lore, > > Limited agreement from my side. I repeat myself, but for Mostali the > stabilize spells are perfectly valid, e.g. because they get an > automatic annual POW increase for behaving as part of the machine (by > casting their stabilize spell). This could work for human sorcerers as > well. What Oliver posted earlier actually sounds quite good: Sorcery spells are now much more the equal of spirit magic point for point, and high point spirit magic spells are harder to get. Combined with making most sorcery spells easy, this gives much more of a reason to learn sorcery, and a reason for it to exist in Glorantha. The need to keep long duration that I saw has diminished, though not quite gone - it was one of the things that really distinguished sorcery from the other types of magic. > > If the POW expenditure is kept, the sorcerer certainly ought to become I still really don't like the Pow expenditure much. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04351; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:24:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27590; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:46 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:21 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FCAA1B1726@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes in part: G> The lack of a social aspect for sorcery is a defect IMHO, when they >are meant to be the priests in Western culture. Um, that's backwards. Sorcery isn't designed to be a priest's magic. It just so happens that some sorcery-users are priests, but most sorcerers in Glorantha are not.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09974; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:06:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27599; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:58 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: duplicates Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:28 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FCAAF614B7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren, I'm drowning in mail! I had 100 RQ-PLAYTEST messages in my mailbox this evening, about half duplicates or triplicates, some from yesterday. Is there anything to be done about this? Belief in the precognitive powers of an Asian pastry is really no wackier than belief in ESP, subluxation, or astrology, but you just don't hear anyone preaching Scientific Cookie-ism. --Penn and Teller Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10126; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:06:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27617; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:05:59 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Range Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:45 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FCAB076A2B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: M>The problem is that extended range is definitely something that >Sorcery can do. Just look at Zzzzabur's antics, or at the tales of >sorcery in our own legends, or at what Milamber did in Ray Feist's >books. One of RQ's meta-rules is to value versimillitude over game >balance, and I think it should remain that way, so keep the >exponential range manipulation. To control the use of Range in these >big-sky settings change the societal rules, not the game rules. Range >manipulation would be a skill restricted to wizards whom the king can >trust. This skill allows wizards to be walking artillery platforms, >and should be restricted just like any other military secret. M>Sorcery needs some kind of context like this, even if we don't have >room for the whole shebang. "...sorcery in our own legends" does essentially anything, Loren. You could justify any power or ability that way, by picking the legendary or fictional sorcerer carefully. Should RQ sorcerers move backward through time like White's Merlin? The long range of Zzabur's Closing is more a Heroquest type thing -- that is, it's possible, but not covered by the RQ rules any more than they cover controlling the Faceless Statue. Belief in the precognitive powers of an Asian pastry is really no wackier than belief in ESP, subluxation, or astrology, but you just don't hear anyone preaching Scientific Cookie-ism. --Penn and Teller Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05371; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:36:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27627; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:06:00 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Thoughts on Combat in RQ:AiG from George Harris Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:05:47 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FCAB1A78F3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake writes in part; D>> >Carl Fink says the reason for switching to >> >a unified hit location table is to save time and space. How much >> >space does it take? Five columns in a single table. What's the >> >time difference between diversified and unified hit locations in >> >a melee? Probably less than a quarter the difference between >> >unified hit locations and no hit locations at all. >> >Can I just make the plea for compatibility again? Um, compatability with what? I just don't understand this comment, sorry.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19582; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:20:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28432; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:20:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:20:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:20:21 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 19:20:18 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FCE85C4EFE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My feeling is that RQ IV should be long enough to include all of the good stuff, but it should include only the good stuff. For example, RQ IV AiG cuts Ducks, and a lot of people like to play Ducks. On the other hand it keeps more than a page of rules on grappling, which I have very seldom seen used. I'm for restoring Ducks but cutting grappling; on the theory that grappling seldom comes up, is not needed to understand the rest of the rules etc, and basically no one loves it. Ducks on the other hand ... {sigh}, I'm an anti-duck man myself. Why is Craft the art of commanding a ship with a crew of more than two included in the rules? As best I can make out it is the only reference to ships, and is not critical to survival in our focus area of Dragon Pass/Prax. Bat Mastery on the other hand ... a skill your character seldom needs but when he needs it nothing else will quite do. Jokes aside, I think the question of what to cut has to dealt with at a much lower level than, We Should Cut Sorcery vs. We Shouldn't Cut Sorcery. Each of these areas is a lot of little decisions and there is not much time before projected release.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26750; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02305; Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:33:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:34:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:33:45 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:31:31 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FE21923E95@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@compuserve.com> >> Subject: Do RQ2 players want Sorcery? >> Date: 03 Feb 94 02:48:16 EST >> >> The feeling I got over here was that more people were disappointed by the >> introduction of Sorcery than by the generally crappy rules associated with >> it. RQ had always had a distinctive flavour, and now here was this generic >> ... >> required large amounts of work to update existing games, and you had a >> terrible mixture for disillusion. >> >> Maybe things were different in the States. No. That pretty much sums it up for me. We were able to modify sorcery for playing in Tekumel, as we had a context for it. They would have been useless for playing in Glorantha, before the Genertela box. Begin pro Dragon Pass / Anti-Sorcery quasi-polemic: To be honest, I found most of the rest of the lands described in the Genertela box fairly uninteresting. The West seemed too close to a hodge- podge of feudal Europe, complete with the monolithic church/philosophy. I'd rather play Pendragon, at least until someone convinces me otherwise. As for the East, hmm, sounds like India and China and Japan to me. Been to Japan in games, though not China or India. Still, it just didn't work any real interest up in me. Mix of not enough detail, and seeming too derivative. Not that some parts of Dragon Pass and the Empire aren't derivative. Sure quite a bit of the Graeco-Roman world was copped for the Lunars. And the Celts for the Orlanthi. Nevertheless, RQ in Dragon Pass seems less like all of the other plate-armor for everyone but the monk RPGs out there, partly because Greg copped things others hadn't. As for the West, and it's sorcerors. I would need some real strong arguments, such as a Malkion Pack, before I showed any real interest. That essentially means I'll probably have little use for the Sorcery rules, and would not mind cutting them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00944; Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:48:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05721; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:47:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 0:48:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 0:47:56 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:45:40 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FF5E1C533A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com >> Subject: Re: Ad copy >> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:59:21 PST >> >> How about a party of experienced and varied troop of adventurers, from >> alligned Cults, in a very uneasy negotiation with a pack of Trolls, >> complete with attendent Trollkin. This might put forward an important >> part of RuneQuest, that monsters are people too and essentially evil >> in their nature as they are in some other backgrounds. This sounds like a neat idea. Maybe a scene with an Argan Argar waving his Kaarg's Sons buddies off, while looking dubiously at the humans. Another thing on art: This has to look *great*. Hopefully AH will spring for the cash for the guy who did all of the RQ-Renaissance covers until Dorastor ( Raupp, right? ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05418; Fri, 4 Feb 94 00:39:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07519; Fri, 4 Feb 94 01:39:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 1:39:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 1:39:41 EST From: Anthony Ragan To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Artwork for advert Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 22:39 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2003AFA4AC4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Rather than another martial scene to attract the Warmallet > kids, why not use Griselda and Wolfhead stealing into a > troll hideaway, or some such scene? Emphasize something > besides butchery to attract women to the game. > Assuming the "Warmallet" crack refers to Warhammer, can we avoid the cheap shots at other games, please? Both RQ and WFRP are among my favorite systems, and there's nothing to be gained by taking gratuitous shots at other systems. (Prickly mode off) Well, I doubt I'm on the list to receive a copy of RQ:AiG, but I think the art should be no problem. There's no shortage of execellent artists out there, and Glorantha prvides plenty of great scenes for an artist. How about a scene amongst the ruins of Pavis? SOmething like the cover of Shadows on the Border would be great, too. --Anthony ecz5rar@mvs.oac.ucla.edu -OR- IrishSpy@aol.com Rune Chia Pet of Ernalda Snotling in Chief Caravan Bug Caravanmaster  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07985; Fri, 4 Feb 94 01:44:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09231; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:44:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 2:44:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 2:43:50 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Too Many Postings Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 02:49:08 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2014C932549@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Can we try to limit postings to one per person? It took me over an hour and a half to read my postings yesterday, and may of these involved a few persons sending something like 5 or 6 postings. This is mine for today. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09486; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:09:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10059; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:09:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:09:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:09:02 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Warmallet/Warhammer Market in the UK Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:07:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <201B83E58ED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Quick cultural reference: Warhammer in the UK is the War Game rather than the roleplaying game. The role playing game exist but most 13-16 years old would not consider it. Warhammer is massively hyped with the purpose of selling figures, which bear a large profit margin. The Games Workshop shops actually have space for battles to be played out to encourage purchases. The former roleplaying magazine, White Dwarf, is nothing more than a glorified figures catalog, constantly pluging new rules and encouraging obsolesence in everything eg. you have have to be up to date and that cost dearly. That magazine used to be the UK's premier RPG organ. How can role playing games penetrate that market? White Dwarf features a lot of fiction which stimulates interest among the readership and inspires them but the rub is that the only means of expressing this is by buying figures and painting them in the right manner. This fiction could be applied to RuneQuest as the background is even richer than the Warhammer 40K background. Even better the focus would be on avoid conflict as much as being involved in it. The same audience would respond well if they could learn to express their empathy with that fiction in a roleplaying game. I would suggest that you present the core materials to attract a broader balanced market and then target the Warhammer war games players with advertising. Imagine telling an adolesent male that he could play a game and achieve victory as a group without the risk of another member of his peer group having the satisfaction of beating him. Imagine the discovery of find that good detail is thicker than a coat of paint exclusively available from Games Workshop... Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09949; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:32:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10696; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:32:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:32:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:31:58 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ray Turney's market analysis Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:31:20 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2021A1179A9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Group b) Potential GM's who played RQ II but would not >> adopt RQ III are important because THEY ARE THE LARGEST >> GROUP OF COMPETENT GMs AVAILABLE to increase the pool >> of good potential RQ GMs. >How available are these? How do we contact them? >Most of these people will be out of the community where news >about new games spread automatically, that's school and university. >Most will now have families, time-consuming jobs, and no contact to >gaming society. I settled close to my former Polytechnic after my degree. I still have the extensive network of friends and fellow role players that I developed during my degree. I also have a telephone. >From the Hatfield Polytechnic I will draft some role players and as a public speaker I will offer to give a talk about the Fiction in RuneQuest to both the Gaming Society and Science Fiction society. I have receieved a copy of RQ:AiG and I am about to start play testing in about a week after I have digested the draft and organised the various groups I will be playing with. The chances are that you know someone who knows someone who will wake from his gaming slumber to play RuneQuest again. As a vetran of 16 years in the hobby with a step-son who plays Warhammer war games I can at least vouch for the inter-linking of UK gaming community. Like the ten mile long dragons resting among and below the hills of Glorantha the older gaming community will arise. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11008; Fri, 4 Feb 94 02:49:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11231; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:48:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:49:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 3:48:28 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ3 compatibility Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 03:53:42 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20260782FBF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Brad Furst Special thanks and appreciation to Paul Reilly for identifying himself at the *top* of each letter. I much prefer to know whom I am reading from the beginning. Others, if you please, follow Paul's lead and i.d. yourself at the top. George W. Harris declares "I am growing steadily more dubious about the wisdom and necessity of completely changing the damage and armor values of nearly everything in the game. One of the results of this, and I fear the most significant one, is that RQ:AiG will be unusable without a great deal of work with almost every RQ scenario and "mechanical" resource that has ever been published, including the half dozen or so excellent sourcebooks of the RQ Renaissance. I'm not saying that this would kill off the renaissance, but it certainly won't do it any good." Bless you, George. I have tried to persuade Oliver this by telephone, by e-mail, and in person at RQ-Con. Please continue pushing at this one. from BradFurst@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11345; Fri, 4 Feb 94 03:01:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11627; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:01:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 4:01:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 4:01:00 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Too Many Postings Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 01:00:26 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20295FE579B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Can we try to limit postings to one per person? It took me over an hour and a >half to read my postings yesterday, and may of these involved a few persons >sending something like 5 or 6 postings. >This is mine for today. At the risk of a third posting I feel this warrants a reply. One post a day per person is a good maxim but in some cases more than one mail note can be necessary. The key, in my humble opinion, is to concentrate on quality over quantity. There are short notes that indicate support for ideas and notes from people who actually have a copy of RQ:AiG that provide information and clarification. There are also matters of general clarification. These are the types of mail notes that might prehaps be appropriate to post in addition to your suggested ration of one note, per person, per day. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13716; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:26:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12932; Fri, 4 Feb 94 05:26:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:26:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:26:34 EST From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: evangelizing Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:27 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <204031856AF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> hi, regarding your message on the RQ playtest lists: >Sender: jacobus@edu.purdue.cc.sonata >Okay, the full poop on SJG's evangelicals vis GURPS and other products >(taken straight from the SJG Gopher server--didn't know they had one, did >you?): could you let me know the gopher/internet etc address of this server? I didn't want to post this to the playtest list, as it isn't relevant to RQ discussions. thanks, Mark Buckley  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13996; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:43:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13226; Fri, 4 Feb 94 05:43:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:43:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:43:14 EST From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: evangelizing Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:43 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2044A3060B1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> oops! Stupidity! sorry, its only 10:30 am here, and I haven't woken up yet! Mark  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13610; Fri, 4 Feb 94 04:21:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12858; Fri, 4 Feb 94 05:21:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:21:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 5:21:07 EST From: Groove Requiem.. To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: This'n'that Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:19:38 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <203EBCD128F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> After being flooded with messages for the last couple of weeks, I thought I'd better add my comments on various topics... I havent seen the new draft so some of the following may be unfounded. The following are Opinions only. Rulebook size. I dont see a problem with a 300'ish page rulebook. As others have pointed out, most of the current successful games are at least that size. One point though, Oliver, does that page count include artwork ?? What to cut (if anything). DONT cut sorcery. If it was in RQ3 it should be here too. Plus we may never see a Wizards of the West supplement - having the sorcery rules in the core rulebook at least means I can attempt my own Western campaign. Also DONT cut the shamanism rules, a workable set of shamanism are a must IMO. Someone mentioned chopping the grappling rules, and some optional combat rules. That would not worry me. Artwork. Get the best you can afford. Check out the color plates in the EarthDawn rulebook for a great example of how to envoke the world atmosphere (thats what made me buy it - it looked cool). Good artwork will sell more copies than any amount of good rules. Ad Copy. How is this Ad copy to be presented to the Punters ?? If its for a magazine advert, its MUCH too long. It should have good artwork and short snappy text (20 lines at most!). Check out Dragon, White Wolf or RPI for examples. If its for a flyer to be distributed at shops and Cons, then its better. I agree with most of the comments on making it slightly shorter and snappier. I also agree that you should get rid of references to: other games, Renaissance, reformation etc Someone (Ken Rolston?) made the excellent point that you should include as many unique Gloranthan Words/phrases as possible. Make it sound different. njd Reading, England  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21381; Fri, 4 Feb 94 07:56:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14276; Fri, 4 Feb 94 06:59:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 6:59:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 6:59:12 EST From: The Indispensible Mike Brannigan To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This'n'that, rulebook size Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 11:58:56 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2058E7522F1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Brannigan here, an anonymous gamer from the days of RQ2 and some RQ3. "Groove Requiem.." (njd) writes : (and other people have commented also) > Rulebook size. > I dont see a problem with a 300'ish page rulebook. As others have pointed out, > most of the current successful games are at least that size. I ain't got no problem with a big rulebook. Most people won't. Makes 'em feel they're getting value for money. Problems of understanding many complex rules are solved with all this malarky of sections and chapters. Digestible chunks and all that. I'm sure most people can handle reading the sections they need first and others later, if necessary. > What to cut (if anything). > DONT cut sorcery. If it was in RQ3 it should be here too. Plus we may never > see a Wizards of the West supplement - having the sorcery rules in the core > rulebook at least means I can attempt my own Western campaign. Also DONT cut > the shamanism rules, a workable set of shamanism are a must IMO. Yeah. Seconded. I guess this is intended anyway. > Someone mentioned chopping the grappling rules, and some optional combat rules. > That would not worry me. No ! Although complexity of combat can be a little off-putting at first, there's nothing more annoying than after a couple of sessions finding you want to do something more exciting or different than the standard attack/parry with weapon (whether this is voluntary or not). Besides, grapple rules are different enough that anyone wanting to use them doesn't want them to be a quickly thought out incomplete set of cut down rules just because "not everyone will use them and they take up a pages or two". I've got no problem with ignoring a complex section on, say, grappling, until I need it. But when I do decide to look at it I don't want it to be shoddy and half-hearted for fear of making it complex. We might aswell just use the D&D to hit against armour class thingy if we want to simplify things. (incidentally, different thread, but ... different hit locations for stabbing/missile and melee - keep 'em, like in RQ3; this was one of the things I hated about RQ2. As a heavy missile user (in a former life), I got really annoyed at hitting peoples arms and legs and not the chest and abdomen - totally unrealistic and annoying with it). > Artwork. We all like pretty pictures. I think they'll realise this one. 'nuff said.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26277; Fri, 4 Feb 94 09:12:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26338; Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:12:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:12:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:12:05 EST From: guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: PAIN Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 07:09:43 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <208C5832575@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think that there should be some sort of rule to represent the momentary pain of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. In Hero, weapons like swords do two types of damage: killing damage, which represents actual physical damage, and stun, which represents the level of pain involved. If the amount of Stun received exceeds a character's CON, he's out of combat momentarily until he can recover from the pain. --Guy Hoyle aka Mulborth  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23032; Fri, 4 Feb 94 08:32:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23601; Fri, 4 Feb 94 09:32:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 9:32:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 9:32:21 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Number of messages Date: 04 Feb 1994 09:31:58 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2081BEE4871@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hello all, I'm sorry about the duplicate messages. Frankly, I have no idea what is causing them. It seems to be happening somewhere between the upenn mail relay and the host machines, since that's where the headers diverge from each other. Anyway, we were okay on this list until volume recently went crazy. If everyone could please try to restrict themselves to one or two messages a day that would probably help us all understand what's going on a little better. Instead of sending off single line comments, it would help if you assembled your thoughts and presented them all at once. I know it's harder to keep track of lines of discussion this way, but I think it's necessary if we are to continue without all getting overloaded. Thanks for your attention. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26429; Fri, 4 Feb 94 09:14:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26507; Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:14:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:14:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:14:15 EST From: Viljo Viitanen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: This mailing list Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 17:13:57 +0200 (EET) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <208CEBC5E14@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A good idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. How about that ? (Is it technically possible ?) And due to the large amount of messages sent here, the digest could be sent out more often than one a day. -- Viljo. Viljo Viitanen, physics student at the /// University of Helsinki, Finland E-Mail: viljo.viitanen@helsinki.fi__ /// IRC:#amiga _3V_ Fido:2:220/550.7 depechemodestartrekcalvin&hobbes12\\\///00jarrerunequestfarsidesimpsonsnet hacktolkiencyberpunkconanelricturbo\XX/rakettimortalkombatv32binteloutside  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01297; Fri, 4 Feb 94 10:08:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00278; Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:07:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:08:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:07:26 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: PAIN and special successes Date: 04 Feb 1994 11:06:58 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <209B1A80E05@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren speaking. This is my post for the day. Guy Hoyle writes: > of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. In Hero, weapons > like swords do two types of damage: killing damage, which represents actual > physical damage, and stun, which represents the level of pain involved. If the I've always had an objection to the way that special successes worked for weapons like swords and so on. From everything I've heard a competent stroke with a katana or other slashing sword (as opposed to a chopping sword like a gladius or falchion) opens up a shallow and very painful cut in the target (but not necessarily a fatal one). A sword should not have the same special effect that a club has. I think the reason why swords and clubs both have the same special effect in RQ is---the people who wrote this part of the combat rules (Perrin, Turney?) were in the SCA, and in the SCA swords aren't sharp so they behave like clubs. A slash should do normal damage plus pit the damage that gets through armor against the target's HP/2 or CON/2 and on a success make the target lose the next two actions, or something like that. I forget exactly what the current special rules are, but I'd quite like to expand them to reflect the amazing variety of weapons that are available. RQ could have more classes of weapons than just crushing, slashing, and impaling. Crushing: Weapon damage + DBx2 + knockback Chopping: Weapon damage + DB + knockback + limb severing if brought fully negative + weapon stuck if nothing severed Slashing: Weapon damage + DB + pit damage after armor against HP/2 and if defender loses then loses his next 2 actions from pain Impaling: Weapon damage x 2 + DB + weapon stuck Entangling: Weapon damage + DB + aimed location grappled by weapon Tripping: Weapon damage + DB + knockback + extra DEXx5 roll to keep feet. Roll 1d10 for location, rather than 1d20 on special. I realize that these notations may be a little cryptic, but I think y'all can figure them out. The other thing I'd like to see would be a rework of the way that special combat successes work, so that instead of declaring an all-out attempt to get some special result (such as feinting) you would perform your normal attack and if the opportunity presented itself (abstracted by special success) then you would also get the special result. This is already the way that the weapons specials work, but there are a bunch of special combat tactics that could be modified to use exactly the same mechanics. Here's an example of what could happen if we emphasized more tactics in the combat rules, instead of just following the philosophy of "attack and roll hit location." Humgar roared and swung at the soldier's spear, chopping off the point. He laughed in triumph and the soldier, visibly shaken, stepped back. Humgar went in for the attack, the soldier parried, and then as Humgar danced and spun to get behind the soldier he tripped over the shaft of the broken spear, which the soldier had treacherously jammed between the warrior's feet. Humgar sprawled on the dirt and jerked and cried out in pain as the soldier kicked him again and again. Then the lights went out. Say I'm the soldier, above, facing Humgar the barbarian. I don't have a point on my spear anymore, but my sergeant trained me in how to use the haft too, so while Humgar is dancing around me I declare "haft attack, trying to trip him." A simple success on the dice means that I get a normal shot in, with a random hit location. A special success on the dice means that I get the normal shot in, but I also get the special result I was looking for---in this case I trip Humgar. Before he can get up I'm kicking him furiously, and then I whack him on the back of the skull as hard as I can with what's left of my spear. If we made this change then it would emphasize tactical choices in combat, and increase the roleplaying of combat at the same time. I think this would be a good thing. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28631; Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:31:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20433; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:31:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:31:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:31:05 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:28:54 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FA1607387E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to David Cake replying to Graeme... > > > > Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > > > > > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) > Or, ahem, modesty forbids me, the sorcery draft I posted here a while ago, > and now on soda.berkeley.edu (thanks to Henk and Shannon). I saw yours, but I really was thinking of Burton's. In retrospect, I think I prefer the single skill system with modifiers: I'd like to see a reduction in the number of skills a sorcerer needs. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00742; Thu, 3 Feb 94 18:56:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21670; Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:55:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:55:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 19:54:49 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Ad copy Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:53:10 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FA7B5C0610@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng writes: > No,no,no... Larry Elmore would never consent to doing a cover where > there were no scantily-clad, perfectly-toned women. Sounds good to me! :-) Seriously, who did the covers for River of Cradles and Shadows on the Borderlands? They certainly seemed non-violent, and the woman was hardly the chainmail bikini type. They may have been a bit too prosaic for the cover of a new game, though I'm sure the artist could do a more fantastic cover. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10556; Fri, 4 Feb 94 11:37:15 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06887; Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:35:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:35:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:34:54 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 09:31 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20B26C31F79@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Hoyle Says: >I think that there should be some sort of rule to represent the momentary pain >of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. In Hero, weapons >like swords do two types of damage: killing damage, which represents actual >physical damage, and stun, which represents the level of pain involved. If the >amount of Stun received exceeds a character's CON, he's out of combat >momentarily until he can recover from the pain. No. This is not really what pain does. Long ago I tried to work out rules (for the same reason as Guy probably). Thinking to go to the source, I asked a doctor (Ok, she was my mom, but she was available). Pain during comnbat is blocked out by adrenaline, and only after combat ends does it really make itself felt. Lingering pain can debilitate you long after the combat is done (personal experience of broken hands, bruised nerves, etc), but during combat? nope. Also see those police reports about *normal* (not hopped up on drugs) people shrugging off baton hits, bullet wounds, etc. Actually, I think we had this thread during the RQ4.2 months (or was it on another list...) My $.02 (pretax) worth Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05736; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:23:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25793; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:23:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:23:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:23:42 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "Aim" battle magic Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:21:50 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FBF6A10C78@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Joerg DM 0.02'd: > > A reversed shimmer spell would be nasty, too, and certainly a trickster > > spell. "aim" or something, also good for hunting. And needs to overcome > > MP for living targets. Might work for one hit location only? > > I'll certainly add my tuppence to that! What a fine spell for all kinds of > users. Should it be Temporal (say +5% per point for any missile to hit for > the next 5 minutes), or Transient (+15% per point for the next shot only)? @ I'd go for the Temporal spell, myself: it'd make a very nasty attack spell, and I don't see any Temporal spells that improve missile attacks (Of course, I haven't seen RQ:AIG). > > Probably a Hunter cult spell only. Probably not for the basic rulebook. > There's an PC Odalya initiate in my "DoomQuest" Dorastor campaign, I'll see if she takes the spell and what effects it has. > ==== > Nick > ==== > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06048; Thu, 3 Feb 94 20:29:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25960; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:29:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:29:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:29:10 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: game size Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:27:30 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FC0DEB53F4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris writes > But RQ2, despite it's many die hard adherants, did not feature a complete > game world. It wasn't until the Cults books were released that anything > other than tantalizing glimpses of Glorantha were given. We want to do > more with this, to allow players to start playing with *no* supplements. > Once they're hooked, they will buy all the Gloranthan material they can > find. But let's hook them first. Absolutely. I got the RQ2 book before I'd heard anything else about RQ, and I just found the Gloranthan stuff confusing (of course, this was back in my AD&D days, but so are the players we want to attract) There just wasn't enough meat in it for me, just apparently unconnected cults, timelines and maps. The stuff on Runes was the clearest. > ---- > Boris > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19742; Fri, 4 Feb 94 12:57:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13175; Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:57:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:57:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:56:38 EST From: Robert Smith To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 12:56:26 -0600 (CST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20C83A4281E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Rob Smith replies to what Loren J. Miller wrote: >> The other thing I'd like to see would be a rework of the way that >> special combat successes work, so that instead of declaring an all-out >> attempt to get some special result (such as feinting) you would >> perform your normal attack and if the opportunity presented itself >> (abstracted by special success) then you would also get the special >> result. This is already the way that the weapons specials work, but >> there are a bunch of special combat tactics that could be modified to >> use exactly the same mechanics. >> >> Here's an example of what could happen if we emphasized more tactics >> in the combat rules, instead of just following the philosophy of >> "attack and roll hit location." >> >> (story deleted) >> Say I'm the soldier, above, facing Humgar the barbarian. I don't have >> a point on my spear anymore, but my sergeant trained me in how to use >> the haft too, so while Humgar is dancing around me I declare "haft >> attack, trying to trip him." A simple success on the dice means that I >> get a normal shot in, with a random hit location. A special success on >> the dice means that I get the normal shot in, but I also get the >> special result I was looking for---in this case I trip Humgar. Before >> he can get up I'm kicking him furiously, and then I whack him on the >> back of the skull as hard as I can with what's left of my spear. >> >> If we made this change then it would emphasize tactical choices in >> combat, and increase the roleplaying of combat at the same time. I >> think this would be a good thing. >> I really like this idea.I'm not sure we need all the special attacks, if some guidelines can be provided for the referee to deal with special attacks in a less formal manner. Some special result like tripping, blinding temporarily, selected location, snared weapon, etc. These would be announced before the attack and replace the standard special damage bonus (do I understand correct- ly?). A whole additional element of role play could be added to combat that is now missing, and at the cost of few additional rules. It would be a burden on the referee to determine whether such things are feasable (can I snatch the crystal off his neck with my free hand if I make a special attack?), but as a referee I would be willing to do. What are the opinions of other refs? Rob Smith  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21236; Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:18:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14830; Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:17:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:17:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:17:29 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Art; size; pain; specials Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 11:17:16 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20CDC9917CE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren, Guy: I like the idea of having non-combat art, featuring a woman. The possibilities are endless: Kallyr Starbrow addressing a Lightbringer's Council, a female shaman summoning the clan's ancestors, a Lunar guard inspecting a Sartarite's paper, etc. Boris: > If you look at the game market now, those games which are successful > contain a game world that is well, if not fully, described in the basic > rule set; Shadowrun, Vampire/Werewolf/Mage, Cyberpunk. And all of these > weigh in at or around the 300 page range, or more. This does not seem > to cost them sales, and I don't think mere size will cost RQAG sales. Shadowrun is 208 pages. CyberPunk 2020 is 240. Pendragon 4th edition, which I haven't seen at any store (I had to special order), is 352. Seems to me that the shorter the game, the more successful. I find reading 352 pages too much like work. (Pendragon might be a counterargument -- that splitting the game didn't work and they had to rejoin Pendragon 3rd Edition and Knights Adventerous -- but it may also simply point out that you have to split the right stuff.) Guy: >I think that there should be some sort of rule to represent the momentary pain >of being injured, similar to STUN damage in the Hero system. I think this would introduce way too much complexity. With RQ:AiG, I can manage to make a single combat drag on all night without even using any optional rules (except a Fatigue roll). I remember GURPS had something like this, but I never had to GM it. I would hate to have to keep track of which NPCs were temporarily inconvenienced by pain. Loren: I really like RQ:AiG, where all specials do the same thing. I can remember that. And (as GM) I don't have to keep track of bleeding or impaled weapons. And nobody has to slow down, find the resistance table, and make extra rolls. As for tactics, sounds good in principle.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23207; Thu, 3 Feb 94 21:34:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29002; Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 3 Feb 94 22:34:12 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:32:32 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <1FD23835AF0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl Fink writes: > Graeme Lindsell writes in part: > > > G> The lack of a social aspect for sorcery is a defect IMHO, when they > >are meant to be the priests in Western culture. > > Um, that's backwards. Backwards? Malkionists were invented long before sorcery - wasn't Greg's first Gloranthan work about Prince Snodal? > Sorcery isn't designed to be a priest's magic. Which, as I said, is a problem. If there is no social aspect to Western magic, then I don't see how Rokari society can continue to exist: the most powerful members of their society are not in control. > It just so happens that some sorcery-users are priests, but most > sorcerers in Glorantha are not. "Some" = "almost all of them in Western Genertela, most of them around Dragon Pass, and an unspecified number in the East"? The "most" you speak of seems to mean the Brithini, Mostali and Lunar Colleges of Magic (which I suspect should have some link to the Red Goddess, since they are influenced by the Red Moon). We know so little about Kralorelan religion that we can't say whether their sorcerers are religious or not. The Pameltelan sorcerers seem to be Malkionist in Origin Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23347; Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:44:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17117; Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:44:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:44:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:44:10 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This mailing list Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 14:43:56 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20D4E754786@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > A good idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. > > How about that ? (Is it technically possible ?) For the love of Rashoran, no! I'm on two other mailing lists of relatively high volume (rq-digest and gg-l, the Magic: The Gathering list), and I can tell you with no hesitation that digests are user-hostile and clutter up one's mailbox ten times as effectively as individual-item lists. (At least for me.) I strongly recommend that rq-playtest go to digest form _only_ if the non-digest form remains available. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker Barney delenda est.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25563; Fri, 4 Feb 94 14:05:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18917; Fri, 4 Feb 94 15:05:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 15:05:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 15:05:05 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This mailing list Date: 04 Feb 1994 15:04:23 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20DA7B450AD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Sorry for yet another message today, but I've had no dupes yet today so I'm getting cocky. Anyway, it's not possible to digestify this mailing list, since there's no facility for automating it and I'm not going to digestify it by hand. -- Loren p.s. Rob said what I meant much better. Declare a special effect of your attack beforehand, and if you get a special success then replace the normal damage-enhancing special effect with the declared one. GM decides which declared effects are feasible.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08132; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:02:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27957; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:00:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:02:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:59:07 EST From: "Loren Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: problems ?! Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 16:58:58 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20F8E64127B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> If it ain't this it's that. For now try rq-playtest@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu to send mail to the list. The campus people appear to have hidden us from the world. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08854; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:11:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28748; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:10:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:11:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:10:12 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: This Mailing List Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:07:47 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20FBD8F252B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: Viljo Viitanen >> Subject: This mailing list >> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 17:13:57 +0200 (EET) >> >> A good idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. A *bad* idea (IMHO) would be to digest this mailing list. I know that we are occasionally awash in extra copies of messages, though I do not see such as often anymore. Digesting messages to this list, whether automatically, or by each of us glomming all of our thoughts together into single posts, will tend to bury and break up discussions. I am mainly interested in certain areas of the rules and the advertising thereof. It is also cleaner to post the kibbles and bits as they are discussed to oliver, and that way he need not wade through the buried discussions, looking for the tidbit meant for him. If this list consisted more of long, more than one subject postings, we would all have to read everything, shuffle it together, and then post. I really think we'd lose out on the discussion quality, while decreasing the mail system's workload, and increasing our own. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08900; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:11:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28797; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:11:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:11:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:10:51 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN Date: Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:08:40 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <20FC0796E22@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" >> Subject: Re: PAIN >> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 09:31 PST >> >> Pain during comnbat is blocked out by adrenaline, and only after >> combat ends does it really make itself felt. Lingering pain can >> debilitate you long after the combat is done (personal experience of >> broken hands, bruised nerves, etc), but during combat? nope. Also see >> those police reports about *normal* (not hopped up on drugs) people >> shrugging off baton hits, bullet wounds, etc. Quite correct. I mentioned a while back that Stafford thought that PAIN would have figured more in RQ if ha had messed up his wrists beforehand. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10427; Fri, 4 Feb 94 16:31:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29666; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:31:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:31:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:31:02 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This Mailing List Date: 04 Feb 1994 17:30:39 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21016923F69@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I'm still not sure what happened, but mail looks to be getting through fine. The campus mx entries are set properly, and have been all along. This morning I got a number of bounces from the host genie.geis.com, and it has been producing problems for a few days. We only have a single subscriber from that host, and he probably subscribed only a few days ago (he's near the end of the file) which is about the time that the problems started. I've seen problems like this before when flakey mailers on host systems didn't know what to do with mailing lists, so I got rid of our subscriber on genie.geis.com. I think this should clear up the duplicates problem. Make that "I HOPE it will clear up the duplicates problem." Cheers, Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13904; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:09:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01427; Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:09:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:09:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:09:20 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Stuff in the book. Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 15:01:19 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <210B9E744C8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Wed, 2 Feb 1994, Bryan J. Maloney wrote: > > Okay, I don't want to see rules without context. > > In other words, if you're not going to go in-depth into the societies > that use "sorcery" like you do for the ones that use spirit magic and > divine magic, don't bother with a whole bunch of information on > sorcery in the core book. Let sorcery remain mysterious and unknown > until you release a book set in a region where sorcery is actually used. > > Hey, gang --- while I like the background material as much as anyone else, and I think it's vital for good PC role-playing, don't forget that as a GM, I NEED VILLAINS! My primary use of sorcery has been to make it something which my players have to fight against. For this to work, the mechanics need to be available to the GM and the players. Are we also saying not to include chaos monsters without a detailed presentation of Cults of Chaos? Also, I intend to run Carmanian NPC's in Dragon Pass -- I need sorcery rules! I really think this quest to remove rules is misplaced. Let's let the marketing mavens of AH determine the maximum length with which the authors can work, and make the contents the best we can! ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14948; Fri, 4 Feb 94 17:19:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01846; Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:19:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:19:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:19:28 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 15:19:10 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <210E5366D62@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney I dislike the proposal for informal guidelines and abolition of special attacks, and prefer the existing system, for the following reasons: a) The GM is already doing too much, if he's keeping track of 10 monsters, trying to prevent the guy who shouts everybody down from overrunning the game, remembering the game mechanics, trying to hold people to their statements of intent, etc. The last thing RQ is something else for the GM to rule on during combat. b) The optional combat tactics, as skills, are a useful way to differentiate the hard core professional warriors from the others. Even as it stands, one can compare a warrior who really needs only mastery of primary weapon attack, primary weapon parry, one special attack to deal with masters of Parrying, and a heavy duty weapon enhancing spell to the sorceror. A sorceror figures at a minumum to need Ceremony, Intensity, Duration, Range and four to five sorcery spells. c) Once we open the door to players choosing the special attack result they want, you will have 45% semi-pros more frequently outmaneuvering 90% masters when they get lucky. d) If players are to be allowed to choose the special result they want it should be from a precisely defined list at the time the special is rolled. I do not want a lot of unnecessary declarations that if I special I am ...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20920; Fri, 4 Feb 94 18:30:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04569; Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:30:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:30:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 19:30:21 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: dodging arrows?!?!?!?! Date: Fri, 04 Feb 94 18:27:21 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21213AB1135@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here. A few days someone mentioned some rules in RQ4AiG that allowed dodging of arrow fire, saying that an archer could loose an arrow and dodge someone else's arrow in the same round. Is anyone else besides me skeptical about that? (Even if it were possible, I'd rather hide behind a convenient rock and/or fellow comrade and count on partial concealment while blaz- ing away with the all-out attack option.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26864; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:14:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08034; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:14:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:14:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:14:29 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: dodging arrows?!?!?!?! Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 18:14:24 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <213D0141CD4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Think you've found a bug. It suggests that you can dodge arrows at point blank at 1/5 your dodge chance, and if the shooter is adjacent at full. It also says you can parry a missile weapon at normal range at 1/2 skill, and at maximum with normal skill. There's a case to made for dodging javelins, etc. But arrows? This seems reminiscent of martial arts myth to me. In any event, there seems little justification for allowing both parries and shield coverage {discussed immediately below}. Authors, please take note - Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27384; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:34:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08785; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:34:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:34:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:34:34 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 21:34:06 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21425C03E4E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes in part: G> Backwards? Malkionists were invented long before sorcery - wasn't Greg's >first Gloranthan work about Prince Snodal? Backwards from how we worked on it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29604; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:51:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09307; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:50:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:51:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:50:44 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Art; size; pain; specials Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 10:49:50 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2146AB71B9E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Boris: > > If you look at the game market now, those games which are successful > > contain a game world that is well, if not fully, described in the basic > > rule set; Shadowrun, Vampire/Werewolf/Mage, Cyberpunk. And all of these > > weigh in at or around the 300 page range, or more. This does not seem > > to cost them sales, and I don't think mere size will cost RQAG sales. > I am in complete agreement - a nice, thick book filled with general niftyness is what I would like to see. RQ is not Elric!, where much of the world is only sketched out, and the magic and combat systems are stripped down and uncomplicated. There is, of course, a school that would like to see RQ more like that - but that is not what we are talking about here. RQ:AiG needs complete rules, it needs to absolutely minimise the need to reissue supplements, and it needs enough background for people who do not own Genertela to start playing when they get it home. Even if we decide to stripout much of sorcery - I would rather see the book contain a stripped down sorcery (enough to play beginning sorcerers) than nothing. > Shadowrun is 208 pages. CyberPunk 2020 is 240. Pendragon 4th edition, which > I haven't seen at any store (I had to special order), is 352. Seems to me > that the shorter the game, the more successful. I find reading 352 pages > too much like work. (Pendragon might be a counterargument -- that splitting > the game didn't work and they had to rejoin Pendragon 3rd Edition and > Knights Adventerous -- but it may also simply point out that you have to > split the right stuff.) > Actually Shadowrun is 295 or so pages, including index and all (I think 208 might be the first edition), and Ars Magica (an excellent game that I think appeals to a very similar market - roots in traditional fantast gaming but with much more attention to cultural and mythic factors) runs to 386. I might also note that when Call of Chtulhu was reissued to put all the separate supplements in one book, rather than a slim rulesbook and a pile of supplements, it was both a favourite with players and very good seller. Same goes for Champions. Big books are the format that sells nicely at the moment (I like 'em), and I think that quibbling over what should be removed to slim it from ~300 to <200 pages is just silly. Lets make it nicely complete rulesbook. trying to slim RQ down to the size of Elric! or RQ2 is just not going to happen without splitting it into multiple supplements several of which are necessary for most play. Maybe 1 separate supplement might be part of the RQ4 project (and if so I go for a brief precis of sorcery in RQ:AiG swiftly followed by a full length and rather complete sorcery supplement). I think talk of things like moving optional combat rules into a separate book is a big mistake. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29729; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:53:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09383; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:53:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:53:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:53:02 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 21:52:41 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21474A639B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell writes in part: Sorry about the retransmission -- the message was somehow truncated before. G> Backwards? Malkionists were invented long before sorcery - wasn't Greg's >first Gloranthan work about Prince Snodal? Backwards from how we worked on it. Or more, backwards from what sorcery is supposed to do in RQ. It is not *intended* to be a priest's magic. G> "Some" = "almost all of them in Western Genertela, most of them around >Dragon Pass, and an unspecified number in the East"? The "most" you speak >of seems to mean the Brithini, Mostali and Lunar Colleges of Magic (which >I suspect should have some link to the Red Goddess, since they are >influenced by the Red Moon). We know so little about Kralorelan religion >that we can't say whether their sorcerers are religious or not. The >Pameltelan sorcerers seem to be Malkionist in Origin Actually, I was thinking of "sorcerer" as including anyone who uses sorcery, thus Malkioni Farmers and Warriors, Kralori ordinary citizens, all Vadeli, all East Islanders, some trolls... Red Moon sorcerers would, IMO, be more like Malkioni than, say, Kralori sorcerers, since they descend from (mostly) Carmanian influences.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29852; Fri, 4 Feb 94 20:57:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09471; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:57:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:57:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:57:02 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery, Re: Recent comments Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 10:56:16 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <214859C24DF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Graeme replying to David Cake replying to Graeme... > > > > > > Same for Tap: Pow 0%, Dex -10%, Int -30% etc. > > > > > > > Were you thinking of something more like what Burton Choinski (sp?) > > > Or, ahem, modesty forbids me, the sorcery draft I posted here a while ago, > > and now on soda.berkeley.edu (thanks to Henk and Shannon). > > I saw yours, but I really was thinking of Burton's. In retrospect, I think > I prefer the single skill system with modifiers: I'd like to see a > reduction in the number of skills a sorcerer needs. > I empathise - but the idea of my system (and presumably Burtons) was that a sorcerer need slightly more skills initially, but is given a lot more flexibilty for it, and the gain from learning a new spell/skill is potentially a lot higher. I had a lot of minor nitpicks with Burtons ideas, but the main was that he tried to hard to force all the RQ3 spells to conform, and in the process introduced a lot of categories that seemed very artificial. The other big consideration (which I tried to adress ) is compatibility with RQ3. In any case, look for an update on my ideas when my copy of RQ:AiG arrives (damn being stuck out here in the colonies). > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au > > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01783; Fri, 4 Feb 94 21:05:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09803; Fri, 4 Feb 94 22:05:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 4 Feb 94 22:05:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 4 Feb 94 22:05:22 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 11:04:25 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <214A93D40BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am against the imposition of a PAIN rule, except as an optional rule (for people that can be bothered). I generally agree with Lorens thinking on specials though. I like the idea of having more choice, but I think that most of the special combat options should remain as requiring special training to learn, though I think it should be easier than now. I do not particularly think that the rules should really encourage people to use options other than the default at every opportunity, though, and I would prefer to see the list of options restricted to either - a very small list - or mostly those that are only applicalbe in appropriate cicumstances. As for GM workload, I think that if the new combat aoptions are not made to look better by comparison to the standard ones (especially of the standard ones do more damage, while the other ones have mostly tactical uses) then most players will not use them that often - but they will really add tension to important fights (like duels, and such). Count me in for more combat options. Actually, one of my prime motivations in getting involved in RQ4 was to make sure that combat at high levels remained interesting (in RQ3 it could get very dull). Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26407; Sat, 5 Feb 94 01:09:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16237; Sat, 5 Feb 94 02:08:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 2:09:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 2:08:50 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Archers dodging Date: Fri, 04 Feb 1994 23:08:41 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <218B8111CB3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Newton here. > >A few days someone mentioned some rules in RQ4AiG that allowed dodging >of arrow fire, saying that an archer could loose an arrow and >dodge someone else's arrow in the same round. Is anyone else besides >me skeptical about that? What's the problem, dodging arrows, or dodging if you do something else in the round? I don't conceptually se a problem with either. Remember, RQ combat is stylized; real combats aren't just two people standing there trading whacks at each other.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28896; Sat, 5 Feb 94 02:23:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17543; Sat, 5 Feb 94 03:23:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 3:23:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 3:23:12 EST From: Eric Rowe To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Archers dodging Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 00:22:54 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <219F575656D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David says in response to Newton's arrow dodging complaint... > >What's the problem, dodging arrows, or dodging if you do something else in >the round? I don't conceptually se a problem with either. I have a big problem with dodging arrows. Sure, maybe at longer ranges you have time to notice something coming and shield cover your vitals, but the old rules effectively covered that. Most people I know can't even dodge nerf arrows, let alone the real thing. Are Gloranthan arrows slower than regular ones? >Remember, RQ combat is stylized; real combats aren't just two people >standing there trading whacks at each other. This has little to do with one's ability to dodge high velocity missles. eric  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03697; Sat, 5 Feb 94 05:06:52 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19706; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:06:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:38 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Characteristic Training Date: 05 Feb 94 06:02:39 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21CAECB1318@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here again: CHARACTERISTIC TRAINING: RQ:AiG has a neat set of characteristic training rules (p.72f of current draft). There are, however, two obvious omissions. (1) Wot No INT Training? I am still deeply miffed by this omission. It seems reasonable to me (as I keep on saying), and could easily be added to the rules; making *any* attempt to increase INT into a Hard task, taking two seasons minimum, would be fine by me. Why do you think mystics meditate and hermits hide away, while scholars pore over things they probably know already...? (2) The difficulty of increasing a characteristic is determined by how far you have improved from your originally rolled value to the maximum value of that characteristic for you. This is usually either species max (21 for humans) or half-again the initial roll, whichever is lower. Advancing the first third of the way is Easy, the second is Medium difficulty, the third is Hard. Base time to train is set at 30 days (NB: should be 28), and doubles for every increase in difficulty. Examples: If my rolled STR is 12, my maximum possible STR is 18. Increasing my STR is Easy from 1-14, Medium to reach 15-16, and Hard to reach 17-18. If I have rolled STR 10, max. STR 15, my thresholds are 1-12 Easy, 13-14 Medium, 15 Hard. (because 15-10 = 5; 5 / 3 gives remainder 2; 2 "extra points" add to the Easy and Medium ranges). If I have rolled STR 17, species max. STR 21, it is Easy for me to increase STR up to 19, Medium to reach 20, and Hard to reach 21. (It's probably worth noting that increasing a reduced characteristic up to its originally-rolled value should always be Easy for each point regained). That's nice. RQ:AiG does not, however, have good rules for establishing who can train up a characteristic. ("Practice" is possible, at x2 time, or "Research" at x4 time, but there's one big difference. With training, the gain in characteristic is automatic on a successful Instruct roll; other methods require a characterisic gain roll, using the POW gain roll mechanism: max value less current value times 5%). Currently, if you've trained or researched (or practiced: an odd omission from these rules) one point in any characteristic, you can start training others' scores in that characteristic up at once, willy-nilly, no limit. I'd suggest one or more of the following: You could require an adventurer to have completed a characteristic increase *as difficult* as the one his students are attempting. Building on my earlier examples, if I've only ever increased my rolled STR of 17 to 19 (Easy), I can't help a guy with rolled STR 10 increase it above 12: that's a Medium difficulty for him, and he's already derived all the benefit he can from my basic weight-training routine. He needs something more suited to his level of physical development: I had an easier time getting to STR 19 than he will getting to STR 13! If I now "push" myself, developing new breathing exercises, perverse forms of press-ups, etc. and manage the Medium increase from STR 19 to 20 myself, the extra *technique* I have learned will help me teach my student how to raise his STR to 13 and 14. This "justifies" the higher cost of higher-difficulty characteristic training: it is more difficult to learn to teach a Medium or Hard increase. It also limits the availability of mega-characteristic-trainers. Potential problem: a STR 6 wimp can complete three increases (Easy to 7, Medium to 8, Hard to 9), taking just 3 seasons, and then set himself up as the new Charles Atlas. Solution: if a STR 9 guy offered *you* STR training, where would you tell him to shove it? Mechanical solution: say that *in addition to the above*, the trainer's characteristic must be higher than his student's. This serves further to limit the availability of training. Hope this hasn't been too long and boring. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03691; Sat, 5 Feb 94 05:06:47 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19703; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:06:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:06:25 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Training and Instruct skill Date: 05 Feb 94 06:03:07 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21CADFC2038@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here, with a suggested change to the current rules. Hope I include enough background for non-draft-owners to follow the thread. Cost of Skill Training: (for those who have the draft, this modifies RQ:AiG page 72, top left) Class size limits are used to determine the maximum number of students an instructor can teach, as in RQ3. To quote: "as a rule of thumb, an instructor can teach 32 students in the 0-30% range, 16 students in the 31-45% range, 8 students in the 46-60% range, 4 students in the 61-75% range, 2 students in the 76-90% range, and one student with skill 91% or higher. I find this odd, given that RQ:AiG includes an "Instruct" skill. This is at present used to modify the upper limit of useful skill training: Instruct skill is complementary to any skill being taught, so you add 1/5th of your Instruct to your skill level to determine how far you can train someone effectively without it lapsing from "Training" to "Practice" (which takes twice as long to confer skill gains). It's also meant to be rolled every training session to see if any skill gain is imparted, but this is just "in theory" -- the authors have wisely stated that a 51%+ Instruct skill makes such a roll unnecessary. (I'd set the "automatic basic success" level at 30%, as for other routine skills, but I digress[*]). Class size should be dependent on Instruct skill as well as on the students' ability: "... an instructor can teach Instruct/2 students in the 0-29% range, Instruct/5 students in the 30-44% range, Instruct/10 students in the 45-59% range, Instruct/20 students in the 60-74% range, Instruct/40 students in the 75-89% range, and one student with skill 90% or higher. For a "generic" instructor with 51% Instruct skill, this is 25 beginners, 10 novices, 5 trained, 3 skilled, or one expert or master student." You can make this less verbose with a table: - STANDARD - SKILL DESCRIPTION MAX.STUDENTS NOs. COST 0-29% beginner Instruct/2 25 1 L 30-44% novice Instruct/5 10 2 L 45-59% trained Instruct/10 5 4 L 60-74% skilled Instruct/20 3 8 L 75-89% expert Instruct/40 1 16 L 90%+ master 1 1 32 L (unlikely!) Note that I've shifted skill categories down by 1%, here and above, as you and I and everyone knows a Master has 90% skill, not 91%. If prices are set with a "Standard" as shown (i.e. beginners expect to pay 1L a day for training), poor instructors will (rightly) earn less than Masters for the same work. This makes Instruct skill still more useful: Arlia (Instruct 15%) could only train eight beginners, three novices, or two trained users of a Scimitar, and spar educationally with any one partner with a skill up to 71% (68% scimitar plus 15/5% complementary Instruct skill) while Drill Sergeant Carnifex (Instruct 96%) could handle his whole 49-man pike block of raw recruits on his own (beginners: 96% / 2 = 48; drop one man from the block 'cos Carnifex himself won't be needing any training). Just a thought: makes Instruct skill still more useful, and slips some variation into the economics of training. ==== Nick ==== [*] Of course, if class sizes are set by this rule, then allowing automatic basic success with Instruct 30%+ still won't screw people around too much. And you can always ask to make a roll, or have the GM insist on one given a tricky or important pupil...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04971; Sat, 5 Feb 94 05:50:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20284; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:50:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:50:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 6:50:05 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Characteristic Training Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 03:50:43 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21D68445720@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. Nick sez: >(1) >Wot No INT Training? I am still deeply miffed by this omission. It seems >reasonable to me (as I keep on saying), and could easily be added to the >rules; making *any* attempt to increase INT into a Hard task, taking two >seasons minimum, would be fine by me. Why do you think mystics meditate and >hermits hide away, while scholars pore over things they probably know >already...? I agree; I also have a radical proposal that POW checks be eliminated, and have increases made thru training, like any other stat. POW loss would then be recovered at POW/10 or POW/20 points per season. I don't expect this to actually be accepted, of course. >That's nice. RQ:AiG does not, however, have good rules for establishing who >can train up a characteristic. ("Practice" is possible, at x2 time, or >"Research" at x4 time, but there's one big difference. With training, the >gain in characteristic is automatic on a successful Instruct roll; other >methods require a characterisic gain roll, using the POW gain roll >mechanism: max value less current value times 5%). The problem I saw was that for a normal guy like me to raise his STR thru daily gym workouts ("research"), it would require over two Earth years just to get a check; I would then have only a 50% chance of any actual gain. What I want to see is lower requirements for gaining stat increases, but time required to maintain a high level of stat training. So if I bulk up thru STR training, I have to work out every day, or I will gradually lose the benefits. I admit that I don't have any concrete proposal for this. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05401; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:16:33 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23898; Sat, 5 Feb 94 07:16:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:16:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:16:17 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Miscellaneous comments Date: 05 Feb 94 07:12:49 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21DD81F78E7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here: A few comments from the proofreading of RQ:AiG I performed last weekend. BIG HEADERS to let you know what I'm on about. [Square brackets] to explain the background for those who don't own the draft. Page references for those who have copies in the format: page number + column + top/centre/bottom of page, so (19Rc) is p.19, right hand side, near the middle of the page. MAGIC POINT REGAIN RATE: [This has been kept the same as in previous editions] (19Rc) "1/24th of their current POW per hour." Note the change, after which Nick says: why this tedious rate, encouraging sorcerous bookkeepers with calculators and digital watches. I'd suggest returning 1/4 of current POW in MP four times a day: at dawn, noon, sunset and midnight. Coincidentally, these are magically potent times by anyone's reckoning. What do you think? (this change was inspired by a similar rule in "Elric!"). KNOWLEDGE SKILL CATEGORY MODIFIER: [RQ:AiG splits RQ3's "Knowledge" skills into "Knowledge" (which cannot be increased by experience), and "Reasoning" (which can be). At present, the skill category modifier for both is identical: (INT + INT - 20)] (20Rb) SUGGESTION: why not make the Knowledge skill category modifier into INT-10. Makes it distinctive and different to Reasoning, and makes Lores even harder to learn and improve in than Crafts, which Feels Right to me. AVAILABILITY OF CULT MAGIC: [Characters' initial Magic is determined on a six-point scale. At present, a Divine Magic user with "Magic 1" is a typical Lay Member and gets 6 points of cult spirit magic] (23Rb) DIVINE MAGIC TABLE: I'd suggest reducing Points of Cult Magic across the board by three, to 3/6/9/12/15/18. Scarcity is good, as it makes players dependent on the goodwill of cult superiors for their battle magic. Also, in some cults a Lay Member will be hard pressed to find six useful points of battle magic (given the new and good maximum limits to variable spells' intensity). The Points of Spirit Magic column on the Spirit Magic table [which runs at 6/9/12/15/18/21] is just fine. TIME DEPENDANT SKILLS: [RQ:AiG includes rules where the level of success obtained on a skill roll can (in some cases) affect either the time taken or the quality of the finished product. These are left rather vague and unsatisfactory] (53Rt) TIME DEPENDENT SKILLS: I disagree with the assertion that "success is essentially guaranteed if you spend a long enough time" Bargaining, or Orating, or Persuading. I'm also unsure how you would gamemaster (say) an Orator haranguing the masses under the rule that a special success can take half as long or produce a result of twice the quality. OK, so you say the base time is an hour, and after fifteen minutes what do you tell the speaker: "You have incensed their passions somewhat after fifteen minutes..." etc? At what point in the speech does the speaker have to decide whether he's going for a quick or a solid success? The current rule is obscure on this point. Also, on the question of whether the player or the GM should decide whether the result to be obtained comes quicker or better with varying levels of success: there are situations when either would be advantageous in very different ways (inciting a mob is an obvious instance). Again, I don't think Communication skills are applicable. If a failed Bargain roll results in half the reduction in price I asked for, and my fumble chance is only going to be 1-2% in any case, why not go for it? Given the rules for role-playing hints as rewards for Orate successes, how does "a result of twice the quality" help? MORE hints? To what end? IT'S MUNCHKIN TIME: "SWORDANCING" SKILL [RQ:AiG includes, as an example of how to subsume several skills into one new one, the skill of "Swordancing", being described as "a skill that lets you jump and dance while swordfighting"] (54Rb) I think Sworddancing is spelled like I just wrote it, or as two separate words (or hyphenated), but in any case NOT as the unpleasant neologism "Swordancing". Speak it aloud, and work out why I'm saying this. There are definitely two "D" sounds in the spoken word. While I'm here, clear up the related (and ugly) "Swordancer" on p.28Cb (which is one of the Sartarite Entertainer optional skill-sets). I also think this is a *terrible* example for a proposed new skill, as included in the Sartarite character templates is an Entertainer optional sub-set of characters who could easily want to do this, and the rules also tell every newbie that (real) sword dancing is a Sartarite speciality on p.27Rc. New GMs will be snowed under by keen, eager players saying "Why can't I be a sword dancer? The rules *say* I can be a sword dancer! Go on, I want to be a sword dancer...". Remember how many people out there play Tricksters, despite all the disincentives. There are plenty of fools who will take advantage of laxity like this. My opposition is largely because this is an undefined new skill which the rule set implies should become widespread. It also opens the door to new "composite combat skill sets" which will screw up your combat rules. Do the authors mean to let adventurers Jump AND Dance AND attack for one Action in combat? Intimidate AND Attack? Spellcast AND Attack (Fighter/Magic User multi-class character concept)? Thought not. This skill should either be fully described, interfaced with the Move rules, etc., or left out. I'd prefer the latter. RIDING AND BEING THROWN: [In RQ:AiG, a rider who fails a Ride roll has an out of control steed. He or she must make another Ride roll at the end of each melee round: success brings the mount back under control; failure results in a safe fall inflicting no damage (if riding with no saddle) or no effect (with one); a fumble results in a fall that will inflict damage (with no saddle) or a safe fall (with one)] (57L) Why do adventurers thrown from out-of-control animals take no damage if they use saddles? This doesn't seem very sensible, given that they could well be tangled in the stirrups, etc. The disadvantage of bareback riding is covered by ANY failure being a dismount; damage should apply in either case to a fumbled Ride roll. NOMENCLATURE: Please, let's rename "Fast Talk" (a Persuade subskill) as "Bluff". You cannot "fast talk" someone into doing something in the Queen's English; you can "bluff" someone in either English or American, I believe. Likewise, the RQ:AiG rules often mention "legionnaires". In England and in academic circles, you'll always find that down as "legionaries". Why change just to please the French (who will be getting their own edition, surely)? This grates on me whenever I read it, and I imagine the same is true for several other readers on a majority of continents. CEREMONY: NB: I *think* the increments here are a little steep on the current RQ:AiG Spell Casting Ceremony Table (which I'll not repost now to save space). I'd prefer to see more increments at lower levels: Spell Ritual ----- ------ - 1 melee round (6 seconds) 1/10 - x3 3 melee rounds (18 seconds) 2/10 - x3.33 10 melee rounds (1 minute) 3/10 - x5 1 full turn (5 minutes) 4/10 - x6 half an hour 5/10 1/10 x8 4 hours 6/10 2/10 x6 1 day 7/10 3/10 x3 3 days 8/10 4/10 x2.5 1 week 9/10 5/10 x8 1 season Full 6/10 x5.25 1 year - 7/10 x3 3 years - 8/10 x2.33 7 years - 9/10 x7 49 years - Full The reason for this is, quite simply, that we *know* the Seven Year Build-up is a really potent magical enhancement. 49 years is close to the length of a Lunar Wane (54 years), so plausibly there are BIG magical cycles that occur over that length of time. But if the Lunars think working for seven years is impressive enough to go down in the history books, it ought to be pretty damn' impressive as a Ceremony Time. Your Ritual table takes *way* too long to get big results -- unless real imbalances were noted using the old Fibonacci (sp?) tables, something like this seems to make sense. Having only one "combat-useful" Ceremony Time (1 melee round; next stop 10 melee rounds) won't encourage people to use Ceremony in games. Having two steps (1 round or 3) might, at that. You also get a meaningful high end to the Ritual table. PICK LOCK, ETC. Some skills (Pick Lock, Track) allow a failed skill roll to be retried until fumbled, halving then quartering (and so on) the skill level for each successive try. I don't like this much, as fumbles remain very unlikely, while success chance is always at least 5%. It might be easier to allow retries at +10 to the D100 roll per time, greatly increasing the chance of a lock-jamming, trail-losing fumble (given that the adventure is by now aware he doesn't know what he's doing, this seems fair to me). I prefer this to the halve then halve again rule: it's more appealing to mathematical noodle-heads, too. That's all for now! I have a bulky post gestating on the various Language and Script skills, but want it to be perfect before I send it off. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05387; Sat, 5 Feb 94 06:15:56 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23886; Sat, 5 Feb 94 07:15:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:15:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 7:15:35 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Agility skills Date: 05 Feb 94 07:13:15 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21DD5320E9B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here, yet again (yawn). AGILITY SKILLS IN RQ:GLORANTHA There are several dissimilar mechanics presented in the RQ:AiG Agility Skills rules (also the Manipulation skill of Drive, and the Reasoning skill of Craft/Shiphandling). As these are to resolve similar situations, I'd suggest in the interest of ease that they be brought into line with one another. The three key areas are: (1) Routine Movement -------------------- This sometimes requires 30% skill to perform automatically under normal circumstances (Boat, Climb, Ride), sometimes not (Acrobatics, Jump, Swim, Drive, Shiphandling). With the latter, it is possible "routinely" to perform basic feats with no minimum skill requirement. This feels odd to me. When I had a Swim skill of 5%, I did not "routinely" progress through calm water at a steady rate. Ditto Drive. I don't imagine the others are significantly different, and recommend that 30% skill be the threshold for routine use of Agility and Movement skills. (2) Distance Travelled ---------------------- Distance travelled is determined in various ways: the most common is for it to be based on MV (i.e. the Move attribute, equal to SIZ+DEX/5), as for Climb, Jump and Swim. A balancing Acrobat crosses a distance of 1/5 his or her Acrobatics skill in meters per round under adverse conditions; this (of course) will allow a highly-skilled Acrobat (say 30%+) to move faster under adverse conditions than he or she could normally, though this may fit in with Carl's desired Hong Kong martial arts movie feel for RQ:AiG combat. No rules are presented for a high Boat, Ride, Drive or Shiphandling skill increasing the basic distance that can routinely be covered. This seems a peculiar omission. (3) Increasing Speed -------------------- When making a Climb roll or a Swim roll, adventurers can increase their rate of movement by up to half again, taking a 10 percent skill penalty for every 10 percent increase in speed. No such rules are presented for Acrobatics, Boat, Jump, Ride, Drive or Shiphandling. Certainly, several of these skills would plainly benefit (becoming more reasonable/plausible) were they introduced: PC: "I want to Jump across the chasm!" GM: "What? It's seven meters across, and your MV score is only six. The rules say you can jump your MV in meters horizontally from a running start." PC: "Go on, be reasonable!" GM: "No, I *am* being reasonable. RuneQuest has rules when you can increase the distance an Agility skill normally covers, and there aren't any rules like that in the Jump skill description. Looks like the giant ball-bearing trap claims another victim..." ENDWORDS: I'm not proposing to puree RQ:AiG's rules down to a single sludgy consistency. I just think it will be easier for new GMs to pick up and run with the game if all similar skills are resolved in a more-or-less similar way. Setting out these three principles (30% skill required for routine activity; distance travelled in some way modified by high skill; further increase in distance possible with defined skill penalties) in every case will make it simpler to do this. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07486; Sat, 5 Feb 94 07:44:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25074; Sat, 5 Feb 94 08:43:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 8:44:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 8:43:46 EST From: guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: PAIN Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 07:29:43 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <21F4D5F7F05@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OK, I'll accept that pain during combat might be blocked out by adrenaline, but what about after battle? Maybe we should still have to make a roll of some sort to perform a physical action while the location isstill injured. It would seem to affect DEX-related skills to me. Maybe some kind of optional system could be devised ( thus adding to an already-hefty tome, I know.) BTW, I kind of like the idea of a basic but complete core of rules, folowed up by supplements that expand upon the usefulness of the system; don't buy the supplements you don't want. Extra combat rules would seem a ntural for one supplement. I also want some fancier rules for martial-arts type attacks, too; boiling all the various styles of armed and unarmed combat into a "martial arts" skill seemed way too simplistic in RQ3 to me. --Guy Hoyle  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16272; Sat, 5 Feb 94 12:04:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01324; Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:17 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: PAIN and special successes Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 16:01:22 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <223A500427B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave writes: > I am against the imposition of a PAIN rule, except as an optional rule > (for people that can be bothered). As long as the rules arent refined, I'd say keep pain other than through pain spirits out. Or, with the adrenaline rationalizing, make pain something which begins after the cause has been received, and treat it the same way as a disease, to keep the number of different rule small. If something like this comes in, I'd opt for any major wound (>location hit points) even fully healed, or any partly healed wound, some pain potential is included, and that skills might be reduced. Let them suffer. (evil grin) > I generally agree with Lorens thinking on specials though. I like the > idea of having more choice, but I think that most of the special combat options > should remain as requiring special training to learn, though I think it should > be easier than now. > I do not particularly think that the rules should really encourage > people to use options other than the default at every opportunity, though, and > I would prefer to see the list of options restricted to either - a very small > list - or mostly those that are only applicable in appropriate cicumstances. For instance, a tripping effect could only occur on leg hits. As opportunities arise all of a sudden, let the player decide after rolling a crit. If in Loren's example the spear-(butt-)man wanted to trip his opponent, he would either have to rely on the high probability for a leg hit, or to land an aimd blow. > Count me in for more combat options. Me too, as long as there is a reasonable Erroll Flinn feeling, I'm in, only Hong Kong style jumps ought to be out (except for Gerak Kag trolls). -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16274; Sat, 5 Feb 94 12:04:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01321; Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:06 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Regaining Magic Points Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 16:27:54 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <223A42F1B4D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here: Nick Brooke: > MAGIC POINT REGAIN RATE: > [This has been kept the same as in previous editions] > (19Rc) "1/24th of their current POW per hour." Note the change, after which > Nick says: why this tedious rate, encouraging sorcerous bookkeepers with > calculators and digital watches. I'd suggest returning 1/4 of current POW > in MP four times a day: at dawn, noon, sunset and midnight. Coincidentally, > these are magically potent times by anyone's reckoning. What do you think? Certainly easier wrt bookeeping, but... > (this change was inspired by a similar rule in "Elric!"). Which has a rule for regaining the first MP within one hour, with unconsciousness in between. I actually hate this unconsciousness business and have so far avoided application of this rule as much as possible. For one thing, unconsciousness interpreted as catatonia for one hour in Elric, or an average of two hours under the old rules, is not playable. I always saw the state of zero MP as similar to 41 degree Celsius fever - one still has a certain awareness, might even react to some influences, or fight one's own legs to leave the place one is in, but one still is in play. Also, it is much crueler if there is some remaining awareness before possession takes place, etc. In situations where one party member is down to zero MP and the party has to flee, a catatonic character is likely to be left back, a feverish one is likely to be assisted to stagger out. The latter has more drama and is therefore my preferred interpretation. Once the immediate stress situation is left, I would prefer to play a gradual recovery of the character, not necessarily expressed in digits, but e.g. allow him to use one MP for defense only after a short time. (1 MP is nothing, but at least won't allow immediate possession by a 4 MP rabbit spirit, which would have to nibble this one MP away first.) What is the state of the art for this problem? Or is this my problm only? Other points raised by Nick: > AVAILABILITY OF CULT MAGIC: I second that pure spirit magic users ought to gain some profit from their limitation. > NOMENCLATURE: > Please, let's rename "Fast Talk" (a Persuade subskill) as "Bluff". You > cannot "fast talk" someone into doing something in the Queen's English; you > can "bluff" someone in either English or American, I believe. > CEREMONY: > NB: I *think* the increments here are a little steep on the current RQ:AiG > Spell Casting Ceremony Table (which I'll not repost now to save space). I'd > prefer to see more increments at lower levels: Table deleted, but seconded (it seems already steep to me, but I haven't seen the original yet). > Having only one "combat-useful" Ceremony Time (1 melee round; next stop 10 > melee rounds) won't encourage people to use Ceremony in games. Having two > steps (1 round or 3) might, at that. Right. > PICK LOCK, ETC. > Some skills (Pick Lock, Track) allow a failed skill roll to be retried > until fumbled, halving then quartering (and so on) the skill level for each > successive try. I don't like this much, as fumbles remain very unlikely, > while success chance is always at least 5%. It might be easier to allow > retries at +10 to the D100 roll per time, greatly increasing the chance of > a lock-jamming, trail-losing fumble (given that the adventure is by now > aware he doesn't know what he's doing, this seems fair to me). I prefer > this to the halve then halve again rule: it's more appealing to > mathematical noodle-heads, too. In this case, the increase for fumbles is welcome. Anyway, I still don't like this deviation from the normal way of rolling first, than comparing to modified chance. The hobgoblins of... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16306; Sat, 5 Feb 94 12:04:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01332; Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 13:04:38 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Archers dodging Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 17:36:38 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <223A68130A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg (a sports archer) speaking Eric Rowe writes: > David says in response to Newton's arrow dodging complaint... >>What's the problem, dodging arrows, or dodging if you do something else in >>the round? I don't conceptually se a problem with either. > I have a big problem with dodging arrows. Sure, maybe at longer ranges > you have time to notice something coming and shield cover your vitals, but > the old rules effectively covered that. Most people I know can't even > dodge nerf arrows, let alone the real thing. Are Gloranthan arrows > slower than regular ones? Attempting to shield cover your vitals when noticing the arrow is an exercise in futility if the archer was within effective range. A flying arrow is hard to see even for people who try to follow its flight, and prepared for it. Nothing but a critical scan would warrant this. On point blank range, dodging an arrow loosened in your direction is physically impossible, you can't get the acceleration. Evading an archer in point blanc range notching an arrow on his string, drawing out the bow and loosening the arrow on the other hand is quite possible. This gives you plenty of time (one combat action) to prepare for some evasive action. Provided you have the time, and can divert full attention to the archer. The same applies to longer ranges within effective range. The farther away, the more important is the sound of the loosened arrow, especially from a bow with recurve (most composite bows). There will always be the sound of a string plucked, like softly playing a guitar. An adjacent archer's shot can't be dodged, but can perfectly well be parried by pushing the bow off into a random direction. Bad luck if you happen to stand in that direction, though. >>Remember, RQ combat is stylized; real combats aren't just two people >>standing there trading whacks at each other. > This has little to do with one's ability to dodge high velocity missles. I wouldn't count the arrow as a high velocity missile. A thirty metres shot takes about 0.25 seconds to reach its target. Imagine the target area as a tunnel about an archery target wide and following a ballistic parable. If you want to avoid getting hit, all you have to do is leave this tunnel, and you're comparatively secure. In fact, if the archer's skill is low, you stand a greater risk of being hit if you successfully dodge a missed shot because the target area is more random than for a specialist archer. In any case, if dodging a missile, the target _must_ dodge when the missile is fired, to be away when the missile reaches the point it was aimed at (intended or missed). Dodging a miss might actually endanger the target. Note that archers with combat or hunting experience are likely to predict an evasive action and will lose less chance of success for shooting at a moving target than archers fresh from the practise ground, whatever their skill may be. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21925; Sat, 5 Feb 94 14:22:30 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06456; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:22:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:22:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:22:18 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Zero MP Date: 05 Feb 94 15:17:59 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <225F1E83F36@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here: Just finished proofing the basic combat rules. OJ says "figure" will go, probably replaced by "combatant": a victory for common sense! Joerg ranges ahead to cover the bits of "Elric" I didn't mention, though in retrospect I ought to have considered these. The problem is what to do with unconscious (zero MP) characters. The obvious solution is to give them one MP back after, say, (21-POW) full turns, in a one-off exception to the normal rules, and have them awaken then. Simple stuff. No need for this "fevered" rubbish, which will encourage game-abusers ("Well, although I'm at zero Magic Points and feverish, I think it's reasonable for me to make a Heroic Effort roll to attack him with my sword," etc.). In the current RQ:AiG draft offensive spells attack with MP vs. POW. I like this, as it gives a welcome defensive advantage. Curiously (109), "sleeping targets will resist, though unconscious ones will not" -- I would love to know why this is so! A character with zero MP is thus extremely vulnerable to hostile magic -- as he should be! I think this "problem" is Joerg's alone. It's easily remedied by changing the (two) pages where "unconsciousness at zero MP" is mentioned, as a house rule. The downside of changing the standard rule for the corrupt benefit of munchkins and whingers is all too obvious to me. Rounding those odd points of quartered-POW -- need I say that "spare" MPs regenerate at the most appropriate times of day (dawn, noon, sunset and midnight) for your religion, tradition or school. Yelm types at Noon, then Dawn, then Sunset. Orlanthi at Dawn, then Sunset, then Midnight. Lunars get a boost when the phase of the Moon changes. Trolls at Midnight, then Sunset, then Dawn. Et cetera. Not really necessary for the rules, but I thought I should mention the idea... Minor revision to my proposed Ceremony table: have breaks at five minutes, fifteen minutes (where Rituals start), one hour, three hours, one day, and so on as normal: this means Spell ceremonies max out after a week, Rituals after seven years. Readers without RQ:AiG -- the fraction is the proportion of your Ceremony skill you can add to your casting chance with a spell of the appropriate type after a ritual of appropriate length. Apparently lots of people complained about the need for handfuls of D6, while I complained about the silly numbers, using the old table. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21952; Sat, 5 Feb 94 14:24:20 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06532; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:24:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:24:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:23:58 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Zero MP Date: 05 Feb 94 15:19:39 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <225F9080D6D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here: (Updated/completed version of last message sent in error. My machine is at fault. Loren has *probably* solved the duplication problem. Many apologies) Just finished proofing the basic combat rules. OJ says "figure" will go, probably replaced by "combatant": a victory for common sense! Joerg ranges ahead to cover the bits of "Elric" I didn't mention, though in retrospect I ought to have considered these. The problem is what to do with unconscious (zero MP) characters. The obvious solution is to give them one MP back after, say, (21-POW) full turns, in a one-off exception to the normal rules, and have them awaken then. Simple stuff. No need for this "fevered" rubbish, which will encourage game-abusers ("Well, although I'm at zero Magic Points and feverish, I think it's reasonable for me to make a Heroic Effort roll to attack him with my sword," etc.). In the current RQ:AiG draft offensive spells attack with MP vs. POW. I like this, as it gives a welcome defensive advantage. Curiously (109), "sleeping targets will resist, though unconscious ones will not" -- I would love to know why this is so! A character with zero MP is thus extremely vulnerable to hostile magic -- as he should be! I think this "problem" is Joerg's alone. It's easily remedied by changing the (two) pages where "unconsciousness at zero MP" is mentioned, as a house rule. The downside of changing the standard rule for the corrupt benefit of munchkins and whingers is all too obvious to me. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22557; Sat, 5 Feb 94 14:39:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06956; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:39:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:39:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:39:27 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: size; characteristic training Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 12:39:17 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2263B151A9A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake, arguing for Bigger is Better, said: >Actually Shadowrun is 295 or so pages, including index and all (I think 208 >might be the first edition), and Ars Magica (an excellent game that I think >appeals to a very similar market - roots in traditional fantast gaming but >with much more attention to cultural and mythic factors) runs to 386. Actually, Ars Magica is 160 (in the edition I have). The point is that it's possible to do a worthy game in 200 pages. With Gods of Glorantha and Genertela already out, RQ:AiG doesn't have to say everything about Glorantha. Steven Barnes said: >I also have a radical proposal that POW checks be eliminated, >and have increases made thru training, like any other stat. Well, POW checks are already eliminated. Overcoming someone's POW doesn't matter in the slightest any more; you get POW gains when the GM remembers you're supposed to. (I don't like this rule.) I don't think I like POW training, either, on the theory that sitting around at home shouldn't allow you to be more in tune with the universe or cast more rune spells. >The problem I saw was that for a normal guy like me to raise his STR >thru daily gym workouts ("research"), it would require over two Earth >years just to get a check; I would then have only a 50% chance of any >actual gain. Gym workouts would probably count as Practice, since you have equipment. >What I want to see is lower requirements for gaining stat increases, >but time required to maintain a high level of stat training. So if >I bulk up thru STR training, I have to work out every day, or I will >gradually lose the benefits. I admit that I don't have any concrete >proposal for this. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it sounds like a lot of bookkeeping, so I'm against it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24940; Sat, 5 Feb 94 15:30:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08874; Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:41 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Dodging Arrows Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 16:30:32 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <22715CD756F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some context for dodgin arrows: There is a Japanese sport know as "Arrow Cutting". The way it works is that the participants attempt to cut arrows out of the air with a naginata. HOWEVER, these arrows are shot WITH warning and at a target, not at the person holding the naginata. This is considered to be a VERY difficult thing to do, even under the best of conditions, and is more a demonstration of speed and finesse under sport conditions than any sort of combat technique. Now, it is easier to move a naginata through an arc than to move a large bit of one's own body. HOWEVER, arrows can be "dodged" in a different way. It's the same way one "dodges" a gun. You dodge the end of the gun barrel. Now, the odds of doing this are very slim, indeed.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29248; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:08:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12365; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:08:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:08:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:07:57 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: fatigue and encumbrance Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 17:06:51 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <228B4D85888@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here again. The topic for today's insane harangue is "fatigue vs encumbrance." I think some of you confuse fatigue rules and encumbrance rules. I make the following distinction: Fatigue rules keep track of exactly how tired each character is at any given point. Keeping track of fatigue is generally considered to be a waste of time. Encumbrance rules, OTOH, tell how much a character can pack around with him, or what a mount can carry. They also penalize a character who carries around too much stuff. In a game where creatures come in all sizes and it's not always intuitively obvious what a creature can carry, it seems to me that encumbrance rules can be helpful. So I was sorry to hear that the RQ4 draft left out the table from the rq3 errata that was used for figuring ENC for large creatures. I thought the RQ3 rules modified by the errata actually work out surprisingly well for purposes of figuring out what kind of load your sable can carry, etc., especially when you make breakpoints every 5 SIZ, instead of every 10. My version looks like: SIZ divide load in kg by (Try figuring out how much 1-15 1 a SIZ 26 sable can carry 16-20 1.5 using the errata, and 21-25 2 you'll see why I changed 26-30 2.5 the breakpoints.) 31-35 3 (+5) (+.5) So does RQ4 penalize dodging, jumping, swimming, casting spells while encumbered, in the same way as the 3d edition?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29695; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:23:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12890; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:23:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:23:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:23:18 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: This mailing list Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 00:24:08 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <228F6616382@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In rq-playtest you write: >Sorry for yet another message today, but I've had no dupes >yet today so I'm getting cocky. Anyway, it's not possible >to digestify this mailing list, since there's no facility >for automating it and I'm not going to digestify it by hand. >-- Loren Maybe I could help; I've got half the job done to digest the playtest list in the same manner as the RuneQuest Daily. The remaining half is creating the proper header files and such. Maybe we should create rec.games.frp.rq{.playtest}... -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00166; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:39:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13312; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:39:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:39:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:39:20 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: trollkin and spirit magic Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 17:35:50 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2293AC13EA3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here again. Slow day here at work. In the midst of my most recent raving I was reminded of another thing I disliked about RQ3, and would like to see it not carried over to the next edition, though I expect it will be. At least thanks to this play-test list I get a chance to complain about it. Here's what bugged me about RQ3: the % chance of casting spirit magic, POW x 5 - ENC. The problem with it is that low-POW characters become totally helpless. It's bad enough having no reasonable chance to resist an incoming spell; reducing the chance of casting spells to 30%-40%, so it can take three tries to get a spell cast, is extremely unkind. I feel sorry for low-POW types like trollkin who have to waste several rounds and several mps just to get a puny countermagic spell up. On the other end, say a sorceror works his favorite spells and skills up to 120%. Does that mean he can wear 25 ENC of armor and weapons without reducing his chance of a simple success? My alternative: spellcasters using spirit magic, rune spells, or sorcery have a chance of the spell failing equal to their ENC. Sorcerors would have to make their skill roll separately, casters of spirit magic or rune spells would not have any other roll to make.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00281; Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:44:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13423; Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:44:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:44:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 18:43:58 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Agility skills Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 00:44:47 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2294E882FF4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Nick Brooke here, yet again (yawn). >(3) Increasing Speed >-------------------- >When making a Climb roll or a Swim roll, adventurers can increase their >rate of movement by up to half again, taking a 10 percent skill penalty for >every 10 percent increase in speed. >No such rules are presented for Acrobatics, Boat, Jump, Ride, Drive or >Shiphandling. Or Sorcery? Reminds me of my suggestion to deduct 5 or 10 % from skill for each point of manipulation... Nick, can we work out something generic for this? :-) Henk, who's off to view the results of that VHS rune spells... -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05524; Sat, 5 Feb 94 20:15:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17264; Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:14:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:15:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:14:51 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: fatigue and encumbrance Date: Sat, 05 Feb 1994 18:14:41 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <22BD26C564C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here (this line for those with lame software that doesn't identify sender). Newton wrote: >Fatigue rules keep track of exactly how tired each character is at >any given point. Keeping track of fatigue is generally considered >to be a waste of time. > >Encumbrance rules, OTOH, tell how much a character can pack around >with him, or what a mount can carry. They also penalize a character >who carries around too much stuff. In a game where creatures come >in all sizes and it's not always intuitively obvious what a creature >can carry, it seems to me that encumbrance rules can be helpful. Well, one way to penalize people is to add Fatigue... One way RQ4 does this is by having an extra Fatigue roll for wearing a helmet, and another extra for metal armor. This takes into account that lead vambraces might tire you out, but you won't get as exhausted as you would with an enclosing helm. >So I was sorry to hear that the RQ4 draft left out the table from >the rq3 errata that was used for figuring ENC for large creatures. >I thought the RQ3 rules modified by the errata actually work out >surprisingly well for purposes of figuring out what kind of load >your sable can carry, etc., especially when you make breakpoints >every 5 SIZ, instead of every 10. My version looks like: > >SIZ divide load in kg by (Try figuring out how much >1-15 1 a SIZ 26 sable can carry >16-20 1.5 using the errata, and >21-25 2 you'll see why I changed >26-30 2.5 the breakpoints.) >31-35 3 >(+5) (+.5) I don't like the way that humans have a good chance of two separate table entries (16 is fairly common with 2d6+6, and with your table it'd be well worth having a 16 SIZ so you could wear heavier armor). >So does RQ4 penalize dodging, jumping, swimming, casting spells >while encumbered, in the same way as the 3d edition? Not exactly. Dodge, Maneuver [the RQ4 melee skill], Climb, Jump, and Stealth [combines Hide and Sneak] all are -ENC. Swim is -5*ENC. No effect on spell casting. Henk suggested >Maybe we should create rec.games.frp.rq{.playtest}... Many of us don't have newsgroup access; my only Internet connection is email. Which is why I appreciate you and Loren running mailing lists. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07451; Sat, 5 Feb 94 21:01:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18557; Sat, 5 Feb 94 22:01:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 5 Feb 94 22:01:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 5 Feb 94 22:01:25 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders Date: Sat, 05 Feb 94 22:06:45 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <22C992B671B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To me (Devin Cutler) Nick writes rather flamingly: )) Excuse me while I laugh hysterically. This is a running joke )) here in the UK )) (which is to say, for something like half the market for )) English language )) RuneQuest). At conventions, you would be laughed off stage )) for proposing )) it. And he writes: )) Because it's there, and it's possible. It's only "obviously" )) impossible to )) you, but then your priorities are different from most of the )) contributors'. )) Maybe if we cut the rules for 1000%+ skills and Martial Arts )) duels against )) Cwim, we can find room for even more Gloranthan )) background... First off, since RQ already sells well in Enlgand, perhaps we should start considering how to sell it well here in the US. Most people agree that that seems to be the market that RQ needs to open up. Given the success of AD&D here, which does use three-ring binders, I find it hard to believe that such would be laughed off the stage in the USA. In any case, please point out some cogent reasons why three ring binders are unacceptable and perhaps I will agree with you. Regarding point two, aside from the overly sarcastic tone, I am not endorsing 1000% fights against Cwim, but I will say this: All pre vious editions of RQ break down significantly at ANYTHING over 100%. Now, I'm sorry if the low-level players out there think playing runelevels with 125% attacks and parries who have been lovingly built up over many years is not valid roleplaying, but I disagree strongly. Pragmatically, I agree RQ does not need to handle 1000% attacks and the like. Obviously, leave that to Heroquest or never deal with it, since NOONE is going to get that advanced, but 200% attacks are possible and should be accommodated! in the rules. While I'm on the subject, if the rules are not supposed to handle high level combat, then someone tell me why over 13 pages of DLOD are devoted to statistics for creatures so power ful that no one (even at my "uber-level" 200% needs) could ever hope to face one. Why give the stats? Why not do something like the Hoolar in the Gloranthan Bestiary and just give some general info and then state that the being is way too powerful to be included statistically in any campaign? Devin the "Ubermeister" devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02304; Sun, 6 Feb 94 00:43:16 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23454; Sun, 6 Feb 94 01:42:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 1:43:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 1:42:45 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Battle Magic in RQ:Glorantha Date: 06 Feb 94 01:40:26 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <230498F4DE9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here, for the halt and lame: Newton Hughes said, wisely: > Here's what bugged me about RQ3: the % chance of casting spirit > magic, POW x 5 - ENC. The problem with it is that low-POW characters > become totally helpless. It's bad enough having no reasonable chance > to resist an incoming spell; reducing the chance of casting spells > to 30%-40%, so it can take three tries to get a spell cast, is > extremely unkind. I feel sorry for low-POW types like trollkin who > have to waste several rounds and several mps just to get a puny > countermagic spell up. Worse than that was losing 1 magic point for a failed cast roll. Characters with high POW (and MP) cast spells easily. Characters with low POW (and MP) failed their casting rolls easily, then lost some of their few magic points for having the temerity to try... it's viscous circle time, folks! On the other hand, tell me who's been teaching trollkin Countermagic and I'll bite his ears off! I'll run through the RQ:Glorantha rules changes for this important area, so we can get some more informed feedback. (Don't get me wrong, Newton: that's not "more, informed" feedback. It's a public service for people without the draft to raise their concerns on this line). ______________________ BASICS: CASTING CHANCE RQ:AiG has a flat base casting chance for Battle Magic (cult or spirit) of POWx5. This is not modified for ENC, Magic skills modifier, etc., I suppose because with this form of magic, there are built-in advantages for high-INT and high-DEX characters: normal memorisation rules are based on INT, and base casting SR for battle magic, divine magic (?) and sorcery is now DEX SR. No need to complicate the system further... Casting chance is halved for having no focus. There are no rules for ENC affecting casting chance for Battle Magic or Sorcery spells, except by way of fumble-increasing Fatigue. I'm not sure whether this is a gain or a loss. It certainly speeds things up; doesn't necessarily encourage appropriately-equipped characters ("Why shouldn't my wizard/shaman/priest wear a full panoply?"). It'd be good as an Optional Rule in the small-print appendices... *EITHER* straight subtraction of ENC from all spell casting chances, *OR* perhaps adding the excess of ENC over POW to all spell casting die rolls. I'm quite attached to the latter, esp. if the Fumble rule is changed from "lose all MP used" to "lose 1 MP". _____________________________________ OPTIONAL RULE: FREQUENCY OF SPELL USE There's an optional rule, which I like (!horror!) [though it needs some work] which varies casting chance according to frequency of spell use. Characters can declare spells to be "commonly used" (cast chance is POWx6) or "uncommonly used" [recte: "seldom used"] (cast chance is POWx4). The written rule for this invites abuse: "A character must declare one of the spells he or she knows to be uncommonly used for every spell he or she declares to be commonly used." [w/ no need for gamemaster approval of the selection made]. Which means: "Bladesharp 6 (commonly used), Heal 4 (commonly used), Food Song (1) (seldom used), Repair 1 (seldom used)" is a legitimate selection. Now, I think it'd be more reasonable to assess spell usage on a point by point basis to avoid crap like this coming down. But the idea of frequency of usage affecting casting chance is close to what Greg now says about personal magic in Glorantha, so I'm rather keen on this. Nick also says: how about making common spells POWx6, uncommon ones POWx3, on the grounds that that's a bigger penalty for the things you *don't* want to do (i.e. you lose overall for applying this rule). Alternatively, you could shift *everything* down a gear for users of this rule: Commonly used spells POWx5 [normal default] Betwixt and between spells POWx4 [default w/ optional rule] Uncommonly used spells POWx3 On the grounds that people using the optional rules are probably abusive by nature, and this adds Gloranthan compatibility and detail while preserving the same game balance (i.e. in combat, the spells most likely to be cast will succeed on a POWx5 roll, as any fule kno). You don't *reward* people for using the optional rules with anything other than that warm feeling of better simulating Glorantha... certainly not with trivial combat advantage. ___________________________ BASICS: SPELL CASTING ROLLS A success on the POWx5 (or whatever) roll casts the spell. No effects are defined for special or critical spell casting rolls; I'd favour specials costing half as many MP, and criticals giving you the whole spell for 1 MP (exactly the same as with sorcery: consistency is a virtue). A failure on the POWx5 roll costs 1 MP. I still object to this (as stated above) and will be whining to the authors about it in due course. It's a negative mechanic: low-POW types will lose melee actions and magic points for trying to use magic, and feel aggrieved. A fumble on the POWx5 roll costs all the MPs you would have spent. Nick says: have *this* cost 1 MP, then you can play silly buggers with ENC as a direct add to spellcasting die rolls. ________________________ BASICS: RESISTANCE ROLLS All resistance rolls in RQ:Glorantha are made with attacker's magic points (prior to casting) versus defender's characteristic POW. This is like Rune Lord magic resistance in RQ2. I like it. So will Newton's trollkin friends. Hope this has helped and informed. At the current rate of progress, my epic proof-reading project will have reached the end of the Divine Magic section by next weekend, when you can hear my theories about why the runes given for the Seven Mothers' individual cults are wrong... ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07095; Sun, 6 Feb 94 03:25:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25904; Sun, 6 Feb 94 04:25:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 4:25:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 4:24:52 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 01:24:37 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <232FD64230A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler tells Nick: >In any case, please point out some cogent reasons why three ring binders are >unacceptable and perhaps I will agree with you. They add to the cost, take more shelf space, and make the game look less professional. (A different idea would be to leave a margin for punching holes...) Also, I believe Europeans typically use 2-hole binders, while the USA uses 3-hole... Is this right? >Pragmatically, I agree RQ does not need to handle 1000% attacks and the like. >Obviously, leave that to Heroquest or never deal with it, since NOONE is >going to get that advanced, but 200% attacks are possible and should be >accommodated! in the rules. Pragmatically, very few people are going to get to 200%, and it's not worth skewing the game to accomodate them. It may well be that the rules can handle 200% people without imposing a burden on the overwhelming majority. But if they can't, I join Nick in saying, so what? >While I'm on the subject, if the rules are not supposed to handle high level >combat, then someone tell me why over 13 pages of DLOD are devoted to >statistics for creatures so power >ful that no one (even at my "uber-level" 200% needs) could ever hope to face >one. Why give the stats? Why not do something like the Hoolar in the >Gloranthan Bestiary and just give some general info and then state that the >being is way too powerful to be included statistically in any campaign? Perhaps for the same reason the Crimson Bat has stats -- to show how tough creature really can be (unlike certain other games where title monsters are pushovers). 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07101; Sun, 6 Feb 94 03:25:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25908; Sun, 6 Feb 94 04:25:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 4:25:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 4:25:23 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 01:25:09 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <232FF96444C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell asked with trepidation: > A statement I have been awaiting with dread: have they retained the >terrible system from the RQ4 draft 2.0, where the effect of fatigue >is to add a value to your dice roll? Yes. 01 is still a critical, but anywhere from 3 to 20 is added to your roll, making it harder to critical, and easier to fumble. Exactly why is this terrible? What effect do you think works for fatigue? (The bad part about fatigue seems to be the defeatism it inspires in CON 10 people...they figure they're not going to make the CON*5 roll anyway, so they wear lots of armor; CON 17 people probably will, so they try not to over-encumber.) I think Fatigue is very close to the previous draft, except that you roll once for helmet and once for metal armor, in addition to just rolling. And there's provision for rolling just before a fight if you've been walking around all day in armor (which I like because I suggested :-). 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15090; Sun, 6 Feb 94 08:13:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01977; Sun, 6 Feb 94 09:13:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:13:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:12:58 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RAG: Training Date: Sun, 06 Feb 94 01:48:37 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <237CACF3F70@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU writes: > The point was never that a GM had to keep track of skill checks > during an adventure. What I objected to was the GM having to keep the > difficulty of the skill in mind when deciding whether or not to award > a check. Having the variance be in the reward for the check rather than > the criteria for getting a check (wrt skill difficulty) makes it much > easier on the GM. > I agree completely. I finally got my copy this week, and when I mentioned this rule to my group (who include several people who do/have run RQ was a horrendous groan. It's bad enough having to make the call on the roll; having to second guess whether the DIFFICULTY justifies it is just too much. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14971; Sun, 6 Feb 94 08:04:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01897; Sun, 6 Feb 94 09:04:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:04:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:03:53 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQAG Take 2 Date: Sun, 06 Feb 94 02:00:23 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <237A40D218C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Peter Maranci writes: > However, it need not be only for overcoming an enemy -- that > would skew increases towards "adventurers" which would skew society > very quickly. Nor are rolls for leading a congregation quite right. > How about adding rolls for resisting a greater POW? And very faithful > worshippers could gain a roll on a holy day or at some other appropriate > time, reflecting not a gift from the diety but rather a gain in > spirituality through the act of worship itself. I think it should be for magical activity in general; who says spending all day throwing spirit magic is less valuable in developing your POW than one overcome resistance roll? I've given rolls for extensive magical activity for some time. On the other hand, giving in for ANY reasonable magical activity during the game can march it up overly fast. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14963; Sun, 6 Feb 94 08:04:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01890; Sun, 6 Feb 94 09:03:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:04:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:03:52 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Sun, 06 Feb 94 02:09:12 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <237A3FD159C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > > Rune level characters aren't necessarily over 125% (or whatever level > things break down at). But they are spending 90% of their time in temple > duty, which may make them inappropriate for normal play. > Sorry, David, but I don't buy it. The original RQ campaign we had locally had most of the adventures based around the character's temple duties; you can bet with Rune Lords that mightly little of that involves sitting around the temple doing clerical stuff. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15096; Sun, 6 Feb 94 08:13:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01979; Sun, 6 Feb 94 09:13:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:13:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 9:13:09 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Recent comments Date: Sun, 06 Feb 94 02:25:43 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <237CB9D731E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU writes: > > 4) The comments on the difficulty of GM's considering skill difficultly > when handing out checks are noted. The 1D3/1D6/2D4 suggestion has > the disadvantage that what this actually means is a bit complex - > hard skills are twice as hard as medium skills, but easy skills > are 1.42 times as easy as medium skills. We may instead be able > to attack this at the level of the rolls after the checks. Thus, > for an Easy skill with a GM issued check, roll twice to see if > you increased the skill, roll normally for a Medium skill, and don't > roll until you have collected two checks for a Hard skill. This > removes the burden from the GM, but maintains the integrity of > the balance of the skills. I could live with this. I assume the progression continues with the rare very hard skill (are they still around? I still haven't read my copy closely). > > soul destroying. Sorcery in Glorantha does not consist of sorcerers, > even master sorcerers, that can maintain dozens of small spells, or > easily cast spells at great ranges, and the mechanics intentionally Some of the current spells make very little sense with the current range table. Teleport comes to mind. What good are the darn circles if the only time someone is far enough away to use them, they have to use permanant power to do so? I can see why the duration thing is the way it is; and the Maintain manipulation frankly solves most of my problems with it. But I can't see how the range table marching up faster would violate what depictions I've seen of Gloranthan sorcerers. > ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15844; Mon, 7 Feb 94 00:44:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03222; Mon, 7 Feb 94 01:44:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:44:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:44:24 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 13:43:20 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <248516C2A43@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg backing up Graeme: > David Dunham confirms my worst fears: >> Graeme Lindsell asked with trepidation: >>> A statement I have been awaiting with dread: have they retained the >>>terrible system from the RQ4 draft 2.0, where the effect of fatigue >>>is to add a value to your dice roll? >> Yes. 01 is still a critical, but anywhere from 3 to 20 is added to your >> roll, making it harder to critical, and easier to fumble. >> Exactly why is this terrible? What effect do you think works for fatigue? > This is a reply I made to OJ on this list on 10 June 1993 on the same > subject. My thoughts haven't changed since then; the designers seem to have > decided to simply reduce the amount of the die roll mods, rather than > eliminating them. Neither have mine, or a whole lot of German RQers who discussed this on German RuneQuest Con 4 in Bielefeld in May last year. One reason why I propagate RuneQuestis the consistency of its success resolution system. These "add to die roll" modifiers break this. (Hobgoblins at work) Re: Graeme's posting from June: > i) It has much greater effects on chance of criticals and > fumbles than your actual skill. This will result different > effects on combats depending on the skills of the combatants. [example deleted] Nothing seems to have changed for this. > ii) It is a bad precedent. It introduces a second type of success > modifier into the game. Up to now all modifiers have been to chance > of success, now there are modifiers to both chance and dice roll. My biggest problem. > iii) It distorts the game system. Up to now critical has always > been 5% of chance of success, special 20%, fumble 5% of failure. > Die roll modifiers change this totally, and I think unnecessarily. See above. > iv) I have always seen critical and fumbles as a product of > two things: skill and luck. The die roll modifiers for fatigue > seem to have very little effect on skill (95%->90%) but a huge > effect on luck: if you look at the fumble tables they are mainly > cases of bad luck; criticals are mainly those lucky blows. Fatigue > with die roll modifiers seem mainly to be bad luck. I'll agree that in fatigued state (e.g. after 48 hours of continuous work) one is likely to fumble or fail more often, but one can still excel and produce crits and specials as well, though less frequently compared to unfatigued state. To achieve this effect, I'd prefer the usual skill reduction. > In the discussion about fatigue several posters agreed (Paul Reilly was one I > saw in finding this piece) with me, but found the autofailure idea redundant. > I ended up agreeing with them: simple modifiers would do IMHO One major effect fatigue has on me is to slow my reactions. Except for adrenaline pushes, DEX SRs ought to increase with fatigue. >> I think Fatigue is very close to the previous draft, except that you roll >> once for helmet and once for metal armor, in addition to just rolling. And > While I applaud the idea of making helmets and armour more fatiguing, I > don't like adding even more rolls to the game. Why not reduce the CON multiplier instead? i.e. instead of CON*5, a character wearing helmet and metal armour would roll CON*3. And increase Fatigue loss slightly for each reduction. >> there's provision for rolling just before a fight if you've been walking >> around all day in armor (which I like because I suggested :-). > A good idea as well Yep. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15828; Mon, 7 Feb 94 00:44:15 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03214; Mon, 7 Feb 94 01:44:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:44:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:43:53 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders and other formats Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 16:02:46 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2484F353A3D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg picking up David Dunhams reply: > Devin Cutler tells Nick: >>In any case, please point out some cogent reasons why three ring binders are >>unacceptable and perhaps I will agree with you. > They add to the cost, take more shelf space, and make the game look less > professional. (A different idea would be to leave a margin for punching > holes...) Also the holes tend to open towards the edge, and inserting or rearranging pages makes the index impossible to maintain (and a good index is essential for ease of use!). Stitch bound hardback for a reasonable price would be appreciated, but a durable softback edition seems to be the state of the art, so go that way. (Maybe a limited edition hardback like the Cthulhu edition via Wizards Attic?) The German hardback edition of RQ3 did sell all 3000 copies within 2 years (at least to the shops), and now a softcover edition is out. The 200 pages stitch-bound hardback volume cost little over 30$, the new softcover maybe 2 bucks less. Ok, only one full colour graphic (the cover), and the interior art inks are solid quality but not exceptional. The layout looks professional (not extravagant, less so than e.g. Elric!) and is user-friendly, in general the appearance is good. If the market needs colour plates, include the covers from SC, RoC and SotB without the text. This advertises, gives quality pictures, and saves some money. The 3rd ed GW edition did so, too... > Also, I believe Europeans typically use 2-hole binders, while the USA uses> 3-hole... Is this right? Yes. The only way to buy 3-holes here in Kiel (Germany) is to buy AD&D Monster Manuals. Do you want to impose _that_ on the European RQ community? > Pragmatically, very few people are going to get to 200%, and it's not worth > skewing the game to accomodate them. Quite a few villains do have skills in this range. > It may well be that the rules can handle 200% people without imposing a > burden on the overwhelming majority. But if they can't, I join Nick in > saying, so what? So Joe 75% gets lucky and wipes out Jar-Eel, Harrek, Argrath, Ethilrist, the Red Emperor, the Crimson Bat, saves Glorantha and creates Hobbits from Trollkin... If the heroic aspects of Glorantha shall be addressed in the game as well, if only by encountering some of them peripherically, these need to interact somehow with player characters without having to rewrite the game. In RQ2 the cradle scenario established such a contact. In CoP p.79 Jarang Bladesong is a follower of Argrath Dragonspear, yet in the Pavis episode he interacts with Biturian. Garrath Sharpsword is one of the NPCs in the Pavis Box. Ruric the Feisty appears as Deus ex Machina in Biturian's Zorak Zoran encounter. New GMs need rules, or at least guidelines, to handle such situations, which will appear in mythical coloured roleplaying. BTW, since Paulis' tales are to be reprinted in Gods of Dorastor, will Biturian's travels be reprinted? Either by AH, or like GRoY by Wizards' Attic, or by Reaching Moon Megacorp? Heck, if we find enough support, even the German RQ society might be convinced to reprint English language Glorantha tidbits for the "international RQ network" in a semi-professional way, if good material could be made accessible that way. (Still holding my breath for Wyrm's Footprints, and getting past cyanotic state.) -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17687; Sun, 6 Feb 94 09:42:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03303; Sun, 6 Feb 94 10:40:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 10:42:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 10:40:51 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 07:40:38 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <23941D40CAD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm generally opposed to adding odd numbers in there on each die. People cast a lot of spells, and while everyone can add two digit numbers, if you have people adding 11, 14, 17, etc to each spellcasting roll either: a) people ignore the rule; b) yet another factor slows combat still further. Frankly, I'd rather the sorcerors wore plate. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19555; Sun, 6 Feb 94 10:44:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04510; Sun, 6 Feb 94 11:44:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 11:44:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 11:44:10 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 08:44:03 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <23A4FE15BDA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney Forget my previous message. I reread the fatigue rules and though I am not wild about adding three, they look OK to me.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27632; Sun, 6 Feb 94 13:44:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09453; Sun, 6 Feb 94 14:44:00 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 14:44:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 14:43:49 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: trollkin and spirit magic Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 11:44:30 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <23D4E893F01@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Newton here again. >My alternative: spellcasters using spirit magic, rune spells, or >sorcery have a chance of the spell failing equal to their ENC. >Sorcerors would have to make their skill roll separately, casters >of spirit magic or rune spells would not have any other roll to make. All ENC penalties have to be scaled to SIZ somehow. Either the penalty should be based on the percentage of the characters total ENC capacity, or the ENC carried should be divided by some scaling factor based on SIZ. The consequances of not having such a rule is that huge giant will have a negative chance to cast a spell, just because he is wearing a pair of pants. This is an extreme example, but let us not forget that Trolls are sometimes PCs too. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29705; Sun, 6 Feb 94 14:11:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10334; Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:11:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:11:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:10:58 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders Date: Sun, 06 Feb 94 15:16:13 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <23DC26A27C6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Writes: ))It may well be that the rules can handle 200% people without ))imposing a ))burden on the overwhelming majority. But if they can't, I join ))Nick in ))saying, so what? Unless this issue is brought up again, I'll let this rest, since I seem to be in the minority, but I believe that you will never have a popular mass-appeal game if people find out that they pretty much have to restart their campaigns every couple of years or so. Maybe a lot of current RQ players get tired of their campaigns an d start new ones frequently, and this is probably actually true of most GM's in most RPG' s, but I still think that potential new GM's who hear or find out that the game breaks down at levels of over 100% will stay away from the game. Having said my peace, I will await the actual rules before commenting further. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01745; Sun, 6 Feb 94 14:48:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11788; Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:48:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:48:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:48:03 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: fatigue and encumbrance Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:42:57 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <23E60A12082@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Just a short note (I knwo we're not supposed to do that, but gen- erally I've been very good at limiting my posting to infrequent, 12k+ tomes) to reiterate that I very much favor changing encumbrance penalty from straight ENC< , divided by some number if you are very big, to a simple ENC-STR, min zero. It isn't easier to carry things if you are bigger. It is easier to carry things if you are stronger. Plus, this way you don't need that ugly table with all the artificial breakpoints. If someone can't subtract their STR from their ENC, well, never mind. Change this so it makes sense! -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01956; Sun, 6 Feb 94 14:53:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11992; Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:52:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:52:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:52:45 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Recent comments Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 12:52:35 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <23E74B379E6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Some info for people who don't have the draft: >>Thus, >> for an Easy skill with a GM issued check, roll twice to see if >> you increased the skill, roll normally for a Medium skill, and don't >> roll until you have collected two checks for a Hard skill. This >> removes the burden from the GM, but maintains the integrity of >> the balance of the skills. > >I could live with this. I assume the progression continues with the rare >very hard skill (are they still around? I still haven't read my copy >closely). Thankfully, there are no Very Hard (or Very Easy) skills any more.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02763; Sun, 6 Feb 94 15:13:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12687; Sun, 6 Feb 94 16:13:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 16:13:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 16:13:32 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders Date: 06 Feb 1994 16:13:08 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <23ECD6224BF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't like three-ring binders for rules. They're okay in the AD&D Monstrous Compendia because each monster takes up exactly one page so you have the advantage of being able to take pages out and keeping them with your scenario material, or inserting new monsters in the appropriate order. But in the case of rules I don't see any advantage in being able to insert pages in the middle of chapters, or remove pages to keep with your other materials, and besides it's a lot more annoying to lose a page of rules than it is to lose a page of monster. The other problem is that loose-leaf is a lot more expensive to produce than even a sheaf-bound hardback, which is my preferred format. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08781; Sun, 6 Feb 94 17:20:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17717; Sun, 6 Feb 94 18:20:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 18:20:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 18:19:51 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue; Agility etc. Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 15:19:35 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <240E8713FCC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell dislikes the idea of adding to skill rolls when Fatigued. While some of his points are valid, I think a simple minus to the skill isn't serious enough to bother with. If you want to discourage people from wearing super heavy armor, make the penalties significant enough to notice. Reduced crit/increased fumble does that. Adding to the roll may not be mathematically correct, but at least it's easy. I don't see changing autofailure as being significantly better; it too is a new game mechanic. As I've said elsewhere, I think the real problem may be the CON roll itself; with a CON of 10, there's only a 10% penalty for being one level overencumbered, as opposed to the 15% penalty for someone with a CON of 15. It seemed that the minimax players would have lower-CON characters wear heavier armor. Nick Brooke pointed out >There are several dissimilar mechanics presented in the RQ:AiG Agility >Skills rules (also the Manipulation skill of Drive, and the Reasoning skill >of Craft/Shiphandling). and suggested: >Setting out these three principles (30% skill required for routine >activity; distance travelled in some way modified by high skill; further >increase in distance possible with defined skill penalties) in every case >will make it simpler to do this which I agree with. >(20Rb) SUGGESTION: why not make the Knowledge skill category modifier into >INT-10. Makes it distinctive and different to Reasoning, and makes Lores >even harder to learn and improve in than Crafts, which Feels Right to me. Fine by me. I also agree that Sword Dancing is a bad example for a new skill. >Some skills (Pick Lock, Track) allow a failed skill roll to be retried >until fumbled, halving then quartering (and so on) the skill level for each >successive try. I don't like this much, as fumbles remain very unlikely, >while success chance is always at least 5%. It might be easier to allow >retries at +10 to the D100 roll per time, greatly increasing the chance of >a lock-jamming, trail-losing fumble (given that the adventure is by now >aware he doesn't know what he's doing, this seems fair to me). which, is reasonable and, if adopted, would eliminate one of Graeme's complaints against the effects of Fatigue. >Worse than that was losing 1 magic point for a failed cast roll. Characters >with high POW (and MP) cast spells easily. Characters with low POW (and MP) >failed their casting rolls easily, then lost some of their few magic points >for having the temerity to try... it's viscous circle time, folks! I'm swayed by Nick's argument; low-POW characters shouldn't be penalized for trying to cast spells. The waste of most spell-casting actions is probably penalty enough. I support the "lose 1 MP only when you fumble" he proposes. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05204; Sun, 6 Feb 94 02:02:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24694; Sun, 6 Feb 94 03:02:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 3:02:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 3:02:10 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatigue was Re Battle Magic in Glorantha Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 19:00:14 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2319C720CC3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke writes: >There are no rules for ENC affecting casting chance for Battle Magic or >Sorcery spells, except by way of fumble-increasing Fatigue. I'm not sure ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ A statement I have been awaiting with dread: have they retained the terrible system from the RQ4 draft 2.0, where the effect of fatigue is to add a value to your dice roll? Much of the rest of the new Battle magic system sounds good, except the name. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28654; Sun, 6 Feb 94 21:15:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25700; Sun, 6 Feb 94 22:15:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 22:15:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 22:15:14 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: casting spirit magic, ENC rules Date: Sun, 06 Feb 94 20:54:10 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <244D4DE6095@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here again. I can understand complaints about using ENC to influence spell-casting chances, given that it does penalize large creatures, especially in Boshbisil's class. Say Bosh wants to carry around a tree to use as a maul, and the maul is in the same proportion to Bosh as a regular troll maul is to a SIZ 12 human. Say Bosh is SIZ 88. His tree would be 2 to the (88-12)/8 as big (doubling 9 times) as the human-scale model. It would weigh 500 kg and the ENC would be 60. Ouch. (Of course, Bosh has around 170 FP, so the proportion of ENC to FP works out to about equal for human- and giant-sized cases. So the system has some merit, just not for modifying spell-casting chances.) David Dunham's problem with my version, namely the breakpoint at 15-16, is not that big a deal, because the SIZ 16 person's armor, weapons, and other stuff will all have to be half again as big as a smaller per- son's, so for most purposes it cancels out. I really don't like the way the RQ4AiG Fatigue system sounds. Lots of dice rolling, yuck. Does it work with large creatures? OK, I started this thinking I was going to go on about spirit magic. Nick Brooke pointed out the various roles INT, POW, and DEX play in casting a spirit spell, with the intention of justifying a POW x 5 casting roll. But POW already influences spirit spellcasting, not only by providing a source of MPs but by making it possible to learn the spell through combat with the spell spirit. I'd rather not be bothered with the POW x 5.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10291; Sun, 6 Feb 94 04:57:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26722; Sun, 6 Feb 94 05:57:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 5:57:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 5:57:00 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Sun, 6 Feb 94 21:55:23 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2348694762E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham confirms my worst fears: > Graeme Lindsell asked with trepidation: > > A statement I have been awaiting with dread: have they retained the > >terrible system from the RQ4 draft 2.0, where the effect of fatigue > >is to add a value to your dice roll? > > Yes. 01 is still a critical, but anywhere from 3 to 20 is added to your > roll, making it harder to critical, and easier to fumble. > > Exactly why is this terrible? What effect do you think works for fatigue? This is a reply I made to OJ on this list on 10 June 1993 on the same subject. My thoughts haven't changed since then; the designers seem to have decided to simply reduce the amount of the die roll mods, rather than eliminating them. This message assumes the system +5 to roll Tired, +10 Weary, +20 etc: - Begin Old Message Most of the new fatigue rules are very good, allowing one to carry greater weights, requireing less bookkeeping, long term exhaustion etc. I see a major flaw in the penalties: applying a modifier to the dice roll rather than the skill. I think this is flawed because: i) It has much greater effects on chance of criticals and fumbles than your actual skill. This will result different effects on combats depending on the skills of the combatants. For example: a combat between two characters with 30% combat skills. One becomes tired, -5 to dice roll. The result is that his chance straight skill success drops from 30->25%; no great problem. Critical goes from 2->1%: same again. Specials from 6->1% and fumbles from 4->9 are more of a worry, but not too much: in a combat between people of these skills the important thing is just to land the first blow. Compare this with people with 95% skills one of whom becomes tired. In combats at this level criticals and specials are of vital importance. The tired 95%er has gone ordinary 95%-90%, special 19%-14%, critical 5%-1%!, fumble 1%->6%. Proportionally, the effects on his chances of success seem to be much worse than for the 30%er. ii) It is a bad precedent. It introduces a second type of success modifier into the game. Up to now all modifiers have been to chance of success, now there are modifiers to both chance and dice roll. This can firstly cause confusion but secondly will inspire GM's to use the die roll modifier in other situations, spells, magic items etc. I don't want to see a calcualtion of success involving: "Lets see 87% skill + 30% for bladesharp -20% for fighting from the ground; for the dice roll -10 fatigue, +5 for your lucky sword, -15 for monsters chaotic feature..." iii) It distorts the game system. Up to now critical has always been 5% of chance of success, special 20%, fumble 5% of failure. Die roll modifiers change this totally, and I think unnecessarily. iv) I have always seen critical and fumbles as a product of two things: skill and luck. The die roll modifiers for fatigue seem to have very little effect on skill (95%->90%) but a huge effect on luck: if you look at the fumble tables they are mainly cases of bad luck; criticals are mainly those lucky blows. Fatigue with die roll modifiers seem mainly to be bad luck. My suggestion for fatigue: keep the rest of the excellent current system, but apply the modifiers as a straight modifier to chance of success, like all other modifiers. This creates a problem with very highly skilled people being unaffected by fatigue, which is obviously unrealistic. Forunately, there is another number we can use: the chance of autofailure, which is currently fixed at 96-00%. If we apply the same modifier to autofailure as chance of success, we get the following Status Mod to Success Autofail on Tired -5% 90-00% Weary -10% 85-00% etc (I can't remember the other statuses) I can see a skilled person simply failing to succeed when tired much more easily than I can see him criticalling his nearest friend. I don't see the autofail as being very likely to be used in other ways. This also doesn't distort all the chances of criticals/specials/fumbles as does the current proposed system. Opinions? - End Old Message In the discussion about fatigue several posters agreed (Paul Reilly was one I saw in finding this piece) with me, but found the autofailure idea redundant. I ended up agreeing with them: simple modifiers would do IMHO > > I think Fatigue is very close to the previous draft, except that you roll > once for helmet and once for metal armor, in addition to just rolling. And While I applaud the idea of making helmets and armour more fatiguing, I don't like adding even more rolls to the game. > there's provision for rolling just before a fight if you've been walking > around all day in armor (which I like because I suggested :-). > A good idea as well Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19102; Sun, 6 Feb 94 20:57:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24938; Sun, 6 Feb 94 21:57:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 21:57:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 21:57:16 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatigue Date: Sun, 06 Feb 94 22:00:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24488392D7C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My two cents on the Fatigue issue: Except for long-term fatigue, I am not opposed to dropping or simplifying "in-battle" fatigue, as long as there is some mechanism in RQ to make wearing little or no armour a viable option in the game. One of my complaints in RQ2 was that everybody walked around in plate armour. The economics and ENC rules encouraged it. I know that when I wore chainmail and plate armour (in real life, and I am physically no wimp) I found it extremely difficult to move around in and (I imagine) to cast spells in (especially a skill based spell like sorcery). The RQ3 fatigue rules, along with fairly stiff penalties to skill rolls (like Dodge) for wearing armour, and the stiff price for same, encouraged some players to go the skulking swashbuckling route, which I like as a change of pace. Regards Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06778; Sun, 6 Feb 94 22:09:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28198; Sun, 6 Feb 94 23:09:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 23:09:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 23:08:56 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: casting spirit magic, ENC rules Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 20:08:43 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <245B9FE69B9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Philosophically, I'd like to point out that simple, even if inaccurate fatigue rules have the advantage over complicated even if accurate ones. The focus of the game is not on the effects of fatigue. Some fatigue rules are necessary as a limiting factor, to prevent someone from wearing 2 suits of plate, and carrying 6 magic swords {one for each ocassion} while running all day. Still, there is a limited amount of complexity you can put in a game, and I don't see putting any more than we absolutely have to into fatigue rules. Complicated fatigue rules, unlike say complicated spells, ass little to most people's enjoyment of the game, and therefore should be avoided.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15485; Mon, 7 Feb 94 00:35:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03018; Mon, 7 Feb 94 01:35:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:35:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:34:56 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: casting spirit magic, ENC rules; combat tactics Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 22:34:52 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <248290A1A8C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton Hughes, defending his ENC table that gave SIZ 16 people a benefit in lugging stuff over SIZ 15 folks, said: >David Dunham's problem with my version, namely the breakpoint at 15-16, >is not that big a deal, because the SIZ 16 person's armor, weapons, >and other stuff will all have to be half again as big as a smaller per- >son's, so for most purposes it cancels out. Yuck. So if my character Aslak the Medium breaks his sword and Kjartan the Large gives Aslak his sword, I have to keep track that his sword is bigger and heavier than the original? And if I'm playing Kjartan, I always have to look at the equipment lists and multiply by 1.5? Sorry, but I do consider both points a big deal. >OK, I started this thinking I was going to go on about spirit magic. >Nick Brooke pointed out the various roles INT, POW, and DEX play in >casting a spirit spell, with the intention of justifying a POW x 5 >casting roll. But POW already influences spirit spellcasting, not >only by providing a source of MPs but by making it possible to learn >the spell through combat with the spell spirit. I'd rather not be >bothered with the POW x 5. Back to RQ2's 95% chance? I could live with that, too. Although in practice, it's rare that you don't learn from spell spirits (they have low POW and you're frequently aided with Spirit Screen). Tim Leask wants to change Special Combat Tactics: >IMHO these should function as full blown skills with a separate roll. The >skill with the tactic should be capped at related weapon skill -50%. >e.g. Someone with 90% Broadsword can't have a riposte skill greater than 40%. >The skill is only rolled for if the related weapon skill succeeds. >If a change along these lines is deemed undesirable then the tactics >as currently written should be a prime candidate for omission since they >add extra complexity with little if any impact on game play (IMHO). The big advantage of the rules as per the current draft is you don't need to roll twice. Graeme Lindsell said: >My >suggestion was to always base fatigue rolls on Con*5, and have the levels >of encumberance add extra negative modifiers to the Con*5 roll, say -10% >per level It's still the case that the CON 10 guy has 5 times the chance of being fatigued from a light load than a CON 18 guy, but we're likely stuck with that. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18726; Mon, 7 Feb 94 01:58:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04398; Mon, 7 Feb 94 02:58:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 2:58:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 2:58:24 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: higher level playing; Fatigue Date: Sun, 06 Feb 1994 23:58:14 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2498D3E035C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham, trying to clarify his argument and adding a new idea. Graeme A Lindsell reiterates his desire for high-level rules: > The attitude you and Nick displayed "So what": I've never seen a RQ >campaign played at less than 70% skills for the PC's major skills. In the >groups I have played in high initiate to rune level seems to be the standard. >This probably isn't typical and I accept that most groups play at the lower >levels, but one of the ideas behind rq4 is to increase the popularity of the >system, rather than to shut out those people who like to play the higher >levels. I've been in many such a low-level game. And none where any skills are over 110%. So if you think lots of people will be running around with 150% skills, what sort of benefits do you think they should have? They do have the much greater chance of doing double damage (or special tactic), which is probably what it'll take to knock down the Parry Master's defense. And for non-combat skills, they also have the higher chance to special or crit. (A reasonable suggestion might be a way to trade 50% skill for an improvement of 1 SR; it's reasonable that masters are quicker. This rule wouldn't be limited to masters, of course. You'd be trading off special/critical for speed. Note that the reverse isn't possible. Many non-combat skills could also be performed more quickly at a cost of 50%.) Joerg agrees with Graeme and doesn't like adding to die roll: >I'll agree that in fatigued state (e.g. after 48 hours of continuous >work) one is likely to fumble or fail more often, but one can still excel >and produce crits and specials as well, though less frequently compared >to unfatigued state. > >To achieve this effect, I'd prefer the usual skill reduction. But skill reduction has a minimal chance to affect fumble. Remember, we now have the very nice and simple 99 or 00 (just 00 when above 90%). I haven't fenced in a couple years, so I can't remember exactly what happens when I get tired (I don't think I suddenly start dropping my sword or hitting myself [tho I've done both]), but I know it gets harder to do powerful attacks like lunges. But it doesn't really matter -- I don't want to simulate reality, I want to tell a good story, and I'm willing to exaggerate for dramatic effect. Losing 10% from skills isn't that noticeable; adding +3 to the chance to fumble, is. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23093; Mon, 7 Feb 94 04:25:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06421; Mon, 7 Feb 94 05:24:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 5:25:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 5:24:47 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Learning and Casting Spirit Magic Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 09:09:36 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24BFDFB341C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham > Back to RQ2's 95% chance? I could live with that, too. Although in > practice, it's rare that you don't learn from spell spirits (they have low > POW and you're frequently aided with Spirit Screen). This was discussed on the Daily lately. I'd welcome if RQ:AiG opted this Spirit Screen method for spell learning explicitly out. Do you want to learn the spell, or do you want to keep the spirit off? 95% chance: too high for my taste, too reliable. I liked Nick's optional rule for different chances of success in different spells. The problem of burning off already too scarce Magic Points for low POW characters is hairy indeed. The main reason for this is IMHO that the Magic Point as basic unit for magical energy is about as handy as the cow or a wheel as basic unit for pocket exchange. If failing to cast a spell has no effect on the caster at all, we'll have to face power-gaming at large. At least penalize the spell caster with fatigue. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21185; Mon, 7 Feb 94 03:17:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05571; Mon, 7 Feb 94 04:17:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 4:17:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 4:17:23 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AiG - Cover, Intro and First Impressions Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 01:17:21 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24ADE4E0814@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson writes: I've now had the good part of a weekend to read my play test copy of RQ:AiG and I feel that now is the time to publish the results of my reading. THE COVER My previous comments about the cover where given without the benefit of having a copy to hand, but now I have seen the current cover. It is a rather splendid picture of a village set in the clearing of a wooding area overlooked by the head of true dragon which is doing a relatively good impression of a large hill. The picture is half toned so I suspect the orginial is in full colour. I am still more inclined to see men and women involved in a non- -violent but dramatic situation but this picture would still look excellent somewhere else in the rules. The current picture incline people to believe that this book is just a Gloranthan source book. THE INTRODUCTION The introduction is very good although people might be inclined to skip the mythos section which I found very interesting. Even though I should have have recognised the myth about the Bright Empire, telling it from a different perspective form RQ2 and reavealing the Deciever later rtahter than at the start was a nice touch. If people are interested they will peobably come back to the mythos part as they start to attempt to tighten up any loose ends. *On page 2 there is a good summary of the Runes although the Light Rune is missing, although this Rune appears in other places eg. page 110 with the Apparent Effects of Cult and Devine Magic. *On page 1 / What is RuneQuest? the RuneQuest rules are described as the common thread that bring players and the gamemaster together and that they provide the *mechanisms* for resolving the situations that arise in the course of the game. Prehaps provide the *means* for resolving the situations might be better, or something similiar. For althought mechanisms might be correct from a gaming point of view this style of speech could be a little intimidating for a non-gamer. *On page 1 / What is Glorantha? in the first two sentences the verb explored is used twice in reference to Gloranatha. Prehaps an alternative can be found to both stress that Golarantha is imaginary and to provide some variety prehaps making the first sentence: `Glorantha is the most thoroughly developed game world [...]` FIRST IMPRESSIONS RQ:AiG is well laid out and packed with a lot of material. Maybe because the first two chapters are quite long on my first appraisal I thought that the book contained only a few, long chapters. It is not as easy to read in some places as I would have hoped and I am not confident that the relationship betweem proffesions and background points have been explained as well as they could have been. I deal with this seperately later on. One good example of the improvements RQ:AiG has brougt over RQ2 can be demonstrated by the Hit Points per Location table. At the bottom is an explanation of how the table has been derived, with fraction of Hit Points each location possess. Also the table is now on presented in a point by point basis which possibly deals with the infamous Murphys Laws comment that characters with lower Hit Points can survive having their arms and legs cut off while supposedly tougher characters die from the same treatment. The reading, and planning for play testing. continues ... Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21439; Mon, 7 Feb 94 03:36:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05788; Mon, 7 Feb 94 04:36:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 4:36:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 4:35:52 EST From: Eric Rowe To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: A few gripes Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 01:35:49 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24B2D2827F2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Now that I've finally had time to read some of the rules here are a few of my gripes. 1. Current ability to withstand damage from wounds. I extremely dislike the ability to have my arm hacked off while I continue to fight. This seems very Monty Python Black Knightish. I don't like it. Most of my players prefer RQ because the combat make it more possible to die. Under the new rules it seems rather difficult to kill someone. I recall Greg said that combat in Glorantha was more deadly that the old RQ rules portrayed it (because of too many heal 6 spells). The new rules seem a change in the wrong direction. Why was this changed at all? Did players complain they died too much when they fought all the time? Don't fix it if it ain't broke. 2. While the mechanic for DI's seems reasonable, I believe it breaks the compromise. A Humakti might just ask for 10 Sever Spirits and start blasting people. I for one (though others may disagree) believe this would violate the compromise in having the DI affect directly the worshippers of other gods. I say stick to the GM's choice, using the spells available from the god as a guideline. Much the same as was mentioned back in Stafford's article on DI's in Wyrm's Footnotes. 3. Disease. My players will die when any stat reaches 0, even APP. I hope the authors consider taking into account the expanded disease rules that will be in Lords of Terror and make these compatible. They are better than the ones in the RQ4 rules. eric  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22354; Mon, 7 Feb 94 03:46:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05927; Mon, 7 Feb 94 04:46:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 4:46:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 4:46:43 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 01:46:39 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24B5B70756E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Three beam binders are very rare in the UK. You might be lucky and discover one in a stationary shop but this is very rare. About the only place you will find 3-Bean Binders is the offices of companies that are subsidaries of American corporations and even then the binders tend to come from the parent directly, rather than from a UK source. In the UK we used either two hole or four hole ring binders. I have a copy of the Monsterous Compendium. I was not impressed either with the quality of the binder or the production of the booklets supposed designed to be easily inserted into them. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24504; Mon, 7 Feb 94 05:11:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06919; Mon, 7 Feb 94 06:11:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 6:11:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 6:11:27 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Two Checks?? Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 01:49:17 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24CC5145EEA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> writes: > Because I play little people most of the time, I feel there is little point > in further skewing the rules against us. (I also feel it's not important to > have a rule-set that allows the Crimson Bat to take on PCs one-to-one. > Unlike some contributors). > You know, I could do without sarcasm just because some of us actually prefer to USE the rune level characters that are some of the point in the system, and have the silly expectation that the rules should actually give us a clue how to do so. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24372; Mon, 7 Feb 94 05:03:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06821; Mon, 7 Feb 94 06:02:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 6:02:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 6:02:42 EST From: Mystic Musk Ox To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: time dependant skills, orate, debate, bargain etc Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:04 BST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24C9FB706F3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ==== from Nick: ==== >TIME DEPENDANT SKILLS: ... >I'm also unsure how you would gamemaster (say) an Orator haranguing the >masses under the rule that a special success can take half as long or >produce a result of twice the quality. OK, so you say the base time is an >hour, and after fifteen minutes what do you tell the speaker: "You have >incensed their passions somewhat after fifteen minutes..." etc? At what >point in the speech does the speaker have to decide whether he's going for >a quick or a solid success? The current rule is obscure on this point. >Also, on the question of whether the player or the GM should decide whether >the result to be obtained comes quicker or better with varying levels of >success: there are situations when either would be advantageous in very >different ways (inciting a mob is an obvious instance). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some while ago I posted a method that I use for competitve actions such as bargaining, orating etc, which seems to be relevant to the above, which I have (again) reproduced below. It has the advantage that it introduces no new systems, and gives a visual representation of non-combat actions, which I find gives players a much better idea of how they are doing. It is also a very 'open' system, in that the situation, modifiers applied etc are dependant on the circumstances at the time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bargain Skill. My campaign is about to move into a largeish city that is basically a trading centre. I was reading through the Bargain description, but basically felt unhappy with it, mostly because it doesn't take into account the fact that the other guy might have Bargain skill too... So, after a bit of fiddling about, we came up with a simple suggestion for all those useful cases where points are being argued etc... You need: A track of 11 boxes in a row, 2 counters. Bargain: Both parties decide on their initial price (presumably high for seller, low for buyer). This has to be somewhere reasonable, else no-one would be trading in the first place, although could be modified by scarcity, desperateness of buyer etc, etc. Take the difference, divide by 10, allocate low price to one end, high to the other, increments of 1/10th in between. Counters start at each end, one for each bargainer. Both roll their skill, effect is: Critical: move opponents counter 3 spaces towards your end Special: move opponents counter 2 spaces Normal: move opponents counter 1 space Fail: no move Fumble: move your counter 1 space towards the opponent Thus a counter could move 4 spaces in 1 round (Critical + Fumble) When the counters end up in the same space, that is the agreed price. If the counters cross, the price is determined by ratios of move. (we originally tried 'attack' and 'parry' rolls, but figured that this didn't really add anything extra, except a lot of dice rolls) Orate,Debate: Allocate a result to either end of the track. One counter starts in the centre box. Orator rolls skill, moves counter as above (3,2,1,0 or -1 spaces) to desired end of track. opponents roll, they move as desired. When the counter reaches the end of a track, end of debate. Skilled opposing Orators may go on for a long time! Give an amount of time eg 5 mins, 1 hour etc to each pair of rolls dependant on the type of contest. Crowds etc may be given an inherent 'resistance' represented by a %. Modifiers: to skill, start position of counter etc. Optional: For multiple Orators, use a hex grid, and a hexagonal board. Corners are chosen by the orators etc, with a counter starting in the centre (or offset to represent initial prejudice). Each contestant rolling may move the counter. Once counter enters a contestants corner, the argument has been won by that faction.(I haven't tried this version yet) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Buckley ---------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24146; Mon, 7 Feb 94 04:49:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06645; Mon, 7 Feb 94 05:49:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 5:49:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 5:49:14 EST From: quoll!robertl@quoll.logica.co.uk To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:44:39 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24C66446F55@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From Robert Longson I would like to agree with Graeme Lindsell that the fatigue system is flawed in affecting the chances of rolling a critical so much. I would like to put my vote such as it is with his suggestion. > > My suggestion for fatigue: keep the rest of the excellent current > system, but apply the modifiers as a straight modifier to chance of > success, like all other modifiers. This creates a problem with > very highly skilled people being unaffected by fatigue, which > is obviously unrealistic. Forunately, there is another number we can > use: the chance of autofailure, which is currently fixed at 96-00%. > If we apply the same modifier to autofailure as chance of success, > we get the following > > Status Mod to Success Autofail on > Tired -5% 90-00% > Weary -10% 85-00% > etc (I can't remember the other statuses) > > I can see a skilled person simply failing to succeed when tired much > more easily than I can see him criticalling his nearest friend. I > don't see the autofail as being very likely to be used in other ways. > This also doesn't distort all the chances of criticals/specials/fumbles > as does the current proposed system. > > While I applaud the idea of making helmets and armour more fatiguing, I > don't like adding even more rolls to the game. > I also think that armour deserves one roll altogether. The main problem with helmets is that you can't see or hear as well in em. Modifiers are already applied against these for helmets. Wearing one on your head isn't too bad otherwise. Well no worse than any other piece of armour.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28143; Mon, 7 Feb 94 07:14:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12256; Mon, 7 Feb 94 08:14:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 8:14:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 8:14:10 EST From: Mark Gagnon To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Three-Bean Binders and other formats Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 08:14:59 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24ED0A73B26@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Regarding 3-Ring Binders, etc. Please, for the love of whatever gods you hold dear, print the bloody thing on acid-free paper! Cheap paper is the bane of publishing... (neurotic behaviour mode off....) Mark Gagnon (mgagnon@julian.uwo.ca) University of Western Ontario =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ignus aurum probat, miseria fortes viros Fire tests gold; adversity strong men =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= School of Library and Information Science, Elborn College, London ON  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01155; Mon, 7 Feb 94 08:25:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15776; Mon, 7 Feb 94 09:23:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 9:25:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 9:23:05 EST From: zca41122@rpool1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Wagner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Unsubscribe RQ-Playtest Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 15:22:40 +0100 (MEZ) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24FF6D93859@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Please unsubscribe RQ-Playtest Thanx Ralf Wagner :x  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01501; Mon, 7 Feb 94 08:30:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16197; Mon, 7 Feb 94 09:30:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 9:30:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 9:30:23 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: my least favorite spell Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 08:29:30 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2501601321B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I was glad to see somebody else hated Lightwall.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01817; Mon, 7 Feb 94 08:36:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16609; Mon, 7 Feb 94 09:36:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 9:36:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 9:35:52 EST From: Karl S Wilkinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Higher level playing. Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 14:35:11 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2502D6555D6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > The problems with high level skills start at 96% and get worse as they > go higher. The basic problem is that skills over 96% only give advantages > to critical and specials and the ability to ignore negative modifiers (which > seem to be fairly rarely used). A fight between a character with (say) 40% > skills and one with 60% skills will usually go to the 60%er; a fight between > a 100%er and a 150%er is far less certain. The character with 150% skill, > though according to the games system far more experienced and talented, > does not have a great edge over the other. What the game system tells us is > great skill (given the time, difficulty, ability and luck to reach 150% > skill) is not reflected in the actual mechanics. > > (The new fatigue rules exacerbates the problem IMO, by taking away the > few advantages very high skills have, that of ignoring adverse conditions) > ... > The attitude you and Nick displayed "So what": I've never seen a RQ > campaign played at less than 70% skills for the PC's major skills. In the > groups I have played in high initiate to rune level seems to be the standard. > This probably isn't typical and I accept that most groups play at the lower > levels, but one of the ideas behind rq4 is to increase the popularity of the > system, rather than to shut out those people who like to play the higher > levels. I've gamesmastered RQ3 at 90%-120% levels on a couple of occasions and have included NPCs with significantly higher combat skills and haven't found to much of a problem. Combatants with higher skills admittedly don't have much of an advantage if they just 'slog away', but if the use aimed blows and split attacks they become much more effective. E.g. A player with 180% attack any parry can fight two 90% skill combatants on almost an equal level, assuming his DEX is reasonable. If an opponant is missing armour in a location (e.g. not walking around town with a helm on.) it is a significant advantage to be able to aim for that location and still have a good chance to hit. (Or alternatively just aim for an already wounded location.) I also use penalties quite often (e.g. poor visibility. Don't Trolls attack at night in other peoples games?) so skills > 100% are helpfull here too. Missile fire is another example, due to the halving effect of long range. I don't know how RQ4 affects the above, but under RQ3 I'd certainly be better of with 200% combat skills than 100%!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12039; Sun, 6 Feb 94 18:41:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20353; Sun, 6 Feb 94 19:41:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 19:41:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 19:41:09 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue; Agility etc. Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:39:11 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24243626880@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > Graeme Lindsell dislikes the idea of adding to skill rolls when Fatigued. > > While some of his points are valid, I think a simple minus to the skill > isn't serious enough to bother with. If you want to discourage people from > wearing super heavy armor, make the penalties significant enough to notice. Ok, -10 off skill per each level of fatigue: significant enough for you? > Reduced crit/increased fumble does that. Adding to the roll may not be > mathematically correct, but at least it's easy. Yes, it easily begins the destruction of the rq system and it's evolution into something like AD&D, with a different mechanic for every situation RQ has a mechanic for dealing with increased difficulty or bad situation: a negative modifier to the skill, either as a value subtracted (Darkness, distance etc) or a fractional multiplier of the skill (Demoralize). I don't see why fatigue has to have a completely different one. > > I don't see changing autofailure as being significantly better; it too is a > new game mechanic. Which is why I eventually agreed that it should only be a straight negative modifier, as I said in my post > As I've said elsewhere, I think the real problem may be the CON roll > itself; with a CON of 10, there's only a 10% penalty for being one level > overencumbered, as opposed to the 15% penalty for someone with a CON of 15. > It seemed that the minimax players would have lower-CON characters wear > heavier armor. This is a problemin any system where you use a changing multiplier of a fixed value to determine difficulty (ie the James Bonds 007 system). My suggestion was to always base fatigue rolls on Con*5, and have the levels of encumberance add extra negative modifiers to the Con*5 roll, say -10% per level > > Nick Brooke pointed out > >Some skills (Pick Lock, Track) allow a failed skill roll to be retried > >until fumbled, halving then quartering (and so on) the skill level for each > >successive try. I don't like this much, as fumbles remain very unlikely, A simpler solution for such skills is to only give them one attempt: if they fail, they need to get new information, equipment etc before they can try again. > >while success chance is always at least 5%. It might be easier to allow > >retries at +10 to the D100 roll per time, greatly increasing the chance of > >a lock-jamming, trail-losing fumble (given that the adventure is by now > >aware he doesn't know what he's doing, this seems fair to me). > > which, is reasonable and, if adopted, would eliminate one of Graeme's > complaints against the effects of Fatigue. Which one - that fatigue is unique? It also confirms my prediction that if the add to die roll mechanic is added to fatigue, it will be used for other situations as well, with the result that the GM will have to keep track of two entirely different sets of modifiers. > I'm swayed by Nick's argument; low-POW characters shouldn't be penalized > for trying to cast spells. The waste of most spell-casting actions is > probably penalty enough. I support the "lose 1 MP only when you fumble" he > proposes. It's not much of a penalty for fumbling: I'd go for no effect if fail, lose all the MP in the spell if fumbled. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17247; Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:28:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29805; Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:27:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:28:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:27:29 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Higher level playing. Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 09:27:23 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25309820671@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In seeing the complaints about the supposed lack of support for high-level skills in RQ4, I am wondering what people thought about RQ2 and its rules for the same thing. In combat, there were two mechanics for a person over 100% in an attack: a. if fighting one opponent, you could lower your own skill to 100% and reduce the opponents parry chance by the amount you lowered your attack. So, a 200% swordsman ALWAYS hits a 100% parrier. Brutal perhaps, but it certainly makes for useful high-skill. b. if fighting multiple opponents, you could split you attack between them. This rules was kept in RQ3 and as pointed out by someone above (sorry, forgot who) it works quite well. I have always used these RQ2 rules in RQ3 when high skills came up. If you also extend them to >100% parry skills then things work great. Combined with the RQ3 aimed blow rule and the ability to ignore penalties to hit, I think the rules do handle high levels well. I don't have a copy of the new draft, but is that RQ2 rule there? If not, it would be very simple to include it. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19878; Mon, 7 Feb 94 11:53:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02039; Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:53:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:53:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:53:29 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: higher level playing; Fatigue Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 09:53:15 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <253787505D2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> If we want to beef up over 100% combat skills, why not allow all gains above this to be added to a characters chance to pull off a special combat tactic. Thus, special tactics would take effect at 20% + how skill over 100?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21347; Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:10:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03261; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:10:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:10:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:10:18 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:10:08 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <253C0451556@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Does anyone else have a problem with the wide variation in the power of weapon affecting and attack magic among nominally warrior cults. Specifically, I find it bizarre that Yelmalio, a nominally warrior cult has no spear affecting divine magic, and little combat cult magic. Having the truth rune and a large outfit of spear using mercenaries, it makes little sense that they do not have TrueSpear. Again, what does Hwarin Dalthippa offer the monitors who supposedly join it. They do not accept sorceror initiates, though many monitors are sorcerors {creating a character chapter}. Their combat magic, both Divine and Cult is nothing to write home about. They should have Truespear or a sickle enhancing spell. Or accept sorcerors as acolytes. Another oddity is Lodril having two spear enhancing spells, FireSpear and Lava Spear, though Lodril is NOT a warrior cult. This is more spells than most of the spear using warrior cults have.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21842; Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:17:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03727; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:16:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:16:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:16:36 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Arlia Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:16:23 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <253DB1274D5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think it is an obvious bug in the rules that Arlia seems to have neither speak own language, nor Custom . These skills should be free to all characters, since we do not want characters without them. More subtly, since the Divine Magic chapters states that the priests usually demand either Ceremony or Lore to become an initiate, I do not see why the rules allow Arlia to become an initiate without either of these skills at at least Trained level.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22399; Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:25:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04436; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:24:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:24:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:24:21 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirit Combat Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 10:24:10 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <253FC3D6D70@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Maurer is concerned that the elimination of the earlier RQ rule that only one spirit can attack at a time; plus the introduction of the all out attack option; plus the fact that unless you take an action you defend at 0; makes Shamans world beaters. On reflection I concur with him. Imagine 4 pain spirits sent in against one enemy charging a shaman. If the enemy continues the charge, he is defenseless against 4 all out attacks and should shortly be possessed at 0 MP. The possessing spirit {which one, by the way?} remains behind; the next guy gets him with 3, etc. This could get pretty nasty?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22806; Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:30:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04877; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:30:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:30:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:30:00 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:28:11 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25414426D26@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell says: # # The problems with high level skills start at 96% and get worse as they # go higher. The basic problem is that skills over 96% only give advantages # to critical and specials and the ability to ignore negative modifiers (which # seem to be fairly rarely used). A fight between a character with (say) 40% # skills and one with 60% skills will usually go to the 60%er; a fight between # a 100%er and a 150%er is far less certain. The character with 150% skill, # though according to the games system far more experienced and talented, # does not have a great edge over the other. What the game system tells us is # great skill (given the time, difficulty, ability and luck to reach 150% # skill) is not reflected in the actual mechanics. I have lobbied Oliver J several times to have combat skills over 100% subtract from the parry/dodge of the defender. (I'm not sure about having a 101+ parry/dodge subtract from an attacker, however). OJ doesn't like the idea, however, so no beans. I believe I've also seen this applied (in print?) to other skills. Is it just my feeble memory, or do I remember a published source suggesting that a lock maker with skill over 100% would reduce the chance of a pick attempt? Trollpak - Sazdorf "dungeon," right? Some of the dwarf-made doors were -50% to be found, and some of the lock -30% to be picked, right? HOWEVER, I am very comfortable leaving such a rules section for a magazine article in _White Wolf_ or something, or perhaps banishing it to tiny print in an appendix. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25544; Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:51:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06810; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:51:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:51:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:51:27 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Arlia Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 10:51:09 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2546FC54A4A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham responding to Ray Turney: >I think it is an obvious bug in the rules that Arlia seems to have neither >speak own language, nor Custom . These skills should be free >to all characters, since we do not want characters without them. Speak Own has a base of 50% [58]; Custom Own has a base of 50% [64]. >More subtly, since the Divine Magic chapters states that the priests usually >demand either Ceremony or Lore to become an initiate, I do not see >why the rules allow Arlia to become an initiate without either of these >skills at at least Trained level. You need only make 3 of 5 skill rolls; presumably you're allowed to miss Cult Lore. Still, it ought to be easier to learn these as a lay member -- it's not possible under the rules.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28701; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:37:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10398; Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:36:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:36:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:36:11 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: speak own language, cultural wpns Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 13:17:07 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2552EB52A7C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here. In RQ2 your ability to speak your native language started at INT x 5, which struck me as OK, on the moderately generous side. In RQ3 your ability to speak your native language started at 30 plus bonus, which struck me as extremely tight-fisted. What is it in RQ4? About cultural weapons, I hated the way nomads got the shaft in RQ3. Riding skill ought to have been counted as a cultural weapon starting at 40%. As it stood nomads couldn't ride worth beans. Hope they fare better in the current draft.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28257; Mon, 7 Feb 94 13:30:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09846; Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:30:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:30:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:29:54 EST From: "Black, Stephen Thomas" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 13:29:39 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25513E41E76@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> unsubscribe blackst@okra.millsaps.edu  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05460; Sun, 6 Feb 94 21:46:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27255; Sun, 6 Feb 94 22:46:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 6 Feb 94 22:46:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 6 Feb 94 22:46:07 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 14:33:25 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24558A91A2B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Tim Leask I agree with the objections raised by Graeme Lindsell(sp?) on the fatigue rules, but rather than subtracting a flat 10% from the skill per level of fatigue (which penalises low skills too heavily) I'd prefer that skills were reduced by one fifth per level of fatigue. e.g. a 50% skill is reduced to 40%, 100% is reduced to 80% after one failed roll. I also agree with the suggestion that the CONx5 roll have a straight percentage penalty applied (e.g. -10%) per level of encumbrance rather than a reduction in the multiplier. Lunar Cult Magic (Battle Magic) I don't like the proposed changes of making Lunar battle magic cyclic in nature. If this must be done the effects should be changed. I'd rather see magic point costs for spells halved on Full Moon days doubled on Dark days and normal the rest of the time, rather than the effects described. Special Combat Tactics (Modify or remove) IMHO these should function as full blown skills with a separate roll. The skill with the tactic should be capped at related weapon skill -50%. e.g. Someone with 90% Broadsword can't have a riposte skill greater than 40%. The skill is only rolled for if the related weapon skill succeeds. If a change along these lines is deemed undesirable then the tactics as currently written should be a prime candidate for omission since they add extra complexity with little if any impact on game play (IMHO). Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10130; Mon, 7 Feb 94 15:32:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18632; Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:31:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:32:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:31:40 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: dispel magic-type Heal spells Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 15:24:09 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2571B7C5D4F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here, yet again. Question about RQ4: what did they do about the Heal spell? I remember Loren Miller's idea about the Dispel Magic-type Heal, that only affected a location if the damage to the location was less than or equal to the spell's intensity. I thought that was one of the most reasonable and intelligent ideas for improvements that I've read on this list. It certainly stopped my own players cold--they had a munchkinly habit of trying to heal 5 or 6 pt. injuries by chipping away at them with Heal 2. No keeping track of individual wounds either. So did this idea make it into the latest draft? PS. I greatly apreciate my opportunity to use this mailing list to get 10 years of whining about Runequest out of my system. This has been tremendously therapeutic for me. Hope it doesn't annoy the rest of you too much.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13605; Mon, 7 Feb 94 15:59:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20305; Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:58:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:58:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:58:31 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: dispel magic-type Heal spells, Sorcerer's Familiars Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:02:57 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2578E283923@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris here > Newton here, yet again. > > Question about RQ4: what did they do about the Heal spell? I remember > Loren Miller's idea about the Dispel Magic-type Heal, that only affected > a location if the damage to the location was less than or equal to the > spell's intensity. I thought that was one of the most reasonable and > intelligent ideas for improvements that I've read on this list. It > certainly stopped my own players cold--they had a munchkinly habit of > trying to heal 5 or 6 pt. injuries by chipping away at them with Heal 2. > No keeping track of individual wounds either. > So did this idea make it into the latest draft? No, it didn't, darn it. The "Heal-Sharp" mechanic was used for the sorcery version of Heal (Treat Wound, I think), but the spirit magic Heal is basically that same consarned method. I wrote in asking for the "only max heal cast works" mechanic, as I would like for bleeding to be stoppable with small heals. Actually, it still could with the "Dispel Wound" method, as they make large Heals able to do special things. The spell allows Heal 6 to reattach a limb (no damage is healed, it's just reattached) if a First Aid roll is made to get it set right. Also, Heal 8 can be used to heal 1 point of general HP damage. If the "Dispel Wound" method is used, then could also say that Heal 1 can be used to stop bleeding, but does no actual healing unless is was a 1 point wound. On another note, I had an idea to help sorcerers out with the current manipulation rules. If they could have their familiar Hold or Maintain spells for them, it would be very useful, and possibly make familiars worthwhile again. Since they got rid of the Free Int mechanic (thank Malkion) familiars are of little utility, especially the staff or mandala type that are likely the most common (I just don't see Western Wizards leading the congregation in prayer with a marmoset or lemur or any such critter hanging around; they'ld have their staff w/Malkion's triangle). -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13592; Mon, 7 Feb 94 15:59:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20311; Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:58:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:59:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:58:42 EST From: fkiesche3@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: re: This Mailing List Date: Mon, 07 Feb 94 17:03:30 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2578EF21401@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Unfortunately, I am one of those who would rather see this list available as a digest. Now, before you get your gander up, there is a real--economic--reason for this. Us unfortuantes who pay for our own account on a commercial service (in my case, America Online) really want to participate, but we are getting slaughtered by connect costs. A digest of 20 messages costs less than 20 individual messages, and here's the catch, with 20 sets of headers. Maybe we can have it available (as many other lists are) in both formats: Interactive for the high-power users and digest for us commercial-access-users... So, please consider us poor outsiders in your discussions back and forth... Thanks! Fred Kiesche (FKiesche3@aol.com)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22476; Mon, 7 Feb 94 17:23:50 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26251; Mon, 7 Feb 94 18:22:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 18:23:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 18:22:21 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Adds to Die Rolls Date: 07 Feb 94 17:12:59 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <258F3E132B7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> It's Nick Brooke again... Get some proper mailing software, and these messages will get shorter. Graeme says he doesn't like adding to die rolls because that makes fumbles more common, and that he also doesn't like making fumbles less vicious (to compensate for this). Pretty intractable. I see three fairly basic mechanics in RQ:AiG where adding to die rolls is IMHO the simplest way of applying a universally-debilitating penalty. (1) Fatigue; (2) adding ENC (or ENC over POW)* to spell casting rolls; (3) +10 to the die roll per retry at Track, Pick Lock, etc. The first of these instances is in the draft rules already; the latter two are my own recent suggestions. In all three cases, the people who complain loudest will be those with "the most toys" -- people with high skills stand to lose most from a decrease in Critical and increase in Fumble chance. As an egalitarian type, who'd have cheered on the trollkin who gave Rurik one where it hurts, I enjoy this. A straight penalty to skill chance or cast chance would go all but unnoticed by those "heroic" Rune Lords, etc. In the latter two (which were my inventions), a Fumble (under my rules) is not disastrous. Losing 1 MP for fumbling a spell cast? That used to be the penalty for a simple failure! And how badly can it hurt to lose a track or screw up a lock that you already knew was too difficult for you first time? For the prime example, Fatigue, I'd suggest a *tiny* tweak to the rules. A modified fumble is only ever a Standard Fumble. For those without access to the current draft, the Standard Fumble is "Lose an action next round". Not too bad a penalty, eh? So we have three common-enough situations (being knackered, casting spells, and trying something you *know* you probably won't get right), for each of which the most attractive mechanic (to Nick) is an addition to the die roll rather than a modifier or multiplier to the skill percentage. There's one for the Hobgoblins... * re: using ENC over POW as an add to spell rolls: Would some mathematical chap out there like to tell me if using ENC over SIZ instead as a positive modifier to spell casting rolls avoids the problems of big people suffering worse penalties for larger equipment? I can't be bothered to check just now. If not, we could always fall back on the established (though largely discredited) RQ2-era correspondence between large masses of metal and magic-resistance in Glorantha... PS: Ray said, > Another oddity is Lodril having two spear enhancing spells, FireSpear > and Lava Spear, though Lodril is NOT a warrior cult. This is more > spells than most of the spear using warrior cults have. Lodril is a Phallic cult, not a Warrior cult. The spells are thus entirely appropriate for his worshippers, though they are discouraged from learning and using them by their prudish Dara Happan (etc.) overlords. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16439; Mon, 7 Feb 94 16:24:06 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21953; Mon, 7 Feb 94 17:23:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 17:23:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 17:23:37 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character Sheets Date: 07 Feb 94 17:13:18 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <257F9497393@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here, for those without eyes to see. David Dunham has kindly sent me a couple of his RQ:Glorantha character sheets. They look nice to me, and he has recently agreed with everything I ever said on this line, so I am prepared to connive at distributing them. If anyone wants a copy and lives in a civilised part of Europe, email me your address (privately, to 100270,337@CompuServe.COM, or wherever I am from your end: NOT to this echo line!) and I'll post you a copy. If numbers get ruinous, I'll send notice of my financial limitations to this line. But I don't imagine that'll be a problem... ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15706; Mon, 7 Feb 94 00:40:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03142; Mon, 7 Feb 94 01:40:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:40:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 1:40:23 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 17:38:23 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <24840570FCD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Wayne Shaw replies to: > David Dunham writes: > > > > > Rune level characters aren't necessarily over 125% (or whatever level > > things break down at). But they are spending 90% of their time in temple > > duty, which may make them inappropriate for normal play. > > > Sorry, David, but I don't buy it. The original RQ campaign we had > locally had most of the adventures based around the character's temple > duties; you can bet with Rune Lords that mightly little of that involves > sitting around the temple doing clerical stuff. And in a purely rune level (ie all characters are rune levels) campaign the GM is able to completely ignore the rules about 90% time if he sees fit. To David Dunham: The problems with high level skills start at 96% and get worse as they go higher. The basic problem is that skills over 96% only give advantages to critical and specials and the ability to ignore negative modifiers (which seem to be fairly rarely used). A fight between a character with (say) 40% skills and one with 60% skills will usually go to the 60%er; a fight between a 100%er and a 150%er is far less certain. The character with 150% skill, though according to the games system far more experienced and talented, does not have a great edge over the other. What the game system tells us is great skill (given the time, difficulty, ability and luck to reach 150% skill) is not reflected in the actual mechanics. (The new fatigue rules exacerbates the problem IMO, by taking away the few advantages very high skills have, that of ignoring adverse conditions) For a long time people have ignored the problems with skills over 95% because of the never ending promise of Heroquest. Now that HQ is clearly indefinitely postponed and may not even use the RQ system when it appears the rq system should take account of those people who want to play at the higher levels and give them the game mechanics to make it work. The attitude you and Nick displayed "So what": I've never seen a RQ campaign played at less than 70% skills for the PC's major skills. In the groups I have played in high initiate to rune level seems to be the standard. This probably isn't typical and I accept that most groups play at the lower levels, but one of the ideas behind rq4 is to increase the popularity of the system, rather than to shut out those people who like to play the higher levels. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29994; Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:19:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03696; Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:19:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:19:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:19:08 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: A few gripes; cover; fatigue; shamans Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 17:18:54 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25AE63E1A60@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham responding to Eric Rowe: >I extremely >dislike the ability to have my arm hacked off while I continue to >fight. This seems very Monty Python Black Knightish. I don't like >it. Most of my players prefer RQ because the combat make it more >possible to die. Under the new rules it seems rather difficult to >kill someone. I recall Greg said that combat in Glorantha was more >deadly that the old RQ rules portrayed it (because of too many heal 6 >spells). The new rules seem a change in the wrong direction. Why was >this changed at all? Did players complain they died too much when >they fought all the time? Don't fix it if it ain't broke. Having just read some Icelandic sagas where people get their hand chopped off without too serious an effect, it seems OK to me. And given that people probably don't die instantly, I like the current rules better than RQ3. After all, if they're on the ground and can't fight, what do you care if they're dead or just dying? >Guy Robinson writes: >It is a rather splendid picture of a village set in the clearing of >a wooding area overlooked by the head of true dragon which is doing >a relatively good impression of a large hill. The picture is half >toned so I suspect the orginial is in full colour. In fact, it's a black & white that appeared on the back of Genertela: Player's Book (which you surely have, as it's one of the best works on Gloranthan cultures). >From Robert Longson >I also think that armour deserves one roll altogether. The main problem with >helmets is that you can't see or hear as well in em. >Modifiers are already applied against these for helmets. >Wearing one on your head isn't too bad otherwise. Well no worse than any other >piece of armour. Many people who've worn them say that helmets are very hot and fatiguing. >From: Raymond D Turney >Steve Maurer is concerned that the elimination of the earlier RQ rule that >only one spirit can attack at a time; plus the introduction of the all out >attack option; plus the fact that unless you take an action you defend at 0; >makes Shamans world beaters. > >On reflection I concur with him. Imagine 4 pain spirits sent in against one >enemy charging a shaman. If the enemy continues the charge, he is >defenseless against 4 all out attacks and should shortly be possessed at 0 >MP. The possessing spirit {which one, by the way?} remains behind; the next >guy gets him with 3, etc. This could get pretty nasty? Sounds eminently reasonable to me that a specialist magician should be tough. How is this worse than a Sword of Humakt who has 4 Sever Spirits and kills the first 4 enemies, who have no defense?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01956; Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:49:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05119; Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:47:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:47:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:47:30 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Adds to Die Rolls Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 9:46:31 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25B5F4545AB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > In all three cases, the people who complain loudest will be those with "the > most toys" -- people with high skills stand to lose most from a decrease in > Critical and increase in Fumble chance. As an egalitarian type, who'd have > cheered on the trollkin who gave Rurik one where it hurts, I enjoy this. A > straight penalty to skill chance or cast chance would go all but unnoticed > by those "heroic" Rune Lords, etc. > The problem is the penalty is too much a universally debilitating penalty when used with criticals and fumbles. Given even a +10 modifier, no one criticals. Why bother training to 150% when you get a bit tired and then critical only as often as the guy with 10%? Not to mention there is very little difference between the fumble chances. Mr 150% fumbles 11% of the time, Mr 10% fumbles 15%. So we make fumbles much less important? Hell, why not remove them altogether! I thought that the original RQ rules where simple and relatively elegant, and now we start sprouting bizarre rules like different classes of fumble just to make fatigue crippling vs. high skilled folks? Hmmpph. And Nick, while your egalitarian feelings are noted (probably by the Lunar thought police), please remember that for those of us that like to play high powered campaigns, and there are quite a few of us (I suspect because high powered RQ is more religious and heavy roleplaying than other games, and so does not descend into munchkinism as quickly), one of the major motivators behind RQ4 was to make high powered combat more interesting. Turning it into a fatigue competition, where Endurance is the most important spell, is not going to help. I really dislike this new mechanic of adding to dice rolls. In some cases I can see its usefulness - but making it part of fatigue rules , which makes it part of combat, just mucks around with game balance completely. I give it the big rejection, and as I have already told Oliver, I not only do not support it as part of RQ4 but will not use it if it does make it into the final draft. Cheers Dave > > ==== > Nick > ==== >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02603; Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:59:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05686; Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:58:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:59:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:58:44 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: dispel magic-type Heal spells, Sorcerer's Familiars Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 9:57:47 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25B8F2D1DFD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > Boris here > > > Newton here, yet again. > > > > Question about RQ4: what did they do about the Heal spell? I remember > stoppable with small heals. Actually, it still could with the "Dispel > Wound" method, as they make large Heals able to do special things. The > spell allows Heal 6 to reattach a limb (no damage is healed, it's just > reattached) if a First Aid roll is made to get it set right. Also, Heal > 8 can be used to heal 1 point of general HP damage. If the "Dispel Wound" > method is used, then could also say that Heal 1 can be used to stop > bleeding, but does no actual healing unless is was a 1 point wound. > Actually, the problem I have with the "Dispel Wound" method is that it makes healing a real munchkin proposition - you end up with several PCs carrying around huge heal spells. The special benefits for large heals is even worse - look at RQ2 and the prevalence of Heal 6, well adding more special break points would make it even worse. The additional record keeping required with separate wounds is definately not worthwhile in my book, but I have no problem with it as an optional rule. I guess though there is an element of munchkinness is Heal, I opt for no change - the old campatibility argument again, I guess (i'm so predictable) and also just because I feel that Heal is a big part of Glorantha, and the change would have some noticable effect. But if pressed I go for the "Healsharp" fix, which has the desirable effect of creating specialist healers, but not requiring you to be one to perform useful healing. > On another note, I had an idea to help sorcerers out with the current > manipulation rules. If they could have their familiar Hold or Maintain > spells for them, it would be very useful, and possibly make familiars > worthwhile again. Since they got rid of the Free Int mechanic (thank > Malkion) familiars are of little utility, especially the staff or mandala > type that are likely the most common (I just don't see Western Wizards > leading the congregation in prayer with a marmoset or lemur or any such > critter hanging around; they'ld have their staff w/Malkion's triangle). I like the idea. Lets make the little buggers useful again. In fact, I like it quite a lot. There should be definate advantages and disadvantages to the use of different types of familiar (whether you have a familiar or a mandala, or no familiar at all). I quite like the idea from Paul Reilly et al that a familiar is the most useful, but has social problems like reflecting the sorcerers true emotional state, which would explain why many of the uptight Malkioni don't like them. > Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to > Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then > mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of > Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." > my opinions. Nietzsche > Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12200; Tue, 8 Feb 94 02:47:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06081; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:05:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:05:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:05:40 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Arlia Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:04:41 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25BACCB3FD2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Speak Own has a base of 50% [58]; Custom Own has a base of 50% [64]. > Why not just leave it at 30%? I mean, why not? (that compatibility thing again). I have (after not liking it at first) warmed to the 30% base for speak own and would rather not have another needless skill change Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03233; Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:12:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06333; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:11:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:12:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:11:47 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:10:53 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25BC6E40C90@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I have lobbied Oliver J several times to have combat skills over 100% > subtract from the parry/dodge of the defender. (I'm not sure about > having a 101+ parry/dodge subtract from an attacker, however). OJ > doesn't like the idea, however, so no beans. > I agree with Oliver. This RQ2 rule has caused real havoc in some RQ2 campaigns. The biggest problem is that it makes Fanaticism and Berserk just too good. Berserk becomes completely unstoppable - 100% goes to 200% and it is almost impossible too parry. A side effect is that when someone goes fanatic, no one is parrying them anyway, so others tend to go fanatic as well, in a sort of bizarre chain reaction, and then everyone dies. But skills over 100% do need to do something. > I believe I've also seen this applied (in print?) to other skills. Is > it just my feeble memory, or do I remember a published source > suggesting that a lock maker with skill over 100% would reduce the > chance of a pick attempt? > I do not mind it for this type of extremely passive skill contest, where the defensive skill is not going to be actually rolled for. > Trollpak - Sazdorf "dungeon," right? Some of the dwarf-made doors > were -50% to be found, and some of the lock -30% to be picked, right? > It pops up in several RQ2 soources. > HOWEVER, I am very comfortable leaving such a rules section for a > magazine article in _White Wolf_ or something, or perhaps banishing it > to tiny print in an appendix. > > > > * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com > Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight] > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03429; Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:16:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06593; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:16:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:16:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:15:46 EST From: dquill@netcom.com (Daniel Quill) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: A few gripes; cover; fatigue; shamans Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:16:19 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25BD7D918D2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> RD> >On reflection I concur with him. Imagine 4 pain spirits sent in RD> >enemy charging a shaman. If the enemy continues the charge, he i RD> >defenseless against 4 all out attacks and should shortly be posse RD> >MP. The possessing spirit {which one, by the way?} remains behin RD> >guy gets him with 3, etc. This could get pretty nasty? RD> RD> Sounds eminently reasonable to me that a specialist magician RD> should be tough. How is this worse than a Sword of Humakt who has RD> 4 Sever Spirits and kills the first 4 enemies, who have no RD> defense? I disagree with that. 4 Sever Spirits aren't comparable with four Pain Spirits. Reason being, the spirits can continue to fight after each person dies. Unless the Sword has unlimited SS, you're argument doesn't work. Additionally, Swords are semi-rare (especially ones with many SSs).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03914; Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:25:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07170; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:25:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:25:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:25:00 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Short replies (nothing on fatigue!) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:24:27 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25BFF507B2D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) >If failing to cast a spell has no effect on the caster at all, we'll >have to face power-gaming at large. At least penalize the spell caster >with fatigue. In combat, attempting (and failing) to cast a spell wastes valuable time; outside of combat, why shouldn't a character be able to try repeatedly to perform this act that s/he has done hundreds of times before until s/he gets it right? Of course, I'm of the school of magical thought that says that rabbits in RQ know how to cast "Speed" spells, and lions have "toothsharp", but even so. Newton says: >It >certainly stopped my own players cold--they had a munchkinly habit of trying to heal 5 or 6 pt. injuries by chipping away at them with Heal 2. >No keeping track of individual wounds either. Why do you want your PCs to suffer crippling wounds? It seems to me that part of the appeal of any RPG is developing a character over time, and having a character who is missing a leg (or constantly giving away 10% of his income for the next year to Chalana Arroy) is a counter-inducement to heroic fantasy. Healing magic is powerful stuff, and should not be discounted. From: David Dunham >Sounds eminently reasonable to me that a specialist magician should be >tough. How is this [Shaman] worse than a Sword of Humakt who has 4 Sever >Spirits and kills the first 4 enemies, who have no defense? A. Spirits require very specialized counter-spells, while Shield and Countermagic might work against any Rune spell. B. The shaman recovers from the effort of possessing his opponents much more quickly; in fact, if the shaman has some trollkin assistants to slit the throats of the Possessed, then the spirits can come back into play almost immediately. From: Karl S Wilkinson , quoting someone (I've lost the reference): >> A fight between a character with (say) 40% >> skills and one with 60% skills will usually go to the 60%er; a fight >>between a 100%er and a 150%er is far less certain. The character with >>150% skill, though according to the games system far more experienced and >>talented, does not have a great edge over the other. Agreed. There needs to be some mechanism to properly reward over-100% skills. We always used the "surplus skill subtraction" method, which actually I thought was canonical in one of the earlier RQs. Karl Wilkinson added: >Combatants with higher skills admittedly don't have much >of an advantage if they just 'slog away', but if they use aimed blows and >split attacks they become much more effective. Are these canonical in RQ4? If not, we're back to square 1: inadequate modeling of the advantge of extremely high skill. And we're not talking about skill levels that are difficult to reach. Any Rune Lord is almost certain to be 90+ with the main weapon; add a couple of point of Bladesharp, and voila: 100+%! In fact, if there is no explicit benefit beyond the slight increase in special/critical, then there is almost no reason for a Rune Lord of cast a skill-improvement spell. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker Barney delenda est.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03990; Mon, 7 Feb 94 20:26:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07230; Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:26:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:26:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:26:01 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: A few gripes; cover; fatigue; shamans Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 21:25:59 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25C039F780C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Many people who've worn them say that helmets are very hot and fatiguing. I've seen a figure for 40% of the heat from a human is shed from the head. That might be in clothes, and include the large amount of heat shed by breathing, so an open face helm might make a big difference. Having worn several styles of helm for hours on end, I'd say that they are not too hard to carry (but I lift all the weights on the Nautilus neck machine) but do interfere with heat shedding. When I am in good shape, I can jog and fight for hours in 30 degree (86 F) uh oh more later must go paul reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26325; Mon, 7 Feb 94 22:16:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11301; Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:16:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:16:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:16:27 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: A few gripes; cover; fatigue; shamans Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 20:11:09 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25DDAF449CC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> It is worse than the Sword of Humakht case because: a) You would resist the Sword with current MP, while you resist the spirits at 0; b) The Shaman still has three, {four, if he does not bother to possess} spirits undamaged to hit the next guy with, while the Sword has used his spells. c) The Sword has paid for his four Sever Spirit spells with 12 Permanent Pow points, and offhand {I may be wrong about this} the shaman has probably paid less for his spirits. My argument in bringing up attack by multiple spirits using all out spirit attack was to argue for the elmination of shaman advantage a). This would be done by going back to the old RQ rules allowing characters to defend against spirits at current MP. For those who value consistency, I point out that this makes defense against spirits consistent with defense against spells. I also doubt the wisdom of allowing multiple attacks by spirits, because it opens up a can of worms related to who strikes first; if all strike simultaneously who can possess, etc. I don't see the plus to opening this can of worms.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26471; Mon, 7 Feb 94 22:19:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11378; Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:18:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:18:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:18:37 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: A few gripes Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 23:18:15 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25DE42E14AE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Eric Rowe writes: R>1. Current ability to withstand damage from wounds. I extremely >dislike the ability to have my arm hacked off while I continue to >fight. This seems very Monty Python Black Knightish. [remainder cut for space] Um, this is real. Oliver used to work in an emergency room. Amputees really do get up and fight the orderlies. As to death -- keep in mind that there *will* be fewer Heal 6 spells, like only healers and shamans would ordinarily have them. However, also note that I've said the same to Oliver -- I liked the possibility of sudden death myself. R>2. While the mechanic for DI's seems reasonable, I believe it breaks the >compromise. A Humakti might just ask for 10 Sever Spirits and start >blasting people. I for one (though others may disagree) believe this >would violate the compromise in having the DI affect directly the >worshippers of other gods. I say stick to the GM's choice, using the >spells available from the god as a guideline. Much the same as was >mentioned back in Stafford's article on DI's in Wyrm's Footnotes. Um, Greg Stafford, who is the Spirit of Glorantha, doesn't think it violates the Compromise. It's bought magic, just like Rune Magic. In fact, it's less efficient than Rune Magic, which is why most people don't like to invoke Divine Intervention. R>3. Disease. My players will die when any stat reaches 0, even APP. I >hope the authors consider taking into account the expanded disease >rules that will be in Lords of Terror and make these compatible. They >are better than the ones in the RQ4 rules. Disease rules are an acknowledged weakness. I haven't seen the Lords of Terror disease rules, myself. (?) Belief in the precognitive powers of an Asian pastry is really no wackier than belief in ESP, subluxation, or astrology, but you just don't hear anyone preaching Scientific Cookie-ism. --Penn and Teller Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26472; Mon, 7 Feb 94 22:19:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11384; Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:18:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:19:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:18:48 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 23:18:27 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25DE4F97AE6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney writes: R>Does anyone else have a problem with the wide variation in the power of >weapon affecting and attack magic among nominally warrior cults. >Specifically, I find it bizarre that Yelmalio, a nominally warrior cult has >no spear affecting divine magic, and little combat cult magic. Having the >truth rune and a large outfit of spear using mercenaries, it makes little >sense that they do not have TrueSpear. Yelmalio has always been a warrior cult with wimpy war magic. Blame Orlanth, not us. R>Another oddity is Lodril having two spear enhancing spells, FireSpear and >Lava Spear, though Lodril is NOT a warrior cult. This is more spells than >most of the spear using warrior cults have. Lodril is, according to Greg, the most common warrior cult in Peloria and Dara Happa. Furthermore, he's the god of the Sky Spear. Despite certain Arkati trends in Glorantha lately, mythological basis still has some influence -- the god of the Sky Spear will have more spear magic than the god of Surviving Through the Night (Yelmalio).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29746; Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:20:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14661; Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:20:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 0:20:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 0:20:24 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:20:15 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25EEBD6785B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: Yelmalio's weakness. As I understood it Yelmalio lost his fire powers, not all of his powers. I don't argue with the mythological basis, I'm merely pointing out that Yelmalio's lack of combat magic puts his worshippers in the position of a modern military with no aircraft. Why is he still worshipped? This is the first time I've heard of Lodril as the most common WARRIOR cult in Peloria and Dara Happa. If you reread GOG and the Heroes Lodril description, this is not exactly the impression they leave. Finally, I'm arguing for 2 to 1, not 2 to 0. To assert that Yelmalio should not have Truespear because Lodril should be better is to ignore the fact that Lodril would still be better even after the addition of Truespear to Yelmalio. You have said nothing about my point re Hwarin Dalthippa and monitors. If Greg is adamant that Yelmalion's can't fight, fine. Do not try to assign a combat role to the cult that is inappropriate to the magic available to it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29790; Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:22:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14700; Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:22:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 0:22:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 0:22:16 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Multiple Spirit attacks Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:22:03 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25EF3AC5244@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'll buy multiple spirit attacks among disembodied, but not embodied spirits.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05434; Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:23:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17065; Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:22:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:23:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:22:35 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatigue penalties; shamans Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 22:22:21 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25FF52B33C3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This is David Dunham again... >From: David Cake >The problem is the penalty is too much a universally debilitating penalty when >used with criticals and fumbles. Given even a +10 modifier, no one criticals. Not true. A 01 always criticals. And with the current fatigue rules, you need to fail 3 CON rolls to get a +10 to the die. > Why bother training to 150% when you get a bit tired and then critical >only as often as the guy with 10%? Not to mention there is very little >difference between the fumble chances. Mr 150% fumbles 11% of the time, Mr 10% >fumbles 15%. So we make fumbles much less important? Hell, why not remove them >altogether! A 150% criticals on 01-08. Mr 10% isn't going to last 10 rounds in a fight, so I'll ignore him. Mr 50% (a Trained character with a small bonus) criticals on 01-03. If each of them loses one fatigue level (+3 to all rolls, which corresponds to "a bit tired"), Mr 150% criticals on 01-05, Mr 50% only on 01. Oh, you're also ignoring the fact that Mr 10% only criticals on 99 or 00. I thought you'd received RQ:AiG? >not only do not support it as part of RQ4 but will not use it if it does make >it into the final draft. You're not expected to; the fatigue rules are labelled optional. >> Speak Own has a base of 50% [58]; Custom Own has a base of 50% [64]. >> > Why not just leave it at 30%? I mean, why not? (that compatibility >thing again). I have (after not liking it at first) warmed to the 30% base >for speak own and would rather not have another needless skill change Probably because people get tired of explaining, "no, you don't fail to speak 70% of the time, 30% is normal." >From: dquill@netcom.com (Daniel Quill) >RD> Sounds eminently reasonable to me that a specialist magician >RD> should be tough. How is this worse than a Sword of Humakt who has >RD> 4 Sever Spirits and kills the first 4 enemies, who have no >RD> defense? RD? I wrote that. >I disagree with that. 4 Sever Spirits aren't comparable with four Pain >Spirits. Reason being, the spirits can continue to fight after >each person dies. Unless the Sword has unlimited SS, you're >argument doesn't work. Additionally, Swords are semi-rare (especially >ones with many SSs). My example isn't directly comparable, but shamans are rare, too. And for a shaman to have 4 Pain spirits, he's either made at least 3 spirit traps (probably 6 POW expended), or has a fetch with a POW of at least 21. >From: Kevin Maroney >Spirits require very specialized counter-spells, while Shield and >Countermagic might work against any Rune spell. Spirit Screen isn't that specialized. >The shaman recovers from the effort of possessing his opponents much >more quickly; in fact, if the shaman has some trollkin assistants to slit >the throats of the Possessed, then the spirits can come back into play >almost immediately. Not how I'd run it. If they were in a body, and then killed, they'd return to the spirit plane and have to be re-found or summoned (and summoning is an all-day affair).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05477; Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:25:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17133; Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:24:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:25:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:24:36 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 22:24:27 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25FFDB70F14@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From: Raymond D Turney >Re: Yelmalio's weakness. >As I understood it Yelmalio lost his fire powers, not all of his powers. I >don't argue with the mythological basis, I'm merely pointing out that >Yelmalio's lack of combat magic puts his worshippers in the position of a >modern military with no aircraft. Why is he still worshipped? I think Yelm is a better example of a wimpy god who'd never be worshipped by minimaxers. Orlanth has MUCH better spells, and more importantly, makes it easier to be a member. >You have said nothing about my point re Hwarin Dalthippa and monitors. What's a Monitor? >If Greg is adamant that Yelmalion's can't fight, fine. Do not try to assign >a combat role to the cult that is inappropriate to the magic available to >it. Maybe that's why Yelmalions stress stuff like combat discipline, unlike Humakti?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06715; Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:35:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17514; Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:34:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:35:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:34:10 EST From: Eric Rowe To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: A few gripes Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 22:34:00 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2602698113A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Carl replies to my gripes... > > Um, this is real. Oliver used to work in an emergency room. Amputees >really do get up and fight the orderlies. Every one? (I have no problem with CON*1 rolls to be heroic) I still think it is just a change that is not needed. > Disease rules are an acknowledged weakness. I haven't seen the Lords >of Terror disease rules, myself. (?) I gave Oliver a copy at RQ-con. There have been lots of small changes to correct problems, but the basic system remains the same. It replaces the randomness of a lucky CON roll with the actual size of the spirit vs the stat to get disease severity. (There still are stat and con rolls to resist the affects) eric  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07049; Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:43:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17739; Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:42:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:43:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:42:26 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 14:41:29 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26049DD117A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >From: Raymond D Turney > >Re: Yelmalio's weakness. > >As I understood it Yelmalio lost his fire powers, not all of his powers. I > >don't argue with the mythological basis, I'm merely pointing out that > >Yelmalio's lack of combat magic puts his worshippers in the position of a > >modern military with no aircraft. Why is he still worshipped? > > I think Yelm is a better example of a wimpy god who'd never be worshipped > by minimaxers. Orlanth has MUCH better spells, and more importantly, makes > it easier to be a member. > Actually, my players and I have both noticed that Yalmalio is quite remarkable in its lack of normal combat magic. It is not the lack of fire magic (they get lightwall, which is pretty nifty) it is the lack of Protection, Heal, Bladesharp, Befuddle, Disrupt, or anything like the standard array of common fighting magic that most cults get. They get access to some through associated cults (particularly Ernalda) but it is downright embarrasing when the fighting cult has to get its combat magic from the pacifist Earth worshippers. Yelm should not be compared to Orlanth in general, just to Orlanth Rex. The two cults are both very selective about who is a member, and do not necessarily go for fighting ability, but ruling. The Orlanth Chieftain still gets a slightly better deal on the face of it, but I assume that Yelm initiates are usually involved with subcults and associated cults anyway. > >If Greg is adamant that Yelmalion's can't fight, fine. Do not try to assign > >a combat role to the cult that is inappropriate to the magic available to > >it. > ??? The cult has always had a combat role, heck, even before RQ existed it still had a combat role in White Bear Red Moon as the Sun Dome Templars, and the cult has more specialist combat skills than anybody. Greg believes that Yelmalions can fight I am sure. They just do not get the generally useful combat magic that other fighting cults do not. Perhaps there is a mythical reason (Hill of Gold), perhaps it is an oversight (probably not), perhaps Greg or Sandy just decided that they didn't have good magic. > Maybe that's why Yelmalions stress stuff like combat discipline, unlike Humakti? > Unlike Humakti!! Any cult that develops a cult battle language, and has special regimental magic, has got to have some discipline. They just don't fight in formations like the Yelmalions, and I am sure that the Humakti see their lack of rigid tactics as a plus. Of course, not all Humakti are disciplined, but I think those that are professional soldiers are. > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08096; Tue, 8 Feb 94 00:59:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18118; Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:59:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:59:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 1:58:56 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue penalties; shamans Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 14:57:55 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <260904605C0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > This is David Dunham again... > >>From: David Cake >>The problem is the penalty is too much a universally debilitating penalty when >>used with criticals and fumbles. Given even a +10 modifier, no one criticals. > > Not true. A 01 always criticals. And with the current fatigue rules, you > need to fail 3 CON rolls to get a +10 to the die. Not quite true, I agree, but don't be pedantic, you know what I meant. Everyone criticals at the same %age, which is very small. You may have to fail 3 con rolls, but that is obviously intended to happen, and reasonably often (when you consider the first couple of levels are often gone from long term fatigue in many adventuring situations). > >> Why bother training to 150% when you get a bit tired and then critical >>only as often as the guy with 10%? Not to mention there is very little >>difference between the fumble chances. Mr 150% fumbles 11% of the time, Mr 10% >>fumbles 15%. So we make fumbles much less important? Hell, why not remove them >>altogether! > > A 150% criticals on 01-08. Mr 10% isn't going to last 10 rounds in a fight, > so I'll ignore him. Mr 50% (a Trained character with a small bonus) > criticals on 01-03. If each of them loses one fatigue level (+3 to all > rolls, which corresponds to "a bit tired"), Mr 150% criticals on 01-05, Mr > 50% only on 01. As said, the first fatigue level is supposed to happen all the time, I assume, considering reasonable armour, long term fatigue, fatigueing spells. Lets assume that they are three levels down (making the penalty small only masks its effect) and we find that once again mr 150% and Mr 50% are at the same crit chance. They are not exhausted, both still have quite reasonable chances to hit, but suddenly criticals have all but disappeared. Is this supposed to make combat more interesting , or encourage us to use these rules. > > Oh, you're also ignoring the fact that Mr 10% only criticals on 99 or 00. I > thought you'd received RQ:AiG? > No. Not yet. I beleive that it is probably in the mail. (damn the antipodes) In any case this comment makes no sense. > >not only do not support it as part of RQ4 but will not use it if it does make > >it into the final draft. > > You're not expected to; the fatigue rules are labelled optional. > I don't mean I won't use the optional fatigue rules. I mean I will have to rewrite them for my own use because I think the current ones are stupid. Optional rules should be optional because they may not suit every ones style of gaming, not because the mechanics are silly. > >> Speak Own has a base of 50% [58]; Custom Own has a base of 50% [64]. > >> > > Why not just leave it at 30%? I mean, why not? (that compatibility > >thing again). I have (after not liking it at first) warmed to the 30% base > >for speak own and would rather not have another needless skill change > > Probably because people get tired of explaining, "no, you don't fail to > speak 70% of the time, 30% is normal." > But is this more important than yet another source of inconsistencies with published stuff? Why don't we just put a clear explanation in the rules? And besides, how come you fail to speak 50% of the time? :-) > >I disagree with that. 4 Sever Spirits aren't comparable with four Pain > >Spirits. Reason being, the spirits can continue to fight after > >each person dies. Unless the Sword has unlimited SS, you're > >argument doesn't work. Additionally, Swords are semi-rare (especially > >ones with many SSs). > > My example isn't directly comparable, but shamans are rare, too. And for a > shaman to have 4 Pain spirits, he's either made at least 3 spirit traps > (probably 6 POW expended), or has a fetch with a POW of at least 21. > Either of which can be used for all sorts of other things, and used several times an adventure, unlike the 12 POW spent just on killing people, to considerably less effect (Shield 4 stops a lot of Sever Spirits, and is a lot more useful otherwise than the (incompatibla) Spirit Block). ANd shamans are NOT rare to anything like the extent of Swords. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12398; Tue, 8 Feb 94 02:56:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20175; Tue, 8 Feb 94 03:55:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 3:55:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 3:55:41 EST From: Groove Requiem.. To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: lodril Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 09:54:18 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26282721187@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Raymond D Turney writes >This is the first time I've heard of Lodril as the most common WARRIOR cult >in Peloria and Dara Happa. If you reread GOG and the Heroes Lodril >description, this is not exactly the impression they leave. If you can get hold of back issues of White Wolf magazine, there is a complete writeup of the Lodril cult in one of them, which details lava spear etc. njd  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14527; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:36:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24802; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:36:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:36:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:36:11 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Stuff in the book. Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 01:27:57 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A5315632B4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes: > > Okay, I don't want to see rules without context. > [Please ignore the sound of teeth grinding.] Could I remind everyone that there ARE those of us who are going to be buying RQ4 (if at all) as a set of rules, not an instrument for expressing Glorantha? I realize we aren't in the majority, but I note at least one or two others just on this list (which, by it's nature, is going to be Gloranthan gamer heavy) and it is not going to be doing us or a lot of potential buyers a service to go out of your WAY to make the system useless to those of us who do not run Glorantha. One of the most annoying features of using RQ1&2 in non-Gloranthan settings was the need to either come up with an entirely new magic system, or try to adapt the theistic one present in RQ to other settings. Sorcery is, at least, fairly free of strong background assumptions in it's mechanics and is, if properly done, MUCH more useful in a more generalized world. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21387; Tue, 8 Feb 94 07:08:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27567; Tue, 8 Feb 94 08:07:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 8:07:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 8:07:40 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Arlia Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 10:34:14 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <266B5C32930@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg replying to Dave Cake >> Speak Own has a base of 50% [58]; Custom Own has a base of 50% [64]. > Why not just leave it at 30%? I mean, why not? (that compatibility > thing again). I have (after not liking it at first) warmed to the 30% base > for speak own and would rather not have another needless skill change Because most players I have met like to apply a skill directly, and do not like to add two skills before rolling, I suspect. BTW, if you allow for dialects, effective skill when talking to people from further away will be about 30%. I know what I speak of, I lived in a remote edge of Northern Norway for a while, with a mix of Norwegian and Lappish populace, and had some difficulties to understand some of the people I worked with. One of my colleagues came from Traena, a small island sporting maybe 500 inhabitants, but possessing a distinctive dialect of the region's dialect of Norwegian. Those of you living in the colonized countries still know local dialects, but back here in the motherlands dialects may vary if you cross a hill ridge. In Schleswig Holstein there are perhaps 10 000 speakers of Frisian. The language has more than a dozen variations, which are at best 50% mutually intellegible, and restricted to an area of 80 km in diametre. So I'd say if you don't like the 50%, give a 20% penalty for local dialects, and you're back to RQ3 compatibility. Make this a footnote or something like that in the appendix, I'd propose. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14619; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:37:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24860; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:37:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:37:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:36:54 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Range Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 01:36:49 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A534594DCC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU writes: > Medium to long range seemed the worst (200 to 500 meters), as it allowed > sorcerers to stay out of missile and spirit or divine magic spell range, > yet fire off their own spells. Even worse when mounts or Haste spells > were used, allowing them to keep their distance (this occured mostly > on the Pamaltelan veldt, and also in the Wastes with some Kralori > characters. On smooth terrain, unaided sight can distinguish figures > out to a kilometer - add in vision enhancing spells and it gets worse. But Oliver, that should already be fixed. If you went back to the base 10m range and the doubling chart, it requires at least four to five units of range to do that. Just how long can someone maintain that sort of expenditure of magic points and how effective is the rest of their effect going to be when they are tying up that much of the spell's maximum manipulation? > > A more pressing concern is the use of spells such as Teleport and > Homing Circle (or Sight Illusion) to transmit information (or passengers) > over large distances instantaneously. I don't see the Imperial Mail > as being quite that fast. These don't need much targeting, even at > extreme ranges. True, but again, with the manipulation limits, is this going to be that big a problem? Even if you used the 25m base ranges, a 100% Range skilled sorcerer can only project a spell about 25 kilometers. Are there that many around in that range that they are likely to use them as messanger boys? After all, they also have to have the spell at at least 100% too. This just doesn't seem like it would be having much of a disruptive effect on the culture. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20262; Tue, 8 Feb 94 06:44:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26758; Tue, 8 Feb 94 07:44:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 7:44:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 7:44:34 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue penalties; shamans Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 11:47:18 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <266533A3A80@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg dissecting David Dunham: >>From: David Cake >>The problem is the penalty is too much a universally debilitating penalty when >>used with criticals and fumbles. Given even a +10 modifier, no one criticals. > Not true. A 01 always criticals. And with the current fatigue rules, you > need to fail 3 CON rolls to get a +10 to the die. Ok, I'll forget about ease of play for a while, to muse about the realistic way how to handle crits, specials and fumbles when fatigued. When we have agreed on a realistic set of rules, we can try to make it playable. IMO crit and special chances should NOT drop below half unfatigued value before the character gets problems to walk or stand. Especially not in combat situations, when adrenaline pounds heavily through one's veins, and one gathers the last bits of energy. After the action, fatigue will strike, and more heavily. Instead of increasing fumble chances, I'd go along with Nick to introduce fatigue effects. If this isn't called fumble but something else witty, I think objections would be less. If the character rolls above 100-fatigue level, his opponent will gain a one-off advantage on hs next attack roll, additional to an auto-failure effect. Little fatigued character can ignore this. One of the most searing effects of fatigue is lack of reaction. I still propose to add fatigue levels to strike rank or whatever replaced them to determine order of actions. All of this doesn't sound too complicate, does it? Opinions? >> Why bother training to 150% when you get a bit tired and then critical >>only as often as the guy with 10%? Not to mention there is very little >>difference between the fumble chances. Mr 150% fumbles 11% of the time, Mr 10% >>fumbles 15%. So we make fumbles much less important? Hell, why not remove them >>altogether! > A 150% criticals on 01-08. Mr 10% isn't going to last 10 rounds in a fight, > so I'll ignore him. Mr 50% (a Trained character with a small bonus) > criticals on 01-03. If each of them loses one fatigue level (+3 to all > rolls, which corresponds to "a bit tired"), Mr 150% criticals on 01-05, Mr > 50% only on 01. This was said before, but a 150% swordsman is less likely to get tired from swordplay than a 10% beginner. The same goes for running around in armour or spending a day shooting arrows - those who are used to it sweat less than Mr. Fitness himself without this special training. What about giving the 1/10 of the percentages above 100% of the best skill in question as a bonus on the fatigue roll? Or reduces the loss (only) of skill due to fatigue? Who has read Felix Dahns "Fight for Rome" (Ein Kampf um Rom), telling the story of the Ostrogoth's last stand at Mons Vesuvius against the Byzantines? There a force of a dozen heroes (!) bled to death against one single hero (Teja) defending a narrow gorge. No berserk would be able to stand and hold, rushing out instead (who else thinks Berserk is pretty much an offensive spell, as is fanaticism?), but noone but a berserk would be able to stand this long under currently available rules labeled RQ (2-4). If really high skill reduces the effect of fatigue, such heroic feats would become possible with RQ rules. This ought to be a Yemalion feat, BTW, and available to templars without raised CON as well. Maybe Yelmalio DI could temporarily award the gifts of user's choice at 1 point of divine magic per geas to be taken? With every third Yelmalion Templar having one skill raised to 90%, the number of Rune Lords ought to be high in the front ranks. > You're not expected to; the fatigue rules are labelled optional. Which doesn't make a working set less desirable. >>> Speak Own has a base of 50% [58]; Custom Own has a base of 50% [64]. >> Why not just leave it at 30%? I mean, why not? (that compatibility >>thing again). I have (after not liking it at first) warmed to the 30% base >>for speak own and would rather not have another needless skill change > Probably because people get tired of explaining, "no, you don't fail to > speak 70% of the time, 30% is normal." You don't fail to speak, but you fail to be understood. Look at this list! >>From: Kevin Maroney >>Spirits require very specialized counter-spells, while Shield and >>Countermagic might work against any Rune spell. > Spirit Screen isn't that specialized. Dave Cake points out that few cults teach it. But I think that in Glorantha spirits ought to be more common than portrayed now. I'd like to see a local spirit probe the minds of trespassing people, without immediate intention of harm, but keeping an eye on the intruders. If spirit encounters were made more frequent, people would develop skills (learn spells) to help the deal with them. These skills (spells) would be available from the main religion, since it is a common thing. But: Folk from cultures with little or no contact to spirits are at a disadvantage against them and their masters, anyway, and to apply the "game balance" Rune to this would be wrong. >>The shaman recovers from the effort of possessing his opponents much >>more quickly; in fact, if the shaman has some trollkin assistants to slit >>the throats of the Possessed, then the spirits can come back into play >>almost immediately. > Not how I'd run it. If they were in a body, and then killed, they'd return > to the spirit plane and have to be re-found or summoned (and summoning is > an all-day affair). They wouldn't need to possess the bodies, they are unconscious anyway. If they did possess the bodies dominantly, the shaman would have four "Zombies" fighting for him, unless he uses the spirits of trained fighters. In this case, things get really nasty. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23539; Tue, 8 Feb 94 07:50:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29279; Tue, 8 Feb 94 08:49:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 8:49:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 8:49:33 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Arlia Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:48:38 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26768801811@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Malcolm's 2d worth: > Joerg replying to Dave Cake > >> Speak Own has a base of 50% [58]; Custom Own has a base of 50% [64]. > > > Why not just leave it at 30%? I mean, why not? (that compatibility > > thing again). I have (after not liking it at first) warmed to the 30% base > > for speak own and would rather not have another needless skill change > > Because most players I have met like to apply a skill directly, and do > not like to add two skills before rolling, I suspect. BTW, if you allow IMO, 2 native speakers of the same language and dialect talking to each other have a 95% chance of successful communication. This is modelled reasonably well by both having 50% skills (and adding them) with the 96-00 auto-failure. The RQ3 rule implies that 40% of the time an average person does not understand what they are hearing; this is just wrong - (radio) news bulletins etc would be useless if this were so. OTOH, 30% seems like a reasonable approximation for non-native speakers. > So I'd say if you don't like the 50%, give a 20% penalty for local > dialects, and you're back to RQ3 compatibility. Agreed, I think that having a substantially different local dialect is quite similar to not having it to native speaker level. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26112; Tue, 8 Feb 94 08:45:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02970; Tue, 8 Feb 94 09:44:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 9:44:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 9:44:17 EST From: Viljo Viitanen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Adds to die rolls Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:43:50 +0200 (EET) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26852275655@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Now that I've already had the courage to actually *mail* to this mailing list (wonder when I'll appear at Henk's list :)) let me add a very good (IMHO) idea to the fatigue rules. Add the negative fatigue to the die roll, but *only* affecting the chance of normal (maybe spec. too) success. So crits and fumbles occur at their normal chance (maybe that's bad for fumbles, dunno). IMHO this works very well for over 100% skill levels, one just begins *missing* more frequenty. P.S. I still vote for digesting this mailing list (but with with more than one 'digest' per day). -- Viljo. Viljo Viitanen, physics student at the /// University of Helsinki, Finland E-Mail: viljo.viitanen@helsinki.fi__ /// IRC:#amiga _3V_ Fido:2:220/550.7 depechemodestartrekcalvin&hobbes12\\\///00jarrerunequestfarsidesimpsonsnet hacktolkiencyberpunkconanelricturbo\XX/rakettimortalkombatv32binteloutside  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28488; Tue, 8 Feb 94 09:16:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05706; Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:15:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:16:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:15:11 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Helmet fatigue Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:14:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <268D5EE79CB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Dawson here, not Kirsten Niemannn Seems some folks are discussing how tiring it is to wear a helmet. My 8 years of armored combat experience tells me that...it depends. When I first started fighting, I could barely stand to wear my open faced helmet for more than a few minutes. Within a few seasons, I was able to wear it for an hour long field battle without any trouble. A year ago, when I switched to a lighter, smaller helmet, I started being able to duckk my head a little to make blows glance. The real point, in any case, is whether any sort of rule for extra fatigue for a hemet (as opposed to any other kind of ENC) are worthwhile. I think the absolutely ARE NOT. This level of realism is not anything anyone misse, is it? When was the last time you heard soemone say " I really love that new RuleHammer game, it has really detailed encumbrance rules!" One more point-I did muscle up a bit after a year of fighting, but my neck only went from 14 1/2 or so to 16 inches. Not a lot of change. Mike Dawson ------- Gloranthophiles need to write me at codexzine@aol.com for information on Codex, the magazine hit of RQ Con.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29968; Tue, 8 Feb 94 09:26:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06707; Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:26:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:26:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:25:55 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue penalties; Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 9:30:11 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26903C26FD5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris here, with some comments about things Joerg B. said. > Instead of increasing fumble chances, I'd go along with Nick to introduce > fatigue effects. If this isn't called fumble but something else witty, > I think objections would be less. Having yet another class of failure might be parsing things a bit fine. Though if you want a name, "botch" is one I've always liked. On the other hand, I would certainly lot like to inflict the fumble table on someone 12%+ of the time because they're tired. > One of the most searing effects of fatigue is lack of reaction. I still > propose to add fatigue levels to strike rank or whatever replaced them > to determine order of actions. A suggestion I've made before; going slower is not as debilitating as reduced crit/increased fumble, and passes the reality check, in my experience. > This was said before, but a 150% swordsman is less likely to get tired > from swordplay than a 10% beginner. The same goes for running around in > armour or spending a day shooting arrows - those who are used to it sweat > less than Mr. Fitness himself without this special training. > > What about giving the 1/10 of the percentages above 100% of the best skill > in question as a bonus on the fatigue roll? Or reduces the loss (only) > of skill due to fatigue? This rule has potential; perhaps modify it a bit. How about we treat the skill being used as a complementary skill to the fatigue roll, i.e. add 1/5 the relevant skill to the CONxN value that one rolls against. With this addition, I would even accept the add to roll mechanic without grumbling. Which skill is used is based on the fatiguing activity, for example Fatiguing Activity Modifier to Fatigue Roll If running unencumbered (ENC < STR/2) Run skill/5 If running encumbered (ENC > STR/2) March skill/5 Fighting Average of Att & Par skills/5 Swimming, Climbing, etc Relevant skill/5 Thus a Sword of Humakt with 150% Sword and a CON of 14, even if heavily encumbered (ENC>2xSTR) would need to roll 72% or less on a fatigue roll. Whether skill enhancing magic, situaltional modifiers, etc. affect this could be optional. > There a force of a dozen heroes (!) bled to death against one > single hero (Teja) defending a narrow gorge. No berserk would be able > to stand and hold, rushing out instead (who else thinks Berserk is > pretty much an offensive spell, as is fanaticism?), but noone but a > berserk would be able to stand this long under currently available rules > labeled RQ (2-4). If really high skill reduces the effect of fatigue, > such heroic feats would become possible with RQ rules. And this rule, which is really just an expansion of the existing ruleset (i.e. complementary skills are allowed, just allow them for Fatigue rolls) would allow just this sort of heroic behavior. And would be another benefit for the high skill types, pleasing those who like to run runeguys (me occasionally, for instance). -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02233; Tue, 8 Feb 94 09:47:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08364; Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:47:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:47:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:47:16 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatigue, Encumbrance, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:45:28 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2695EA42D43@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke makes persuasive arguments for adding a fatigue penalty to the actual die roll. He also supports having encumbrance subtract from spellcasting chance. While I prostrate myself before the authenticity of his Gloranthan aura, it pains me to disagree with him on both these counts. FATIGUE I think the argument that "once the weaponmaster gets a little tired, his chance to fumble becomes about the same as the 15 year old newbie" is just too persuasive. Honestly, I personally advocate tweaking the old 1 point of fatigue per round mechanic. I know I will not get much sympathy here for this view. SPELLCASTING ENCUMBRANCE Who is it that said a few messages ago: "Are we playing D&D here?"? This subtract-enc-from-spellcasting-chance thing was probably the _first_ rule my group dropped when RQ3 first came out. It punishes terribly the apprentice sorcerer, indeed forcing him to wear nothing but a robe and pointy hat, so that he has even a poor chance of getting off a spell or two during the whole adventure. Also, why is it your god cares how much stuff you're carrying when you beseech him for a rune spell? "Drop that large shield and ask me again, silly mortal!" SKILLS OVER 100% SUBTRACTING FROM THE DEFENDER Yes, this makes Fanatics and Beserks gross, as well they should be. I believe the penalties balance out just fine. The Fanatic can't parry: if his foe gets a good parry, he's open to the return shot (assuming he goes first, even. Yelmalians, with their long spears, love it when those silly Urox beserks charge their shield wall...) I believe too many folks here are of the rulesmongering mindset when it comes to this topic. "Fanatacism and Beserk make people too good in combat." Well, what does it take to get a Fanatacism spell? How do your adventuring buddies feel about your tendency to become "unreliable" in combat? What does using such spells say about your character's personality? If players are willing to pay these social costs, let them reap the rewards in battle. A good shield is still the warrior's best friend in RQ. Fanatics and Beserks are folks who say to their best friend "I don't need your help here." If a weaponsmaster gets over 100% base skill, I say let the person cleave the enemy in combat. This adds a bit more of a heroic feel to the very gritty tone of RQ combat. However, it by no means makes a master immume to the trollkin's lucky shot, or his own fumble (or just plain 96-99) missed parry at the wrong time. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20120; Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:19:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13135; Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:19:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:19:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:19:14 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Multiple Spirit attacks Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 08:05:44 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <270E76E4490@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson replying, a note for those challenged by their mail readers. Tim Leask writes: >I have a simple solution to the multiple spirit attack problem. Multiple >spirit attacks should only be possible between discorporate spirits >not embodied spirits. The rational being that a spirit must engulf an >embodied spirit in order to attack and this only possible for one spirit >at a time. One or more additional spirits could attack the first spirit while >it was attacking an embodied spirit. The first spirit would then have >to decide who to attack or defend against, the embodied spirit or the >discorporate spirits. A disembodied spirit could be used as a protection >from spirit attack by engulfing someone but not attacking. >What do others think ? I'd support this on the grounds that the spirit engulfing the embodied spirit could be subjected to multiple attack by other disembodied spirits. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26274; Mon, 7 Feb 94 18:09:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28978; Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:09:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:09:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:09:01 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: higher level playing; Fatigue Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:08:35 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <259BB037883@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Tim Leask The idea that few occassions will occur where skills exceed 100% is patently absurd. Even in Nick Brookes' low level campaign a it only takes a little spirit magic to raise one's skills into the 100%+ range. A seasoned stormbull initiate with a 70% skill, bladesharp 4 and fanaticism has an effective skill of 125%. I played in a campaign with a Storm Bull berserk and his attacks could reach extreme levels when berserk or fanatic - even though he was only an initiate with sub 90% skills. The rules should work for skills over 100%, end of story. cheers, Tim  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11152; Tue, 8 Feb 94 02:27:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00724; Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:33:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:33:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:33:26 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Adds to Die Rolls Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:30:53 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25A23350C93@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to Nick's inverted snobbery... > > It's Nick Brooke again... Get some proper mailing software, and these > messages will get shorter. > > Graeme says he doesn't like adding to die rolls because that makes fumbles > more common, and that he also doesn't like making fumbles less vicious (to It was in fact one of my many reasons as to why I didn't like adding to die rolls: one of the others is the way it completely changes the game. > compensate for this). Pretty intractable. > I think you'll find many reasonable and tractable suggestions below... > I see three fairly basic mechanics in RQ:AiG where adding to die rolls is > IMHO the simplest way of applying a universally-debilitating penalty. The question is whether we need a universally debilitating penalty, and whether these penalties are as "universally debilitating" for all groups of players > > (1) Fatigue; My thoughts on this are already noted. > (2) adding ENC (or ENC over POW)* to spell casting rolls; Personally, I've never seen the need to punish spell casting more than any other skills while encumbered. Are we playing D&D here? ENC doesn't seem to punish other skills that need concentration (such as say Lore skills) or those that require a lot of hand movement (like Sword attack or Parry). Sorcerers in Plate mail doesn't bother me either: they won't wear it most of the time due to the fatigue penalties, and some Western sorcerers do wear plate mail anyway, helping the game reflect Glorantha. > (3) +10 to the die roll per retry at Track, Pick Lock, etc. > I think the one-attempt per lock works fine here. > The first of these instances is in the draft rules already; the latter two > are my own recent suggestions. > > In all three cases, the people who complain loudest will be those with "the > most toys" -- people with high skills stand to lose most from a decrease in > Critical and increase in Fumble chance. As an egalitarian type, who'd have > cheered on the trollkin who gave Rurik one where it hurts, I enjoy this. A > straight penalty to skill chance or cast chance would go all but unnoticed > by those "heroic" Rune Lords, etc. > Yes, well as I'm not a memeber of the "if you aren't playing peasants you aren't playing RuneQuest" group, I have a useful counter suggestion in a similar spirit. Since we're recasting the whole of RQ around direct modifiers to the die roll, why don't people with skills overs 100% _deduct_ their skill over 100 directly from the die roll? Helps balance out those difficult fatigue rules the proles have forced on us, and seems the simplest way to provide a universally enhancing bonus. Makes perfect sense in the new "Lets change the die role instead of the skill" regime. In fact let's really simplify things: Criticals always take place on an 01, specials on 1-10, fumbles only on 100. Only use direct die roll mods to change the chances of these happening. Other modifiers like Bladesharp or irritating environmental effects like total darkness only effect chance of simple success. > In the latter two (which were my inventions), a Fumble (under my rules) is > not disastrous. Losing 1 MP for fumbling a spell cast? That used to be the > penalty for a simple failure! And how badly can it hurt to lose a track or > screw up a lock that you already knew was too difficult for you first time? > > For the prime example, Fatigue, I'd suggest a *tiny* tweak to the rules. A > modified fumble is only ever a Standard Fumble. For those without access to > the current draft, the Standard Fumble is "Lose an action next round". Not > too bad a penalty, eh? Not really, I'll agree: almost makes the very rare fumble pointless as an addition to the system. > > So we have three common-enough situations (being knackered, casting spells, > and trying something you *know* you probably won't get right), for each of > which the most attractive mechanic (to Nick) is an addition to the die roll > rather than a modifier or multiplier to the skill percentage. Oh, I'm not saying that direct adds to die rolls aren't an attractively simple mechanic, but that if you go that way you either have a system with unexplained mixed mechanics (ie why a rune lord - or even the peasant, prince of PC's - has less chance of fumbling when totally blind than when he's just tired), or you should go the whole hog and completely change the system. > > There's one for the Hobgoblins... > But neither they nor foul fiends can daunt my spirit. > > PS: Ray said, > > > Another oddity is Lodril having two spear enhancing spells, FireSpear > > and Lava Spear, though Lodril is NOT a warrior cult. This is more > > spells than most of the spear using warrior cults have. > > Lodril is a Phallic cult, not a Warrior cult. The spells are thus entirely > appropriate for his worshippers, though they are discouraged from learning > and using them by their prudish Dara Happan (etc.) overlords. And to answer another of Ray's problems, the reason why Yelmailio doesn't have any spear enhancing magic is that he lost all his weapon enhancing magic to Orlanth at the Hill of Gold. Anyway, the powerful Yelmalio gifts give a much bigger advantage to those lucky enough to get them: a good 25% of 15 year old Yelmalions have 90% in a combat skill. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au "Never make a speech while your angry, or you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret" "Yes, Minister" but they quoted it from elsewhere.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27570; Mon, 7 Feb 94 18:36:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00890; Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:35:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:35:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 19:35:16 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: casting spirit magic, ENC rules; combat tactics Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:34:59 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25A2B0C341A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > Tim Leask wants to change Special Combat Tactics: > >IMHO these should function as full blown skills with a separate roll. The > >skill with the tactic should be capped at related weapon skill -50%. > >e.g. Someone with 90% Broadsword can't have a riposte skill greater than 40%. > >The skill is only rolled for if the related weapon skill succeeds. > >If a change along these lines is deemed undesirable then the tactics > >as currently written should be a prime candidate for omission since they > >add extra complexity with little if any impact on game play (IMHO). > > The big advantage of the rules as per the current draft is you don't need > to roll twice. And it's also why they aren't worth the trouble. Given that in nearly all instances a normal special will have similar impact on the outcome of a combat what's the point of maintaining an entire separate skill ( of which you only care about the special chance) whose only purpose is to surplant the existing 'special' result with something of similar power. The special tactics are so unreliable as to be not worth the effort to learn. A special tactic skill should make you a more effective fighter not just act to slightly perturb an existing result. The special tactics should provide an additional benefit not a replacement effect. The current system doesn't do this IMHO. The disadvantage of an extra die roll is of minimal concern. Players aren't going to mind the extra rolls when they are using the tactics. And if the tactics are restricted to those of reasonable skill level the GM won't be making that many extra rolls either. My final word on special tactics - change 'em or cut 'em I don't care which. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12508; Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:29:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15882; Tue, 8 Feb 94 12:28:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 12:28:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 12:28:04 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue penalties; shamans Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 12:27:07 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26B0CE15A88@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg had a lot of good comments on fatigue, which I'm deleting because it seems like the fatigue rules are set in stone at this point and all the argument in the world won't convince anybody. (I prefer skill penalties to die-roll modifiers in principle.) > >>From: Kevin Maroney > >>Spirits require very specialized counter-spells, while Shield and > >>Countermagic might work against any Rune spell. > > > Spirit Screen isn't that specialized. > > If spirit encounters were made more frequent, people would develop > skills (learn spells) to help the deal with them. These skills (spells) > would be available from the main religion, since it is a common thing. Spirit Screen, even if as common as Shield, is still more specialized because it has an effect on fewer events. Shield protects against physical damage and every spell, while Spirit Screen defends only against spirits. > They wouldn't need to possess the bodies, they are unconscious anyway. Right. No trollkin assassins necessary. Forgot about that. This makes the shamans more powerful still. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker Barney delenda est.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20140; Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:19:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13138; Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:19:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:19:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:19:25 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The Cover of the RQ:AIQ play test draft Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 09:36:08 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <270E83B1E80@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson is the postee of this mail message The cover on the play-test draft is not meant to be an example of what will be on the RQ:AiG product. It's just a cover. Oliver enlightened me directly as I copied the message to him. Dave Dunham writes: >In fact, [the cover I mentioned earlier is] a black & white that >appeared on the back of Genertela:Player's Book (which you surely have, >as it's one of the best works on Gloranthan cultures). No Dave, I don't possess this book. RQ3 disenheartened me mightily and I ignored all products that bore the RQ3 logo or that I suspected were connected with RQ3. I bought the RQ3 Magic Book seperately, second hand, as a sample but this did not encourage me to buy anthing further. My background for Gloranatha comes from a copy of RQ2 and the UK oral tradition from groups who played RuneQuest from a copy of RQ2 and whatever supporting products and fanzines they could buy. Live roleplaying, UK SCA equivalents, was heavily influenced by RQ from it's origins in approx. 1982 when the first commercial UK live role playing company, Treasure Trap, started. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13492; Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:40:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16549; Tue, 8 Feb 94 12:38:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 12:38:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 12:38:29 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Arlia's Speak Own Skills Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 12:37:54 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26B3943326A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > IMO, 2 native speakers of the same language and dialect talking to each >other have a 95% chance of successful communication. This is modelled >reasonably well by both having 50% skills (and adding them) with the 96-00 >auto-failure. > The RQ3 rule implies that 40% of the time an average person does not >understand what they are hearing; this is just wrong - (radio) news >bulletins etc would be useless if this were so. > ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. Two people having a normal, unexcited, leisurely conversation wouldn't have to roll to understand each other, any more than you have to roll for Dagger skill if you try to cut open a melon. You only roll if there is a strong possibility for misunderstanding and circumstances that would prevent the characters from trying again and again to get their meaning across--say, a publishing deadline. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker Barney delenda est.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21220; Tue, 8 Feb 94 12:57:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22728; Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:56:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:57:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:56:30 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue penalties; shamans Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 10:56:00 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26C86310B42@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham, rambling on various topics: >From: David Cake >> Oh, you're also ignoring the fact that Mr 10% only criticals on 99 or 00. I >> thought you'd received RQ:AiG? >> >No. Not yet. I beleive that it is probably in the mail. >(damn the antipodes) >In any case this comment makes no sense. I was hoping you'd read "criticals on 99 or 00" as "fumbles on 99 or 00," but I guess the antipodes doesn't let you read minds either. > ANd shamans are NOT rare to anything like the extent of Swords. OK, I'm guilty of a bad example. I still see nothing wrong with letting shamans be powerful. If you want to prevent multiple spirit attacks, that's one thing, but don't do it on the excuse that shamans are too powerful. >From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) > This rule has potential; perhaps modify it a bit. How about we treat the > skill being used as a complementary skill to the fatigue roll, i.e. add > 1/5 the relevant skill to the CONxN value that one rolls against. This sounds reasonable. >From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) >IMO crit and special chances should NOT drop below half unfatigued value >before the character gets problems to walk or stand. Especially not in >combat situations, when adrenaline pounds heavily through one's veins, and >one gathers the last bits of energy. After the action, fatigue will >strike, and more heavily. This suggests some sort of procedure where you can "borrow" against the future. Something on the order of, you can get a -2 to the die roll for one round, but afterwards, you're automatically fatigued another level.  0,, *** EOOH *** Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:32-0600 Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24205; Tue, 8 Feb 94 13:32:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25559; Tue, 8 Feb 94 14:32:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 14:32:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 14:31:49 EST From: Simon Basham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:25 GMT0 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26D1CE40890@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> please could you unsub me from this list ta  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28428; Mon, 7 Feb 94 22:51:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12993; Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:51:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:51:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:51:03 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Multiple Spirit attacks Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 15:50:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <25E6E7A0A9A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Tim Leask I have a simple solution to the multiple spirit attack problem. Multiple spirit attacks should only be possible between discorporate spirits not embodied spirits. The rational being that a spirit must engulf an embodied spirit in order to attack and this only possible for one spirit at a time. One or more additional spirits could attack the first spirit while it was attacking an embodied spirit. The first spirit would then have to decide who to attack or defend against, the embodied spirit or the discorporate spirits. A disembodied spirit could be used as a protection from spirit attack by engulfing someone but not attacking. What do others think ? Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05713; Tue, 8 Feb 94 15:06:07 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02501; Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:01:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:02:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:01:20 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: STR Damage modifier Date: 08 Feb 94 15:53:00 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26E9AF63530@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ( Dennis Hoover ) I like the idea of smoother transitions between STR damage modifiers. I always hated the "magic numbers" in RQ-III that got you a big bonus for a 1 point change in STR. Unfortunately, about the only way to do this is to have a fixed strength modifier that goes up one point at a time. What is bad about this is that you can't nick anyone anymore. In RQ3 if a troll (2d6 damage modifier) hit me with a mace, he could roll snake-eys and get me for only 3 pts (whew!). With a fixed damage modifier of, say, 6, he "nicks" me for seven, enough to maim my arm. How about limiting the STR bonus for a normal hit to the weapon damage actually rolled? If the aforementioned troll rolled a 1 with his mace, he would do only 2 pts of damage, but with a special hit or a good roll on a normal hit, he would get his full STR bonus and cream me. Some weapons (big, solid ones like a troll maul or a great sword) would do more on a light hit; this could be reflected in greater minimum damage (dn+1 or 2dn for damage). Using RQ3 weapon damage, a troll maul would still do 6 pts minimum. Dennis. P.S. I do not have a copy of RQ4:AiG , so I apologize if the above makes no sense with the new rules.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09014; Tue, 8 Feb 94 15:36:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05362; Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:35:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:36:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:35:38 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STR Damage modifier Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 13:35:27 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26F2D570AC5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >( Dennis Hoover ) >What is bad about this is that you can't nick anyone anymore. In RQ3 >if a troll (2d6 damage modifier) hit me with a mace, he could roll snake-eys >and >get me for >only 3 pts (whew!). With a fixed damage modifier of, say, 6, he "nicks" me for >seven, enough to maim my arm. In RQ:AiG, it takes a Great Troll to have a damage bonus of +6. Dark Troll is only +2, so your concerns probably aren't common occurrences. The table, in summary: STR + SIZ DB 26-30 +1 31-35 +2 36-40 +3 This also means your maximum damage bonus idea probably isn't necessary. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14099; Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:19:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08882; Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:19:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:19:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:18:51 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: STR Dam bonus idea Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 16:05:44 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26FE5BF3AD1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here. IMHO Dennis Hoover has a good idea, an idea that is much better than the idea of reworking all the damage mods, weapon damage, armor and shield APs, and SIZ table, and playing Hell with compatibility. The RQ2 Weapon Table is very well-balanced, much better than either RQ3 or RQ4. I like the wider differentiation between weapon lengths (SRs from 0-4 instead of 0-3) and the way the Wpn SRs are balanced against the damage rolls. I also like broadswords not being able to impale. RQ3 made rapiers useless. All that needs to be done to the STR + SIZ damage modifier is to introduce a few intermediate steps between the jumps from 0 to +1d4 and from +1d6 to +2d6. The progression could be -1d6 -1d4 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +1d4 +1d6 +1d8 +1d10 +1d12 +2d6 +3d6 etc. One improvement RQ4 makes is the Armor Table, getting rid of the need to worry about padding underneath the armor. I'd rather see more common-sense stuff like this than re-building everything from the ground up.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13813; Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:16:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08497; Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:15:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:15:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:15:12 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue, Encumbrance, etc. Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 14:15:48 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26FD63221D8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> First off, let me cast my vote against the way fatigue penalties work now. A simple subtraction from skill, or maybe a multiplier (x1/2) would be better. The biggest reason is at the high skill levels, it will be the special and critical results that decide the battle. (I also support those who state that the rules must adequatly handle 100%+ weaponmasters). Secondly, any type of ENC penalty must be scaled to either size, or the characters total ENC capacity (STRx5, STR+SIZ, whatever). I also dislike the size based ENC modifiers. As it happens, one player in a game I ran had a 16 SIZ, so his armor ENC increased by +50%. In this age of calculators, how about including simple formulae, for those of us who aren't afraid of simple math? On special tactics, the easiest thing is just to drop them, and use the following rule: parries work like dodge (a special hit bypasses a parry, a crit bypasses a special parry, etc). Our GM uses this in his high-powered campaign, and it works reasonably well. Last time I checked the math, the probabilities looked good too (although it breaks down on battles of skill over 1800% :-) I don't like RQ2 rule of subtracting skill over 100%. It is extra overhead, and it has the strange effect of reducing special chance for the defender (two 200% guys fight each other; their special chance is 40% on the attack, but 20% on defense). -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19520; Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:09:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12508; Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:09:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:09:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:09:10 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: fatigue again Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 17:05:55 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <270BC751D4D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here. Can't help responding to Steven Barnes' comments: >First off, let me cast my vote against the way fatigue penalties >work now. Me too. >Secondly, any type of ENC penalty must be scaled to either size, >or the characters total ENC capacity (STRx5, STR+SIZ, whatever). >I also dislike the size based ENC modifiers. As it happens, one >player in a game I ran had a 16 SIZ, so his armor ENC increased >by +50%. In this age of calculators, how about including simple >formulae, for those of us who aren't afraid of simple math? I still think the RQ3 errata method works OK (except for the 10 point gaps between breakpoints), and I don't understand your concern. A hauberk for a SIZ 16 person weighs half again as much, but when divided by 1.5 for his SIZ it cancels out. As for the case of borrowing a friend's weapon, I simply wouldn't bother with the number-crunching. Only if the player is taking unfair advantage of the rules in a significant way (dividing his entire load's weight by 1.5 while using normal weights for his stuff) would I bother to step in. Just because Horus grabs Uras' axe in extremis why bother re-figuring all his ENC? I would much rather have a general guideline as to how much stuff characters can lug around with them, that would apply to all sizes (with possible exception of the Elder Secrets gang), than this super-complex fatigue system with CON rolls every round. Through ranting now.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09004; Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:35:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18938; Tue, 8 Feb 94 02:35:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 2:35:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 2:35:23 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:33:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2612BD13BC0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney (sp?) writes > > Re: Yelmalio's weakness. > As I understood it Yelmalio lost his fire powers, not all of his powers. I > don't argue with the mythological basis, I'm merely pointing out that > Yelmalio's lack of combat magic puts his worshippers in the position of a > modern military with no aircraft. Why is he still worshipped? Because of his extremely powerful gifts which give 5% of his 15 year old initiates 90% 2 handed spear attack and parry, another 5% 90% Javelin, another 5% 90% 1 handed spear, anothet 5% 90% Bow. In many ways these are much more important than giving those initiates 1 point of Bladesharp every 5 years... One thing I would like to have seen in Sun County was the sample Templars showing a greater proportion of the 90% weapon skill gifts. If your god gives you a gift like that he is telling you to become a Templar. Given Sandy's recent description of the Hill of Gold heroquest and it's benefits (you can't die), I wonder if Yelmalio's indestructable nature shouldn't be reflected in his rune spells. Say a spell that gives you Berserk like immunity to incapacitation and unconsciousness, but not the skill boosting or loss of control. > > If Greg is adamant that Yelmalion's can't fight, fine. Do not try to assign > a combat role to the cult that is inappropriate to the magic available to > it. In my view some of those gifts make up for a whole lot of sins when it comes to fighting talent. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21189; Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:38:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14190; Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:37:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:37:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:37:07 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STR Dam bonus idea; masters Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 15:36:55 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27133B41CB9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. >Newton here. > >IMHO Dennis Hoover has a good idea, an idea that is much better than >the idea of reworking all the damage mods, weapon damage, armor and >shield APs, and SIZ table, and playing Hell with compatibility. > >The RQ2 Weapon Table is very well-balanced, much better than either >RQ3 or RQ4. I like the wider differentiation between weapon >lengths (SRs from 0-4 instead of 0-3) and the way the Wpn SRs are >balanced against the damage rolls. I also like broadswords not >being able to impale. RQ3 made rapiers useless. How is going to RQ2 going to maintain RQ3 compatibility? >All that needs to be done to the STR + SIZ damage modifier >is to introduce a few intermediate steps between the jumps from >0 to +1d4 and from +1d6 to +2d6. The progression could be >-1d6 -1d4 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +1d4 +1d6 +1d8 +1d10 +1d12 +2d6 +3d6 etc. Somewhere aong the line, RQ sensibly dropped d12s. In any case, the difference between d12 (6.5 average) and 2d6 (7 average) isn't worth it. I prefer RQ:AiG's much faster integer damage bonus, to the previous rolled DBs. RQ3 was broken in that average size people got a bonus. >From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) >(I also support those who state that the rules must >adequatly handle 100%+ weaponmasters). Neither Nick nor I _want_ the game to break above 100% if it doesn't have to. And I do want the rules to handle 100%+ weaponmasters. What I don't care about is 150%+, and probably not even 125%+. How high do they have to go? I always found advance slow enough that Rune Lords never happened (from normal starting characters), so I find it hard to imagine skills getting incredibly high just from experience. If certain magic spells don't matter as much to a master warrior, that merely implies that skill overcomes magic. The big complaint seems to be that 150% isn't as much better than 100% as 100% is to 50%. For one thing, it's only 1.5 times, not 2 times, as good. And it _does_ increase chance of special and critical, which is usually what it takes to defeat a master. The current draft makes one concession for 200% skill, reduced chance of auto-failure. Maybe we have to be like RQ2, only more so: nobody can have skills over 100%. There, that solved the problem. >From: "Newton Hughes" >this super-complex fatigue system with CON rolls every round. Complex or not, it's every 10 rounds. If it were every round, you'd hear me squawking too! In actual fact, the current draft isn't all that great. Its main benefit is that it's (in my opinion) better than other suggestions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09324; Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:45:15 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19107; Tue, 8 Feb 94 02:45:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 2:45:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 2:44:58 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue penalties Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:43:36 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <26154B034FA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > This is David Dunham again... > > >From: David Cake > > >not only do not support it as part of RQ4 but will not use it if it does > >make it into the final draft. > > You're not expected to; the fatigue rules are labelled optional. > That's comforting. All I thought essential in RQ4 (rules wise) was good fatigue rules, a much better sorcery system and good rules for handling high skill characters. It seems I should already scratch one off the list. > > Spirit Screen isn't that specialized. In GoG very few non shaman cults got it. Has this changed in RQ: AiG? Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27604; Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:11:40 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18854; Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:11:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:11:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:11:15 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RAG Size Date: 08 Feb 94 19:44:42 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <272C56737BC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ( Dennis Hoover ) Something is seriously amiss if we're cutting sorcery to make room for ducks! ;-) PLEASE keep sorcery in the basic rules. The variety and richness of magic in RQ is one of its best points. David Dunham writes: >>When you get right down to it, our opinions are meaningless since we're >>going to buy RQ:AiG anyway, whether it has sorcery or not. Remember New Coke. I know a number of RQ2 players who never bought RQ3. It would certainly be possible to screw up RQ4 to where I wouldn't buy it. After seeing RQ4 at the Con I feel much better about it, but some of the talk about cutting things is starting to make me nervous. Personally, I like a substantial tome (with emphasis on the "a"), like the new-bound Deluxe edition, when I buy a game. I just don't believe you can do a decent rules system with a rich background in a skinny book. Guy Robinson suggested a rules-only booklet (no Glorantha) in addition to the complete RAG as more targeted marketing. Now THAT could be done in a skinny book. I wouldn't buy it, but maybe it would hook some people on RQ and later they would buy the complete RAG. The quality of RQ:AiG is FAR more important than the size. The new RQ3 deluxe edition book weighs in at 280 pages with very little Glorantha. I don't see how it would be possible to put in substantially more Glorantha and at the same time cut the size by 1/3. Supplements are not a good solution, at least not for the core rules. Everyone I know hates buying a game and not getting all the rules. Also, the game stores won't give us the shelf space for an AD&D-like Fighter's Tome, Sorcerer's Tome, etc. RQ4 must be complete, and it must fit in one volume. Dennis.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28773; Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:36:26 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19541; Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:27:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:35:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:26:47 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re. Skills Date: 08 Feb 94 20:07:05 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27307BD13BE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ( Dennis Hoover ) I much prefer 1d3/1d6/2d6 (or 2d4, or 1d10) to any of the other proposals I've seen for differentiating skill levels. A thought occurs to me, however. Maybe skills should get harder as percentages increase. At 100% an easy skill becomes medium, at 150% hard, etc. Just a thought...any benefit gained is probably not worth the added complexity (and space). Dennis.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28305; Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:25:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19235; Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:20:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:25:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:20:19 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Helmet fatigue Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:17:42 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <272EC293EAE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> Subject: Helmet fatigue >> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:14:24 EST >> >> Mike Dawson here, not Kirsten Niemannn >> >> Seems some folks are discussing how tiring it is to wear a helmet. >> ... Reasons to NOT have special rules for Helmit fatigue: 1. another die roll/more complicated/etc. 2. see #1 Reasons to have special rules for Helmit fatigue: 1. There was probably *still* a difference, between fighting with and without the helmit, even after getting used to it. 2. Encourages those more lightly-armed heroic types. We're changing the damage and AP rules to make them viable. This seems like another reasonable way. Personally, I think a bigger issue, which only Rob & I seem to care about, is leg armor. March around all day in a set of greaves. Then tell me that you're as fit and fresh as you would have been otherwise. Of source, if the person has been riding, there should be no penalty. If on foot - Yes. There are a number of reasons that leg armor died away before other armor. This is one of them. >> Gloranthophiles need to write me at codexzine@aol.com for information >> on Codex, the magazine hit of RQ Con. Shameless plug #2305. 8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28332; Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:26:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19501; Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:25:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:25:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:25:37 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 20:30:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27302BE5B63@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> And further to Graeme Lindsell's comments regarding the need for RQ to address higher level play (even though I thought I dropped this whole issue), a 7 year barbarian farmer character in RQ3 easily starts with attacks and parries at 50% (30% cultural base plus Weapon x2 or x3 [plus bonuses]). Even if one ignores training, research, and modifications to the improvement die roll due to skill bonuses, I h ave very loosely calculated that it would take about 56 "skill dots" to progress to 96%, wherein the system begins to break down. Getting a dot per session for main attacks and parries is not too unforseeable. Therefore, playing once per week, the system begins to break down in about a year of playing. Somehow, I don't forsee this as a selling point.... Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00890; Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:01:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20988; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:00:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:00:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:59:57 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Shamans Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:54:08 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <273954052DE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > >From: Raymond D Turney > >Steve Maurer is concerned that the elimination of the earlier RQ rule that > >only one spirit can attack at a time; plus the introduction of the all out > >attack option; plus the fact that unless you take an action you defend at 0; > >makes Shamans world beaters. > > > >On reflection I concur with him. Imagine 4 pain spirits sent in against one > >enemy charging a shaman. If the enemy continues the charge, he is > >defenseless against 4 all out attacks and should shortly be possessed at 0 > >MP. The possessing spirit {which one, by the way?} remains behind; the next > >guy gets him with 3, etc. This could get pretty nasty? > > Sounds eminently reasonable to me that a specialist magician should be > tough. How is this worse than a Sword of Humakt who has 4 Sever Spirits and > kills the first 4 enemies, who have no defense? > Because the Sword of Humakt got those 4 Sever Spirits by sacrificing 12 points of permanent POW. Also, the analogy isn't true; I have no problem with a shaman sending 4 spirits against 4 enemies. It's the ganging up that I question. I think that this "multispirit" power is an intriguing idea for a super tough shaman of some specialized school. As a general power, it doesn't work. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01704; Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:14:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21545; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:14:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:14:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:13:58 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 18:06:16 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <273D11D55D6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Mon, 7 Feb 1994, Carl Fink wrote: > Ray Turney writes: > > R>Does anyone else have a problem with the wide variation in the power of > >weapon affecting and attack magic among nominally warrior cults. > >Specifically, I find it bizarre that Yelmalio, a nominally warrior cult has > >no spear affecting divine magic, and little combat cult magic. Having the > >truth rune and a large outfit of spear using mercenaries, it makes little > >sense that they do not have TrueSpear. > > Yelmalio has always been a warrior cult with wimpy war magic. Blame > Orlanth, not us. > Ha ha ha. You've obviously not encountered a certain Light Lady from our campaign ... Seriously, though, this is a flaw. We shouldn't create a system where Yelmalian characters (which a LOT of players have) will get shafted by the new rules. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06602; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:07:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23794; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:07:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:07:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:07:36 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:06:07 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <274B5E752B9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > from Tim Leask > > David Cake writes: > > > > I agree with Oliver. This RQ2 rule has caused real havoc in some RQ2 > > campaigns. The biggest problem is that it makes Fanaticism and Berserk just > > too good. Berserk becomes completely unstoppable - 100% goes to 200% and it > > This problem is easily fixed. The subtraction from the parry/dodge is simply > made on the basis of the unmodified skill. e.g. someone with a skill of 120% > subtracts 20% regardless of combat enhancing spells. someone with less the > 100% skill doesn't get to subtract anything even if there modified skill > is over 100%. > So now we have to keep track of not only skills and modifiers (possibly two sets of modifiers if the very silly fatigue rules come in), but two separate skill %ages ? This is starting to sound like Champions accounting, with real points and active points - and at least in Chmapions you mostly only have to do it in character creation, not in combat. Apart from my objection to this rule son the basis of added complexity - I didn't say that I wanted Fanaticism to be useless at high levels, just not quite so brutal. > Someone or something that has a natural 200% skill should cause real havoc. > so should Storm Bull Berserks. > Cheers, > Tim > ================================================================================ > Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in > University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." > Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. > Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- > e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au > ================================================================================ > Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09582; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:11:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23955; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:11:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:11:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:11:35 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Re Relative Strength of RQ IV AiG combat cults. Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:10:42 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <274C6DC2E28@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Ha ha ha. You've obviously not encountered a certain Light Lady from our > campaign ... Seriously, though, this is a flaw. We shouldn't create a > system where Yelmalian characters (which a LOT of players have) will get > shafted by the new rules. > The point is, they were shafted by the old rules, and so, for compatibility, they should be shafted by the new rules as well unless anybody thinks of a good reason why. > ---Andy Weill > > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09801; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:12:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23957; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:11:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:11:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:11:46 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:12:00 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <274C7A82C7D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Andrew Weill reponds to Steve Maurer and Ray Turney > > >Steve Maurer is concerned that the elimination of the earlier RQ rule that > > >only one spirit can attack at a time; plus the introduction of the all out > > >attack option; plus the fact that unless you take an action you defend at 0; > > >makes Shamans world beaters. > > > >On reflection I concur with him. Imagine 4 pain spirits sent in against one > > >enemy charging a shaman. If the enemy continues the charge, he is > > >defenseless against 4 all out attacks and should shortly be possessed at 0 > > with a shaman sending 4 spirits against 4 enemies. It's the ganging up > that I question. I think that this "multispirit" power is an intriguing > idea for a super tough shaman of some specialized school. As a general > power, it doesn't work. > The issue here should not be whether many spirits can attack one target just because it's "not fair". The issue should be considered from the point of how reasonable it is for them to be able to attack en-masse and then design your rules from there. It seems intuitive that ganging up of some sort is possible when spirit combat is considered as some sort of analogue to physical combat. Likewise, multiple attacks should be possible and "stronger" than one-on-one attacks, but the current "free shot" system is what makes it unfair. Some alternate solutions: The defender could defend with their full magic points (or POW?) against each spirit, however each additional attacker adds, say two or three to the strength of it's attack. ex. One defender, two attackers each get +3 to strength of attack One defender, three attackers each get +6 This would be somewhat consistent to getting bonuses for attacking "surprised" or "helpless" opponents in physical combat. Alternatively, the defender can split his "parry" by defending with less current magic points. Depending on whether the GM judges that it is possible to judge the strength of each attacking spirit, the splitting could be specified, or just automatically divided in even portions with the odd points assigned randomly. ex. One defender, splits defense 6 and 3 against two obviously differing strengthed spirits, or, as the GM judges that the defender has no spirit sight or spirit lore, he spilts evenly. It is important to realize that it won't be an easy task for the shaman to conveniently have all the spirits he desires, and that the life of the shaman is dangerous even when he stays at home. He could be attacked from the spirit plane at any time. I imagine that previously bound or summoned spirits might likely be gunning for him at his weakest times, provided they possess INT. I say the above because the two types of magic are basically incomparable. It is "fair" to give the defender a better shot against multiple spirits, but it isn't "fair" to the shaman to make spirit combat one-on-one with this as the only justification... Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13237; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:17:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24105; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:17:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:17:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:17:03 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STR Dam bonus idea; masters Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 22:16:39 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <274DE400D21@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Kevin here. > David here. > >Newton here. > > >All that needs to be done to the STR + SIZ damage modifier > >is to introduce a few intermediate steps between the jumps from > >0 to +1d4 and from +1d6 to +2d6. The progression could be > >-1d6 -1d4 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +1d4 +1d6 +1d8 +1d10 +1d12 +2d6 +3d6 etc. > > I prefer RQ:AiG's much faster integer damage bonus, to the previous rolled > DBs. Except that players quickly (as in, almost immediately) learn their own normal damage bonus (it used to be written on the character sheet--I imagine it is now, too) and automatically rolled the DB whenever they rolled weapon damage. Adding two dice is not very time consuming. Recalculating the DB (because of Strength enhancement etc) has to be done under either system and is the only real delay. DBs are more work for the GM, but creating combat-worthy opponents in RQ has _always_ been a buttload of work; figuring a DB is the merest fraction of the effort. > I always found advance slow enough that Rune Lords never happened (from > normal starting characters), so I find it hard to imagine skills getting > incredibly high just from experience. If certain magic spells don't matter > as much to a master warrior, that merely implies that skill overcomes > magic. Maybe we played a Gloaranthan Monty Haul campaign, but I don't think so; we had our first Rune Lords within a year and a half of starting, with weekly sessions. Skills well in excess of 150% (because of magical enhancements) were reached fairly quickly, especially for the Orlanthi and Humakti. (And for certain NPCs and monsters.) Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker I blame the failed Guliani adminstration.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14232; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:19:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24234; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:19:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:19:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:18:52 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RAG Size Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:18:10 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <274E61322AE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > ( Dennis Hoover ) > > Something is seriously amiss if we're cutting sorcery to make room for ducks! > ;-) > PLEASE keep sorcery in the basic rules. The variety and richness of magic in > RQ is one of its best points. > > David Dunham writes: > >>When you get right down to it, our opinions are meaningless since we're > >>going to buy RQ:AiG anyway, whether it has sorcery or not. > > Remember New Coke. I know a number of RQ2 players who never bought RQ3. > It would certainly be possible to screw up RQ4 to where I wouldn't buy it. After > seeing > RQ4 at the Con I feel much better about it, but some of the talk about cutting > things is starting to make me nervous. > > Personally, I like a substantial tome (with emphasis on the "a"), like the > new-bound Deluxe > edition, when I buy a game. I just don't believe you can do a decent rules > system with a rich > background in a skinny book. Guy Robinson suggested a rules-only booklet (no > Glorantha) > in addition to the complete RAG as more targeted marketing. Now THAT could be > done in > a skinny book. I wouldn't buy it, but maybe it would hook some people on RQ and > later they > would buy the complete RAG. > > The quality of RQ:AiG is FAR more important than the size. The new RQ3 deluxe > edition book > weighs in at 280 pages with very little Glorantha. I don't see how it would be > possible to > put in substantially more Glorantha and at the same time cut the size by 1/3. > Supplements > are not a good solution, at least not for the core rules. Everyone I know hates > buying a > game and not getting all the rules. Also, the game stores won't give us the > shelf space > for an AD&D-like Fighter's Tome, Sorcerer's Tome, etc. RQ4 must be complete, and > it must > fit in one volume. > > Dennis. > >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20870; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:36:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24877; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:36:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:36:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:36:34 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STR Dam bonus idea; masters Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:35:47 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27531672BC0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > >From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) > >(I also support those who state that the rules must > >adequatly handle 100%+ weaponmasters). > > Neither Nick nor I _want_ the game to break above 100% if it doesn't have > to. And I do want the rules to handle 100%+ weaponmasters. What I don't > care about is 150%+, and probably not even 125%+. How high do they have to > go? I always found advance slow enough that Rune Lords never happened (from > normal starting characters), so I find it hard to imagine skills getting > incredibly high just from experience. If certain magic spells don't matter > as much to a master warrior, that merely implies that skill overcomes > magic. > Well what I would like is rules that sensible handle what happens when the Storm Khan goes berserk. I am sorry if that does not happen in your game, but it could well happend in mine. > The big complaint seems to be that 150% isn't as much better than 100% as > 100% is to 50%. For one thing, it's only 1.5 times, not 2 times, as good. > And it _does_ increase chance of special and critical, which is usually > what it takes to defeat a master. > No, the complaint is twofold - 1 is that is the outcome of the combat depends on specials and criticals and autofailures, then it becomes hugely luck based (mr 100% and Mr. 150% have both got that 5% autofailure on parry, and failing a parry is often more decisive than a crit or impale). the second is that just when the combats should be getting really epic, they become extremely boring instead. And as to your comment about specials and criticals defeating masters, that is exactly why the fatigue system sucks so much - it means that fatigue difference makes a much bigger difference to crits and autofailures than the skill difference does. the difference in critical chance between 100 and 150 is 3% - which advantage is removed by one level of fatigue!. What the players who play at high power levels are looking for is basically a system that makes have a higher skill level a real advantage, and makes combat more interesting and tactics based (which the special combat options can do quite nicely). Personally why not keep the fatigue system the same - except make the penalties much larger - (maybe double) and just have them subtract from skill levels. That way, sure Mr 150% does not really worry about fatigue reducing his chance to hit, but that won't bother the low power players, and most of the objections to the new system are removed. It is simnple, it works the same way as other combat modifiers, and it doesn't mean that high powered combat degerates into a luck and endurance competition. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21704; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:46:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25289; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:46:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:46:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:45:59 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: world beaters Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:46:18 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27559936E98@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Maurer is right about the ramifications of multiple spirits attacking at once if we allow them "free attacks": they win. Consider the shaman's continuous presence on both the mundane and spirit planes... The shaman is toast if a couple of spirits gang up on him! This adds additional force to the need to devise some sort of multiple spirit ruling. Any other suggestions? Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22507; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:52:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25504; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:51:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:52:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:51:47 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Guy and RQ3 Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:50:39 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27572446B54@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > >In fact, [the cover I mentioned earlier is] a black & white that > >appeared on the back of Genertela:Player's Book (which you surely have, > >as it's one of the best works on Gloranthan cultures). > > No Dave, I don't possess this book. RQ3 disenheartened me mightily > and I ignored all products that bore the RQ3 logo or that I suspected > were connected with RQ3. > I would like to assure you, Guy, that the Genertala box was bought by all the RQ2 diehards that I know - it contained so little RQ3 rules stuff, and so much Glorantha, that they couldn't justify not buying it. But now we know why you are so concerned about the art - you never look inside before you buy. I do. :-) > > My background for Gloranatha comes from a copy of RQ2 and the UK oral > tradition from groups who played RuneQuest from a copy of RQ2 and > whatever supporting products and fanzines they could buy. > But what am I saying, of course you never bothered getting Cults of Prax or Cults of Terror either. You are just the man who buys no supplements. Please bear in mind, Guy, that I think you are definately at one end of the marketing bell curve, in other words your buying habits are rather odd. > > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22988; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:06:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26069; Tue, 8 Feb 94 23:06:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 23:06:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 23:06:28 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Adds to die rolls Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:05:38 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <275B0EF7E02@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Add the negative fatigue to the die roll, but *only* affecting the > chance of normal (maybe spec. too) success. > > So crits and fumbles occur at their normal chance (maybe that's bad for > fumbles, dunno). IMHO this works very well for over 100% skill levels, > one just begins *missing* more frequenty. > Which still means that the runeguys are getting a pretty big fatigue penalty, especially as a parry autofailure is often more decisive than a critical, and almost always much more decisive than a special. But I don't hate it anywhere near as much as the current rules. I still have the basic objection that it is a new mechanic that makes the rules more complex to apply in combat for little gain in realism or play balance. > > -- Viljo. > > Viljo Viitanen, physics student at the /// University of Helsinki, Finland > E-Mail: viljo.viitanen@helsinki.fi__ /// IRC:#amiga _3V_ Fido:2:220/550.7 > depechemodestartrekcalvin&hobbes12\\\///00jarrerunequestfarsidesimpsonsnet > hacktolkiencyberpunkconanelricturbo\XX/rakettimortalkombatv32binteloutside > Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23159; Tue, 8 Feb 94 22:11:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26368; Tue, 8 Feb 94 23:11:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 23:11:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 23:10:55 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple attacks Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:11:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <275C4007F2A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Maurer is right, multiple spirits with "free attacks" .... _win_. Considering that the shaman in question is maintaining a presence continuously on both the spirit and mundane planes, if a few spirits ever gang up on him he's just as toasted as our other defender, and it is as likely to happen to the shaman while he's sleeping rather than while he's prepared. Giving multiple spirits _free_ attacks will quickly destroy any shaman who can't afford to have constant spirit block. This reinforces the case to modify the rule in question. Any other suggestions? Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05819; Wed, 9 Feb 94 01:26:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03672; Wed, 9 Feb 94 02:25:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 2:26:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 2:25:44 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: re. Skills Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 23:19:23 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27903510AC6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On 8 Feb 1994, Dennis Hoover (SMS) wrote: > A thought occurs to me, however. Maybe skills should get harder as percentages > increase. > At 100% an easy skill becomes medium, at 150% hard, etc. Just a thought...any > benefit > gained is probably not worth the added complexity (and space). > I agree. I intend to rule that all skills are hard after a certain level. Incidentally, this is an example of a problem which, IMHO, does not merit much discussion. A competent GM can adapt these rules to suit his or her tastes. I think the mechanic in the given rulees is clear enough. What I suggest is that the Gamemastering chapter have a section on (gasp!) how to tailor the rules to suit your own campaign. I'm far more interested in figuring out a way to get hundreds more people enjoying RQ and Glorantha than in rules orthodoxy. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05950; Wed, 9 Feb 94 01:31:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03844; Wed, 9 Feb 94 02:31:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 2:31:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 2:31:21 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 23:27:34 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2791B4E69C5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Tue, 8 Feb 1994 devinc@aol.com wrote: > Therefore, > playing once per week, the system begins to break down in about a year of > playing. Somehow, I don't forsee this as a selling point.... > Playing ONCE A WEEK? Sheesh. I have never been able to do this. As a GM who also leads a life, and has interests besides RQ, 56 sessions is three years or more of play. If the system "breaks down" every three years (and remember, this assumes your characters don't do inconvenient things like die or get diseases), I'm content. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07176; Wed, 9 Feb 94 01:51:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04415; Wed, 9 Feb 94 02:51:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 2:51:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 2:51:28 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 23:38:30 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <279712F5D55@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Tue, 8 Feb 1994, Jim DeGon wrote: >> It's the ganging up > > that I question. I think that this "multispirit" power is an intriguing > > idea for a super tough shaman of some specialized school. As a general > > power, it doesn't work. > > > The issue here should not be whether many spirits can attack one target > just because it's "not fair". The issue should be considered from the > point of how reasonable it is for them to be able to attack en-masse and > then design your rules from there. > > It seems intuitive that ganging up of some sort is possible when spirit > combat is considered as some sort of analogue to physical combat. Likewise, > multiple attacks should be possible and "stronger" than one-on-one attacks, > but the current "free shot" system is what makes it unfair. > > Some alternate solutions: The defender could defend with their full > magic points (or POW?) against each spirit, however each additional > attacker adds, say two or three to the strength of it's attack. > ex. One defender, two attackers each get +3 to strength of attack > One defender, three attackers each get +6 > This would be somewhat consistent to getting bonuses for attacking > "surprised" or "helpless" opponents in physical combat. > > Alternatively, the defender can split his "parry" by defending with less > current magic points. Depending on whether the GM judges that it is possible > to judge the strength of each attacking spirit, the splitting could be > specified, or just automatically divided in even portions with the odd points > assigned randomly. > ex. One defender, splits defense 6 and 3 against two obviously differing > strengthed spirits, or, as the GM judges that the defender has no spirit > sight or spirit lore, he spilts evenly. > > It is important to realize that it won't be an easy task for the shaman to > conveniently have all the spirits he desires, and that the life of the shaman > is dangerous even when he stays at home. He could be attacked from the > spirit plane at any time. I imagine that previously bound or summoned > spirits might likely be gunning for him at his weakest times, provided they > possess INT. > > I say the above because the two types of magic are basically incomparable. > It is "fair" to give the defender a better shot against multiple spirits, but > it isn't "fair" to the shaman to make spirit combat one-on-one with this as > the only justification... > I certainly agree that "fairness" is not the issue. I'm not convinced that spirit combat is in any way analogous to physical combat, at least when dealing with disembodied spirits. And especially when a shaman looses multiple spirits at an enemy, I don't think it should be so simple for the attacks to be coordinated. Here are a few ideas: 1. Temple defender spirits and the like could be coordinated in their defense. This could make small temples somewhat daunting to raiders, and perhaps they should be. 2. I think that there should be some mechanism whereby the coordination of spirit attacks by a shaman is not authomatic. Either there could be a "multispirit" skill for the shaman, or perhaps there could be a special skill or magic spell available to defend against such potent attacks and force the spirits to attack singly. 3. I'm not sure about splitting MP's ... I don't think most characters will stand a chance, unless they have disproportionate POW. Bottom line, I agree that a powerful shaman (the type I like to use as villains) will be able to link the spirits. I just don't see the typical apprentice in Prax being able to do it. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07951; Wed, 9 Feb 94 02:21:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04947; Wed, 9 Feb 94 03:20:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 3:20:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 3:20:40 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 00:21:16 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <279EDBB7B1E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Jim DeGon writes: >Andrew Weill reponds to Steve Maurer and Ray Turney >> > >Steve Maurer is concerned that the elimination of the earlier RQ rule that >> > >only one spirit can attack at a time; plus the introduction of the all out >> > >attack option; plus the fact that unless you take an action you defend at >0; >> > >makes Shamans world beaters. >> >> > >On reflection I concur with him. Imagine 4 pain spirits sent in against >one >> > >enemy charging a shaman. If the enemy continues the charge, he is >> > >defenseless against 4 all out attacks and should shortly be possessed at 0 >> >> with a shaman sending 4 spirits against 4 enemies. It's the ganging up >> that I question. I think that this "multispirit" power is an intriguing >> idea for a super tough shaman of some specialized school. As a general >> power, it doesn't work. >> >The issue here should not be whether many spirits can attack one target >just because it's "not fair". The issue should be considered from the >point of how reasonable it is for them to be able to attack en-masse and >then design your rules from there. Reasonable arguments can be made that it "doesn't make sense" to allow more than one spirit to envelop a target at once. >It seems intuitive that ganging up of some sort is possible when spirit >combat is considered as some sort of analogue to physical combat. Likewise, >multiple attacks should be possible and "stronger" than one-on-one attacks, >but the current "free shot" system is what makes it unfair. The game balance problem arises when you consider: 1) Spirits are insubstantial, and can roam the battlefield, ignoring all obsticales 2) PCs, having bodies, cannot engage a spirit, or somehow stop a spirit from reaching its chosen victim, or prevent it from escaping (unless you bind it, or course) 3) It is impossible to escape from a spirit, whereas one can attempt to run or hide from a group of creatures 4) Clever shaman tend to unleash their spirits, while the enemy is busy fighting his minions. Thus they may not have the opportunity to cast defensive spirit magic (if they even know any). If defending against a spirit takes a combat action, then the victims are doubly screwed. This is like requireing a combat action in order to defend against each spell cast at a character. With this in mind, a disembodied spirit already has a huge advantage. I say that defending against spirits should take no combat actions, and the attacker gets no "all out attack" bonus. Attacking in spirit combat takes at least one combat action. Other remarks: Why do spirit attacks happen on DEX SR? Are mindlinks still blocked when engaged in spirit combat? -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15161; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:43:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25129; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:43:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:43:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:43:31 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Too Many Postings Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 00:25:01 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A550955C07@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > > One post a day per person is a good maxim but in some cases more than one > mail note can be necessary. The key, in my humble opinion, is to > concentrate on quality over quantity. > I should also note that some of us do not have software that permits quoting from multiple messages at once; if I'm going to quote from a message, I HAVE to do it in seperate posts for each message. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15236; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:45:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25185; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:32 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: dodging arrows?!?!?!?! Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 00:33:05 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A554F63542@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Raymond D Turney writes: > > There's a case to made for dodging javelins, etc. But arrows? This seems > reminiscent of martial arts myth to me. In any event, there seems little > justification for allowing both parries and shield coverage {discussed > immediately below}. > Uhmm, every time I've watched an archery match conducted at any range at all, there was a perceptible pause between release and impact, and if you were positioned properly, you could see the arrow's flight. That seems to be all that's required to suggest that dodging arrows is at least POSSIBLE. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15323; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:45:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25215; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:45:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:45:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:45:14 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 01:01:57 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A557F13817@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) writes: > The attitude you and Nick displayed "So what": I've never seen a RQ > campaign played at less than 70% skills for the PC's major skills. In the > groups I have played in high initiate to rune level seems to be the standard. > This probably isn't typical and I accept that most groups play at the lower > levels, but one of the ideas behind rq4 is to increase the popularity of the > system, rather than to shut out those people who like to play the higher > levels. > Bravo. One of the things I found irritating about the game Swordbearer was that it had an absolute top end that one could certainly run into during the course of an extended campaign, and no sign of anything further you could do. Having a system that suddenly dies when you get towards the upper end of a perfectly reasonable character progression sequence over extended play is not going to make positive brownie points for RQ4 with a number of people I know. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15281; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:45:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25196; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:45:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:53 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: higher level playing; Fatigue Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 01:07:56 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A55674512C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > > So if you think lots of people will be running around with 150% skills, > what sort of benefits do you think they should have? They do have the much > greater chance of doing double damage (or special tactic), which is > probably what it'll take to knock down the Parry Master's defense. And for > non-combat skills, they also have the higher chance to special or crit. > What was wrong with the old trick of having skill percentages above 100% percent function as penelties on competing skills (attacks versus parries for example)? If I have 120% skill, and my opponent has 150%, that reduction to 80% effective on my part (while only reducing him to 130% effective) is certainly going to be noticeable. I don't suppose the old solution would be any harder to keep track of than it ever was. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09986; Wed, 9 Feb 94 03:18:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05890; Wed, 9 Feb 94 04:18:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 4:18:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 4:18:33 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: First Aid and Shields Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 04:23:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27AE4C178A0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I have recently heard some suggestions that Heal become a sort of Bladesharp. I presume this means that it would add to First Aid skill. Frankly, I don't have any problem with any of the three methods m entioned (normal Heal per RQ3, Dispel Heal, or Healsharp), it's all a matter of style rather than playability in this case. Realism is not an issue since this is an area with no comparison to real life. My concern is, however, regarding the First Aid skill, which, as written, seemed very weak in RQ3 and open to abuse. I hope this is fixed in RQAiG. I am not a fan of having someone on the spur of the momentcompletely take a leg from unsuable to full by way of a non-magical means. With RQ3 First Aid, a person with 5hp legs who takes 3 wounds (of 2hp, 2hp, and 1hp) will be fully healed by first aid in 6 minutes by someone with a 50% skill. I see someone being 0hp in the leg as a rather serious wound. Can some one out there who has the RQAig rules (I wish we newbies could get a copy!!!!!) let me know if it 's been fixed? Also, in RQ3, except for covering versus missiles, I could find no advantage to carrying a shield as a parrying weapon over , say, a bastard sword. Both have the same hit points, and the bastard sword is actually better since it can damage weapons or natural attacks that miss and can be used to attack more effectively than a shield if not used to parry with that MR. If RQAiG has not rectified this situation, may I suggest that we have some sort of very simple mechanism for penalizing parries with weapons as compared to parries with shields? Or perhaps just bring back to RQ2 dex requirements to use an off-handed weapon. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11600; Wed, 9 Feb 94 04:01:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06424; Wed, 9 Feb 94 05:00:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 5:01:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 5:00:55 EST From: Eric Rowe To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirits etc... Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 02:00:48 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27B999B3232@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A few more comments... I would like to throw my vote on the side of there should be a way to have multiple spirits attack one person. (Though only the cruelest GM's would dare do such a thing to their players). Allied spirits. I'd don't like how this is currently set up. First, they are listed in the requirements for rune levels, not benefits. Second, allied spirits are perhaps the single greatest power leap given to those who honor their god with their lives. I do not like the current level of randomness, especially when a lucky roll can make an acolyte powerful enough to wipe out an unlucky Rune Lord because of the presence/absence of an allied spirit. Any reason the first three editions aren't credited in the credits? eric  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12476; Wed, 9 Feb 94 04:36:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06795; Wed, 9 Feb 94 05:35:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 5:36:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 5:35:53 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: First Aid and Fatigue Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 02:35:46 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27C2EC055E7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler (devinc@aol.com) has a gripe with RQ3 First Aid: >My concern is, however, regarding the First Aid skill, which, as written, >seemed very weak in RQ3 and open to abuse. I hope this is fixed in RQAiG. I >am not a fan of having someone on the spur of the momentcompletely take a leg >from unsuable to full by way of a non-magical means. With RQ3 First Aid, a >person with 5hp legs who takes 3 wounds (of 2hp, 2hp, and 1hp) will be fully >healed by first aid in 6 minutes by someone with a 50% skill. I see someone >being 0hp in the leg as a rather serious wound. This was never my reading of the rules, particularly PB, p.75 where it says, "First Aid can only be used successfully once against injury to a specific hit location..." This sentence only makes sense if only one success per location is allowed. FATIGUE: Sorry, guys, but RQ3 Fatigue looks better and better to me, compared to what I've seen of the proposed systems: 1) By applying a simple skill penalty, it sticks with established game mechanics. 2) It automatically scales for skill level, in that -13%(for example) is much less debilitating to the 90% master than the 30% newbie. 3) It has NO breakpoints!! A simple mechanic provides a *continuum* of fatigue, rather than Fatigue "levels" that mean when you fail a CON roll, you "suddenly" become Fatigued. 4) Adding a fatigue point every round seems little worse to me than keeping track of when spells end. On an unrelated topic, I really liked someone's great idea of giving everybody half of their best weapon skill using *anything*. Never could see how a spearmaster with a club is no better than a neophyte. OK, I'm done, Dustin (dustin@OCF.Berkeley.EDU)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13512; Wed, 9 Feb 94 04:51:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07022; Wed, 9 Feb 94 05:51:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 5:51:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 5:51:13 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 02:51:33 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27C703B54D0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From Jim DeGon >On Feb 8, I wrote >> The issue should be considered from the >> point of how reasonable it is for them to be able to attack en-masse and >> then design your rules from there. >> >> It seems intuitive that ganging up of some sort is possible when spirit >> combat is considered as some sort of analogue to physical combat. Likewise, >> multiple attacks should be possible and "stronger" than one-on-one attacks, >> but the current "free shot" system is what makes it unfair. >> >> Some alternate solutions: The defender could defend with their full >> magic points (or POW?) against each spirit, however each additional >> attacker adds, say two or three to the strength of it's attack. >> >> Alternatively, the defender can split his "parry" by defending with less >> current magic points. Depending on whether the GM judges that it is possible >> to judge the strength of each attacking spirit, the splitting could be >> specified, or just automatically divided in even portions with the odd points >> assigned randomly. Andy Weill wrote >I'm not convinced that spirit combat is in any way analogous to physical combat, > at least when dealing with disembodied spirits. It sounds like the draft is moving this way though. > And especially when a shaman >looses multiple spirits at an enemy, I don't think it should be so simple >for the attacks to be coordinated. > >1. Temple spirits could coordinate .... > >2. I think that there should be some mechanism whereby the coordination > of spirits is not automatic ... I have always envisioned spirits to be able to execute orders without explicit direction, even if they have low INT attack dogs require no coordination. As many attack as can sink their teeth in at once. >3. I'm not sure about splitting MP's ... I don't think most characters >will stand a chance, unless they have disproportionate POW. Remember our example with four POW 6 spirits. This shaman has something on the order of 35 or more POW including himself and the fetch. The defender wouldn't likely stand a chance against the sever spirits either, but if each is POW 6 and two attack a defender at once, this is no unwinnable battle if your POW is split. Likewise if each recieves a bonus of three to attack. Spirits should be able to attack simultaneously if it is at all possible to find a mechanic that will satisfy GM's like you because it just makes more sense.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14069; Wed, 9 Feb 94 05:25:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07441; Wed, 9 Feb 94 06:25:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 6:25:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 6:25:11 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 03:25:33 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27D012A1149@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I guess I missed half of the message.. Remember our example with four POW 6 spirits. This shaman has something on the order of 35 or more POW including himself and the fetch. The defender wouldn't likely stand a chance if he had sever spirits either, but if each is POW 6 and all four attack one defender, the character's buddies will munge the (likely) unarmored shaman. Sorry about the guy with four spirits though.. at least it's not four sever spirited players... As for the spirits going on to the next player, I think this might require four control spells and _much_ concentration to keep them under the shaman's will. Otherwise the spirits do one "hit" and return to the spirit world. How can the shaman control four control spells at once? Perhaps the problem here was the original demonstration case was overstated? Steve Barnes wrote: >Reasonable arguments can be made that it "doesn't make sense" to allow >more than one spirit to envelop a target at once. I haven't seen the arguments on this particular issue, perhaps I missed them. Please elaborate your case. Steve lists four excellent spirit advantages and states that from a game-balance point-of-view... >With this in mind, a disembodied spirit already has a huge advantage. Game balance comes into play when you choose how many spirits the bad-guy has. >I say that defending against spirits should take no combat actions, >and the attacker gets no "all out attack" bonus. Attacking in spirit >combat takes at least one combat action. I fully agree about the "all out"/"free shot" problem. If the defender splits or the attacking spirits simply get bonuses against full magic points then, this is not a problem. Likewise each attacking spirit then needs to "parry" against the "split" attack. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought. >Why do spirit attacks happen on DEX SR? >Are mindlinks still blocked when engaged in spirit combat? I can't answer, as I dont have a copy of the draft. Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20811; Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:32:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13878; Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:32:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:32:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:32:00 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 10:31:46 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2711DD17807@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> from Tim Leask David Cake writes: > > > > > I have lobbied Oliver J several times to have combat skills over 100% > > subtract from the parry/dodge of the defender. (I'm not sure about > > having a 101+ parry/dodge subtract from an attacker, however). OJ > > doesn't like the idea, however, so no beans. > > > I agree with Oliver. This RQ2 rule has caused real havoc in some RQ2 > campaigns. The biggest problem is that it makes Fanaticism and Berserk just > too good. Berserk becomes completely unstoppable - 100% goes to 200% and it > is almost impossible too parry. A side effect is that when someone goes fanatic, > no one is parrying them anyway, so others tend to go fanatic as well, in a sort > of bizarre chain reaction, and then everyone dies. > But skills over 100% do need to do something. > This problem is easily fixed. The subtraction from the parry/dodge is simply made on the basis of the unmodified skill. e.g. someone with a skill of 120% subtracts 20% regardless of combat enhancing spells. someone with less the 100% skill doesn't get to subtract anything even if there modified skill is over 100%. Someone or something that has a natural 200% skill should cause real havoc. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27155; Wed, 9 Feb 94 09:42:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19822; Wed, 9 Feb 94 10:41:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 10:42:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 10:41:38 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 10:41:21 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <281477E39BC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Kevin here. Andrew Weill said: > Playing ONCE A WEEK? Sheesh. I have never been able to do this. As a > GM who also leads a life, and has interests besides RQ, 56 sessions is > three years or more of play. If the system "breaks down" every three > years (and remember, this assumes your characters don't do inconvenient > things like die or get diseases), I'm content. RQ once a week was quite easy in college, where the single biggest population of RPGers can be found. Do you really want people to play RQ for a year, break the system, then move on to something else because there's no point in building up a character? Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker I blame the failed Giuliani administration.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25031; Tue, 8 Feb 94 18:33:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16921; Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:32:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:33:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:32:40 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:31:00 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <27220C16E71@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > from Tim Leask > This problem is easily fixed. The subtraction from the parry/dodge is simply > made on the basis of the unmodified skill. e.g. someone with a skill of 120% > subtracts 20% regardless of combat enhancing spells. someone with less the > 100% skill doesn't get to subtract anything even if there modified skill > is over 100%. > > Someone or something that has a natural 200% skill should cause real havoc. This sounds good, though it makes the attack doubling advantages of Berserk a little useless for most berserkers (of course their real advantages lie in their ability to ignore most wounds). Still I'd go for this as the major advantage for weapon masters, but how does it cover craftmasters? Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06323; Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:16:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26314; Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:15:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:15:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:15:18 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:15:12 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <282D73D2E44@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Most people in assessing this issue do not seem to realize the variety of advantages the shaman already has. He can: a) attack while standing out of archery or runespell range by sending his spirits in; b) either attack 4 targets with 4 spirits or one target with 4 spirits; c) unlike the divine spellcaster, he can reuse his spirits at his command when they finish the first round of attacks; d) gain power checks faster for being unusually magically active {relative to the sword of Humakht} thus making him go up faster as a specialist caster; e) have access to a much wider variety of magic more easily than the divine or sorcery casting specialist; f) has access to some abilities which have no simple counterparts in the other spellcasting specialist's magical arsenal {or are we about to see Seven Mothers Priestesses casting Mindblast using a +2 to offensive spells ability off a POW base of 20?}; g) Discorporate himself and attack in sprit combat himself; h) Has ready access to specialist training in spirit combat, which his Seven Mothers Priestess or Yanafal Divine competitor does not. Advantage a) is a tactical killer, as he can strike at you from outside your range, unless you happen to be a sorceror with range and an attack spell at a very good percentage {for which you have paid at least one hard skills}. Given enough attacks while remaining invulnerable himself he will win. Advantage b) is also devasting, as it means anyone attempting to close the range faces the equivalent of massed archery by several archers while not wearing any armor. It thus interacts synergistically with advantage a). If this is for some reason not appropriate he can adopt the normal tactic of engaging several enemies at once. Advantage c) Spirit reusability, means he never runs out of attacks, and the only way to defeat him is to beat his spirits in spirit combat. It should be noted that spirit combat differes dramatically from ordinary combat in that no one can protect your character's flanks, and force the other spirits to engage him. The several other advantages listed are also very nice to have. A simple question for Jar-Eel: HOW DID SHENG SELERIS LOSE?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10824; Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:04:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00606; Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:03:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:04:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:03:38 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple attacks Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:25:11 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <283A57623DC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I favor always defend with current MP as a minimum; only one spirit {highest current MP first, otherwise random if a conflict} can attack an EMBODIED enemy in a combat round, and maybe the creation of talismans that act as spiritual armor. Raymond Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07615; Wed, 9 Feb 94 11:32:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27752; Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:31:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:32:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:31:48 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:31:31 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2831DA32313@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Andy, college students often play once a week or even more often. Also, how much you play depends to some degree on the demands of your job. As it happens, your job is quite demanding and as a parent of a young child much of your remaining energy is also committed. I suspect once a week would be normal for the market as a whole.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03824; Tue, 8 Feb 94 20:46:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22917; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:46:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:46:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:46:19 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Masters and Fatigue Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:44:40 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2745B1B4775@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell here: > David here. > >Newton here. Sounds like a roll call. > > I prefer RQ:AiG's much faster integer damage bonus, to the previous rolled > DBs. RQ3 was broken in that average size people got a bonus. > The average male (Siz 13) only has to train his strength to 13 to get a +1 bonus in RQ:AiG. I like the integer damage bonuses myself, but I'm worried by the effect of damage boosting magic in the new system. If the sword only does 1d6 or 1d8 (I don't have the draft, this is what OJ posted to this list a few months back), and the maximum human damage bonus is +3 (18 Siz, 18 Str), then Bladesharp 3 is starting to look very effective. The reduction in armour values starts to make Protection more valuable too. I know they've reduced the maximum value of spirit magic spells available: is it enough to offset this change? > Neither Nick nor I _want_ the game to break above 100% if it doesn't have > to. And I do want the rules to handle 100%+ weaponmasters. What I don't > care about is 150%+, and probably not even 125%+. How high do they have to > go? I always found advance slow enough that Rune Lords never happened (from > normal starting characters), so I find it hard to imagine skills getting > incredibly high just from experience. If certain magic spells don't matter That's true: that's why people tend to play high level campaigns (start at 75% for major skills) if they want to play Rune Lords. The problem can be demonstrated without going to 150% skills. Take two fights: the first between a character with 95% skill and a character with 80% skill. The difference is 15%, the ratio 1.1875. The 95%er has the edge, because even at this high level the most likely way for the 80%er to die is to fail to parry; with armoured opponents using shields even specials only tend to just penetrate the 15 - 18 points of armour plus shield. (I know RQ:AiG has reduced armour and AP's, but it's also reduced damage). In my experience, limited since we don't tend to play at the lower skill levels, combat tends to be decided by those that fail to parry when the other hits, rather than by criticals, specials or fumbles, though these do have effects. Try the fight between the same 95%er and a weaponmaster with 110% skill The difference is 15%, th ratio is 1.158: IMO not significantly different. The battle will be decided by criticals or 96-00 autofailures; perhaps a special or two will roll high enough to make a significant effect through parry armour. The weaponmaster has a 3% advantage in specials and a 1% in criticals: he has no advantage in chance to hit or autofailure. My problem with the current fatigue system is that even the smallest level of fatigue (+3 as I understand it) will remove the weaponmasters special advantage and give him disadvantages in crticals, fumbles and autofailures. As David Cake (I think) said, fatigue, rather than skill, becomes the dominant effect on combat at very high skills. I think a system where each level of fatigue loss gives -5% to all checks would work well enough in the 45-80% skill range, which is where I think RQ is aimed. The effects will be a bit strong at lower skills, and weak to non existant at higher skills (unless we go with some new version of the rq2 mastery system), but I don't think it will destroy the system at either level, which I think the add-to-die-roll system will do. As a further opinion: I could do with a fatigue system that was just long term fatigue, only rolled for outside of combat, and only regained slowly. It would be one thing less to worry about for the GM, and would have the game effect I want: stopping PC's from carrying absurd amounts of armour and equipment. Some people might carry their armour on a horse and only put it on before battle, but I've read that that is exactly what the ancient Greeks used to do. > Maybe we have to be like RQ2, only more so: nobody can have skills over > 100%. There, that solved the problem. That is a solution I could accept, but is another incompatiblity. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19925; Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:49:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09341; Wed, 9 Feb 94 14:49:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 14:49:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 14:48:43 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:53:00 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28565EC3248@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> While I agree that shamans are powerful, I will argue that they're not *quite* as powerful as some might say. For instance, to respond to Mr. Turney's points: > a) attack while standing out of archery or runespell range by sending his > spirits in; Doing this takes them out of range of any control spells he has on them, so they will perform *one* task each, then go away. > b) either attack 4 targets with 4 spirits or one target with 4 spirits; I'll concede this point. > c) unlike the divine spellcaster, he can reuse his spirits at his command > when they finish the first round of attacks; Only if he has cast Command or Control spells on them. If Command spells, then he too is using divine magic. If Control, then he must have had them in a Spirit Trap (otherwise he would have had to reduce them to 0 MPs before Controlling them, rendering them useless in spirit combat) which will have cost POW to make. And either of which means he's in archery or runespell range. > d) gain power checks faster for being unusually magically active {relative > to the sword of Humakht} thus making him go up faster as a specialist > caster; I'm not so sure that a magically active shaman would get POW checks faster than a magically active Sword, or even a particularly devout Sword who made a point to attend regular worship services. I'll only concede a half point here. > e) have access to a much wider variety of magic more easily than the divine > or sorcery casting specialist; He has access to a much wider variety of Spirit spells, true; that's what a shaman does. Nearly any cultist will have access to many more divine spells than a shaman can obtain through Spirit Cults, however, and can regain them much more readily. Now shamans who are members of shamanic cults, such as Waha or Kyger Litor, will have the best of both worlds, but that seems to be the nature of such mixed types. > f) has access to some abilities which have no simple counterparts in the > other spellcasting specialist's magical arsenal {or are we about to see > Seven Mothers Priestesses casting Mindblast using a +2 to offensive spells > ability off a POW base of 20?}; However, since a shaman has two POW's that are raised from his activities, and there's no indication that a fetch can act independently anymore (i.e. cast spells, direct spirits, etc), he is in many ways more limited than a Runelord with an allied spirit, which can act independently and raise it's POW without needing the Runelord's help. Sure the Shaman might have +2 to overcome with offensive spells; to get it he will have to have given his Fetch *at least* 11 POW. That's if Magic Attack is taken as the primary ability, otherwise the he has to give it 21 or 31 POW. And he will have to have taken the Magic Defense ability if he want's a similar ability to defend against magic. Given that in RQ3 a shaman with a fetch this large is practically invulnerable to magic or spirits (fetch POW added to his in defending against both) *and* the fetch could cast spells independently with it's POW of 11 to 31, I really think these rules power down shaman considerably, while at the same time making them more interesting. Both of which I see as a good thing. > g) Discorporate himself and attack in sprit combat himself; Only if he's taken that discipline as well. And this is not something he does in less than a full turn unless his fetch is at lest POW 31. > h) Has ready access to specialist training in spirit combat, which his Seven > Mothers Priestess or Yanafal Divine competitor does not. Again, this is what a shaman does. The YD scimitar get's sword training. > Advantage a) is a tactical killer, as he can strike at you from outside your > range, unless you happen to be a sorceror with range and an attack spell at > a very good percentage {for which you have paid at least one hard skills}. > Given enough attacks while remaining invulnerable himself he will win. But each spirit he does this with does *one* thing and goes away. So he's throwing away a renusable resource for a one time benefit. Kind of like Divine Intervention, which the shaman doesn't get. > Advantage b) is also devasting, as it means anyone attempting to close the > range faces the equivalent of massed archery by several archers while not > wearing any armor. It thus interacts synergistically with advantage a). If > this is for some reason not appropriate he can adopt the normal tactic of > engaging several enemies at once. This just means he's throwing away a lot of spirits that would be better kept for close work. And it takes a combat action to command each one, which allows a lot of time for attackers to move in close. > Advantage c) Spirit reusability, means he never runs out of attacks, and the > only way to defeat him is to beat his spirits in spirit combat. It should > be noted that spirit combat differes dramatically from ordinary combat in > that no one can protect your character's flanks, and force the other spirits > to engage him. Or dispel the Command or Control spell on them, after which they go away. If they were not Commanded or Controlled, then they go away after performing one task. And I, as a GM, certainly wouldn't allow such things as "attack all those people sequencially in spirit combat" as a task; attacking one person is one task. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that shamans aren't tough. But keep in mind, a shaman that can do all the things said has a fetch that has been given 21+ POW, plus several spirit traps taking one or more POW each. So an equivalent Runelord is one with 26+ points of divine magic. Spirit Block is still a common divine, two points of this gives +20 POW for defense. That should certainly give the runelord time to get within divine magic range. At which point he casts 2 or 3 Sever Spirits (doing 1d6 even if he doesn't overcome) or a Thunderbolt or Sunspear or two (which don't have to overcome), or whatever. I think it will be a pretty even match. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11172; Wed, 9 Feb 94 16:52:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23400; Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:51:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:52:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:51:07 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 14:50:39 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <288703C75D4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I believe Maurice/Boris and Ray have between them accurately given us a picture of spirit combat's pros and cons. Besides the issue of power, however, doesn't it make a lot of sense to at least try to see if an acceptable mechanic for multiple attacks can be hammered out... It just makes more sense than the spirits queueing up for their chance to knock out the defender. My suggested solutions have not been directly addressed, and any others are welcome. Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12077; Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:01:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB24031; Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:00:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:01:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:00:41 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Damage, Shields, Fatigue Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 15:00:30 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <288991C3230@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David speaking. >Kevin here. >> I prefer RQ:AiG's much faster integer damage bonus, to the previous rolled >> DBs. > >Except that players quickly (as in, almost immediately) learn their own >normal damage bonus (it used to be written on the character sheet--I >imagine it is now, too) and automatically rolled the DB whenever they >rolled weapon damage. Adding two dice is not very time consuming. I guess you're not a GM. Or if you are, you're a super GM. Sure, I can add two dice pretty quickly. I can even roll two dice pretty quickly. Sometimes I can even find the two dice I'm supposed to roll pretty quickly. But when I'm doing these tasks for over 6 NPCs in a round, it takes a finite and too long amount of time. Players have all combat round to concentrate on one character. GMs have to concentrate on each player character, as well as each NPC. Devin wrote >Also, in RQ3, except for covering versus missiles, I could find no advantage >to carrying a shield as a parrying weapon over , say, a bastard sword. Both >have the same hit points, and the bastard sword is actually better since it >can damage weapons or natural attacks that miss and can be used to attack >more effectively than a shield if not used to parry with that MR. If RQAiG >has not rectified this situation, may I suggest that we have some sort of >very simple mechanism for penalizing parries with weapons as compared to >parries with shields? Or perhaps just bring back to RQ2 dex requirements to >use an off-handed weapon. I thought shields, unlike weapons, weren't damaged if their AP were exceeded. >From: Dustin Tranberg >4) Adding a fatigue point every round seems little worse to me than > keeping track of when spells end. Surely you don't keep track of when spells end? We never do. They last a long time. Longer than almost any combat.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16463; Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:28:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25592; Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:27:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:28:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:27:40 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 15:27:32 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2890C3C6A3C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> If spirit combat is supposed to more closely emulate regular combat, then why not add some rules that support this. Limit the amount of spirits that can attack an opponent at a single time. Maybe three or four spirits can surround and prevent a large spirit from escaping until it defeats one or two. In some ways, I see spirit combat as a very stylized form of real combat. A Zorak Zorani spirit tried to crush opponents, while an Orlanthi spirit makes use of its mobility. If you want to 'improved' spirit combat, the system should accommodate differing techniques. Neil  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16897; Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:32:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25823; Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:31:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:31:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:31:19 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:31:15 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2891BCB415D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To Boris Mikey, At least this, insead of analysis of the fatigue rules, is the sort of thing I'm more interested in. A few points, a) any reasonably clever shaman will either discorporate himself and move to within range of the control spells {spirit or rune} wihtout becoming visible. He can thus retain control of his spirits while not exposing himself to attack. OR he can set up a chain of command, you obey this spirit and attack what it tells you to. He then keeps his officer spirit in reach and it commands the others {if necessary} with spirit magic control spells. Also, do spirits moving out of control spell reach escape from control. This is not obious. More to the point, is go attack him and come back an order beyond the shaman's power to give? If yes, then your point has merit, if not the shaman is merely slightly inconvenienced. b) Is actually the only thing I'm really concerned about; you've given it to me. c and below) Since as you point out, these other shaman advantages are arguably offset by Divine and Sorcery advantages, I'm not actually objecting to them. I am pointing out to the crowd that this is for multiple spirit attacks that their shaman is hardly bereft of resources if he he loses the multiple spirit attack option. Finally, as has been observed before, it is not obvious that the shaman benefits overall from multiple spirits attacks, since he is himself a defender in spirit combat as well as being an attacker. I offer, for those who prefer multiple spirit attacks, the following options to deal with this: A) Cap the number of spirits that can attack at some arbitrary number, say 4, to correspond to the physical limit on the numbers of attackers, while allowing automatic defense at current MP's; B) Allow the defender to defend with full stored MP's including POW storage crystals, etc. Thus, a super rune lord might be able to draw down his hundred points in crystals and MP storage while closing; C) Allow any number of spirits to attack, but only the most effective attack takes effect {the rest are subsumed in it}. This maintains consistency with the magical rule against stacking spells, rather than physical combat. It is not at all clear that physical combat is what we should be maintaining consistency with, anyway. On reflection, I favor always defending at current MP, and only the most effective spirit attack on any given round takes effect. This avoids total defenselessness {just as one is never totally defenseless against incoming MindBlast} and knocking an enemy out with a swarm of rubbishy spirits in all out attack mode, in one round. It still allows concentration of spirits, but makes concentration vs dispersion against several enemies a real tactical choice, since their will now be diminishing returns to attacking one enemy with all your spirits. I also think enemies with a lot of stored MP should be able to take MP loss in spirit combat from stored MP, but regard this as far more debatable.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21778; Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:41:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29522; Wed, 9 Feb 94 19:40:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 19:40:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 19:40:30 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:45:02 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28A43080242@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris here, replying to Ray Turney's reply to me replying to him ..., well, you know. > To Boris Mikey, > a) any reasonably clever shaman will either discorporate himself and move > to within range of the control spells {spirit or rune} wihtout becoming > visible. He can thus retain control of his spirits while not exposing > himself to attack. OR he can set up a chain of command, you obey this > spirit and attack what it tells you to. He then keeps his officer spirit in > reach and it commands the others {if necessary} with spirit magic control > spells. I don't think a discorporate shaman can direct spirits on the mundane plane unless he is visible; line of sight is specified for both Command and Control. Having an officer spirit might work, but the officer spirit would have to cast the spells itself (both spells specify that the caster tells the target what to do). This effectively limits this to spirit magic range; I don't think a shaman is going to be teaching divine spells to spirits. So let's see, you'll have to have a spirit trap that you can release the spirit from without breaking (2x base POW cost), that the spirit can cast spells out of (+1 POW), linked to MP storage (+1 POW). This has the boss spirit. You Control him to cast Control on these other spirits, and then tell them to move out and attack these people. I guess it would work, but it takes 1 MR for you to Control and order it, plus 1 MR for him to Control and order each of the others. By the time you've got 4 attack spirits, that Wind Lord could have flown up and cut the shaman to bits. Or Commanded his sylph to dribble him to death. > > Also, do spirits moving out of control spell reach escape from control. > This is not obious. More to the point, is go attack him and come back an > order beyond the shaman's power to give? If yes, then your point has merit, > if not the shaman is merely slightly inconvenienced. The spirit magic Control spell is specifically active while the creature is being instructed. An active spell certainly needs to be within range to function. So if the spirit finishes it's task out of range, then the shaman cannot instruct it. A generous GM might allow complex instructions such as "Attack that person until she is KOed, then come back." I don't. I see Command and Control spells like computer instructions, each one simple and distinct. "Possess him", or "knock her out", to me, is an instruction. The divine Command spell, on the other hand, is not active. Thus I guess an argument can be made that the spirit can go out of range. However, it is a rare shaman that has access to many Command spells; I haven't seen any spirit cult write ups that had anything other than Command . Maybe some have Command of some type; I certainly don't recall them. So my point on spirits moving out of range is valid, I believe. > > b) Is actually the only thing I'm really concerned about; you've given it to > me. That's because I'm not sure I like it myself. I will accept allowing only one spirit to attack a embodied being at once. I will accept rolling for each attacker and taking the best result. I will not accept allowing a friendly spirit to block other spirits from attacking embodied beings. One of the Storm Bull special spirits has this ability as a special ability; I don't like letting any Tom, Dick or Harry spirit do the same. > I offer, for those who prefer multiple spirit attacks, the following > options to deal with this: > A) Cap the number of spirits that can attack at some arbitrary number, say > 4, to correspond to the physical limit on the numbers of attackers, while > allowing automatic defense at current MP's; I don't like the second part of this. Making comparisons between spirit and mundane combat is problematic, but if someone engaged in melee takes no defensive actions, their toast on a stick. On the other hand, one always defends against spells at POW. Maybe a compromise. If one doesn't spend an action defending in spirit combat, then one defends at half MPs. This parallels the all out defend option, where one defends with 2xMPs. And regardless, any points from Spirit Screen or Spirit Block always add (something accidentally left out of the draft). > B) Allow the defender to defend with full stored MP's including POW storage > crystals, etc. Thus, a super rune lord might be able to draw down his > hundred points in crystals and MP storage while closing; Oooh, I *hate* this. If the super rune lord wants to defend that much, have him cast Spirit Screen, which is a common divine. > C) Allow any number of spirits to attack, but only the most effective attack > takes effect {the rest are subsumed in it}. This maintains consistency with > the magical rule against stacking spells, rather than physical combat. It > is not at all clear that physical combat is what we should be maintaining > consistency with, anyway. I like this option for the attack. > On reflection, I favor always defending at current MP, and only the most > effective spirit attack on any given round takes effect. This avoids total > defenselessness {just as one is never totally defenseless against incoming > MindBlast} and knocking an enemy out with a swarm of rubbishy spirits in all > out attack mode, in one round. It still allows concentration of spirits, > but makes concentration vs dispersion against several enemies a real > tactical choice, since their will now be diminishing returns to attacking > one enemy with all your spirits. I still think there should be some penalty for ignoring the spirits dive bombing you. Someone who is more concerned about attacking and parrying *shouldn't* do as well defending in spirit combat as someone who is concentrating on it, focusing their will. Maybe defending at 0 MPs is too rough, but MPs/2 seems appropriate. At least to me. > I also think enemies with a lot of stored MP should be able to take MP loss > in spirit combat from stored MP, but regard this as far more debatable. I really hate this idea. Spirit combat is personal. This is like saying that if you cast spells and someone later gives you some storage, you can tank up your MPs from the storage. Do you allow that? Sorry this went on so long. Do you thing this horse we're beating is dead yet, Ray? ;-) -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24494; Wed, 9 Feb 94 19:25:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01836; Wed, 9 Feb 94 20:25:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 20:25:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 20:24:52 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 20:30:12 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28B00556674@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From Devin Cutler To Andy Weill: Some of us (I include myself) can lead a life and play once a week. Try it, you might like it! Also, I would, quite frankly, find a system that breaks down even after three years of campaigning to be unsuitable. There are Warhammer campaigns that have been running for that long and AD&D campaigns that have been running for decades. Also, D Dunham writes: > Maybe we have to be like RQ2, only more so: nobody can have skills over 100%. There, that solved the problem. Great, let's just ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Seriously, an aspect of RQ2 that I always disliked, and one that was corrected in RQ3, was the overwhelming necessity to become a Runelord or Rune Pri est to play at higher levels. While the name of the game is "Runequest", I always thought that playing as very powerful initiate should be an option. RQ3 allows this and I would hate to see the over 100% rules taken away for them. As for limiting all skills to 100%, even the old Traveller system came to realize that, no matter how much emphasis is placed on role playing, there is a certain satisfaction to be gained from character improvement. Limiting things to 100% would top out that feeling of accomplishment fairly quickly. Regarding DB, someone writes: >What is bad about this (fixed damage bonuses) is that you can't nick anyone anymore. In RQ3 I agree. I also dislike the idea of fixed integer damage bonuses because they lend too much predictability to combat. I prefer variance. Are the proponents of fixed integer DB saying that it is physically impossible for a troll with a mace (D8 dmg presumably) and a +2 modifier to only do 1 or 2 hp damage with a glancing blow? I pity the poor character with 3hp arms, he has no chance to take a non-debilitating hit to the arm. Sounds fishy to me! devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01660; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:02:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06367; Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:01:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:02:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:01:27 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: fatigue, and spirit combat Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 22:00:42 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28C9C8F6A7F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi. About the proposed fatigue rules -- a lot of people are assuming that everyone always fails fatigue rules. Many PCs won't even suffer the +3 penalty until 20 or more rounds into a fight, a point most fights don't reach. About both fatigue and the new shaman rules, a point: nobody has mentioned trying them in a game. We've had some fine theoretical discussion of them, but very little description of experimentation. Try them both in your games, and see how they work, please. >Any reason the first three editions aren't credited in the credits? We thought you knew. :-) Believe me, the actual published version will credit lots of things (like you guys). Thanks, Carl  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05795; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:11:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06833; Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:10:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:11:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:10:55 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Encumbrance Penalty Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:05:33 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28CC4B8099F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think a few of my messages on this subject have gone astray, ad (oops, as) I haven't seen them, or seen anyone follow up on them. This is a notion that I put forward in my comments on combat, but as that particular tome was >12k, not everyone got through it I daresay. On to the matter at hand. I very much dislike the current method of scaling encumbrance by SIZ, for a couple of reasons. The first and most important one is that it doesn't make any sense. Being bigger doesn't help you carry things. Now, it may be true that in general in the real world, bigger people can carry more, but that isn't because they are bigger, it's because they are stronger, and in the real world SIZ and STR are strongly correlated. The second and still important, but slightly less so, reason is that it's a clunky, inelegant mechanic ( mathematicians talk a lot about what's elegant and what isn't). You have a table. Tables, in general, are bad, and should be avoided whenever possible. You have these huge breakpoints, where someone who is SIZ 21 can carry twice as much as someone who is SIZ 20. Ugh. This is progress? So, you ask, have I got a better idea? I'm glad you asked. Yes. How much a person can carry, and how much what they carry encumbers them should be primarily dependent on STR. The intuitive appeal of this I trust escapes no one (ordinarily mathematicians avoid and are highly suspicious of appeals to intuition). You use STR to lift, so why not use it to hold what you lift. Okay, so how can we make this relationship simple and avoid using a table? How about simple arithmatic, which I alone seem to think it is reasonable to require a player to be capable of (there's a sentence to give you a headache). Something simple, that bases the norm around a STR of 10, since that's as close to average as you can get and remain with an integer. So, I present the simple method of figuring ENC penalty: {Total ENC} - STR + 10. This gives the fellow with an average STR an encumbrance penalty equal to his ENC/ It allows people with somewhat greater STR to carry somewhat more, and causes those weaklings to struggle under comparatively lesser burdens. This method gives a simpler, more intuitive result without putting in one of those space-hogging tables and cluttering the game with breakpoints that minmaxers swarm over like flies on a ten-day dead sable. SO, please, somebody at least acknowledge that you saw this. Oops, shoudl have put this at the top, it's George Harris again. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17832; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:35:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08045; Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:34:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:34:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:34:40 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The Scope of RQ:AiG Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:29:25 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28D2A0E6118@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George Harris here. I find the attitude displayed by a vocal minority of the partici- pants in this list very offensive. Some people appear to be of the view that any portion of the rules that does not directly apply to the campaigns in which they participate are unimportant and should either be brief or omitted altogether. One of the good things about RQ is that it supports a tremendously varied range of style. It is possible to have extremely interesting cam- paigns composed primarily of relatively poorly skilled characters in a small section of theistic Dragon Pass, or equally fascinating campaigns centered upon extremely highly skilled sorcerors from Loskalm who range the continent (at least, after the opening of the ban). These campaigns will of course appeal to different gamers, and some gamers will, as I do, find both of them to be the cat's pajamas (those descriptions match two campaigns I'm currently involved in [well, almost]). Now, just because some segment of the possible campaigns in RQ doesn't appeal to a person doesn't mean that it is advantageous, or even rational, for a person to ignore what kind of support the rules give that segment, and it is to me inconceivable (inconceivable!) that someone who is trying to help RQ4 be as good a game as possible would actively oppose rules which support as wide a variety of campaigns as can, does and should exist. So, please, people, before you start suggesting that a certain segment of the rules should be omitted, or dismiss others' complaints that the rules don't adequately support their preferred power level, think about what you want RQ to be like in the future. For RQ4 to be successful, and for the RQ Renaissance to continue to flourish, it is vital that we give all the support we can to as wide a segment of the gaming community as possible. For, if we take a narrow view and alienate all but those who hold the exact same views as we do, then the current RQers who have different tastes, and most of those prospective RQers whom we wish to entice to this game, will abandon RQ (and rightly so) as the purview of cliquish, narrow-minded snobs. I don't think any of us really wants that to come to pass. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19636; Wed, 9 Feb 94 21:52:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08909; Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:52:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:52:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:52:39 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:47:31 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28D76CA577E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I'm an RQer who also has a life, spending ~60 hours a week on work-related activities and also running a play-test for a PBeM game that I cowrote, and I manage to play RQ once a week. My GM, preparing a thesis defense, also has a life. So do most of the people in the campaign. Moreover, many people *begin* play at higher power levels (expert or master, in RQ:AiG terms), and in those campaigns, >100% skills come up very quickly and very frequently. Now, if you'd prefer that I and all those whose gaming styles are not *completely* the same as yours wrt power level leave RQ and devote our gaming dollars (or pounds or DM or...) to some competing product, well, then perhaps you haven't thought this through. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21405; Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:37:56 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10928; Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:37:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:37:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:37:42 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Cults and Spirit Spells Date: 09 Feb 94 22:53:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28E37082C54@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ( Dennis Hoover ) To the blessed few with copies of RQ:AiG: I applaud the limitations on spirit spells in RQ4. The game has no need for variable spirit spells stronger than 6. If powerful spirit spells will be harder to find, will weaker ones be easier to find? With certain cults, Yelmalio for example, my players were always hunting around for a second cult just to get decent weapon-enhancing magic. I always hated this; it's ruleplaying not roleplaying. With limits, though, I see no reason not to give Yelmalio a Bladesharp (or Spearsharp) 3. Even a grain goddess or Ty Kora Tek should maybe get a Bladesharp 1 or 2 for her scythe/knife. Is there anything like this in RQ4? Dennis  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21032; Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:25:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10380; Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:25:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:25:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:24:49 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: fatigue, and spirit combat Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 20:24:35 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28E000D12F2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dear Carl, I am only in one regular RQ game, and that is Steve Maurer's RQ II game that has not converted. I agree that experiment is better than theory, but theory is better than nothing. Also, how much experimenting does it take to suspect that if several spirits are allowed to attack one enemy defending at 0, that enemy is in trouble. I merely want the defender to have the same chance he would against several incoming Mindblasts. Have nothing to say about the fatigue rules. They seem to do what I need fatigue rules for, and per word of rules written they are the most heavily analyzed part of RQ. Actually you're doing pretty well. Your shaman rules are at least worthy of analysis, which is more than I can say for the ones we came up with. I still think Hwarin Dalthippa is underpowered. {Actually I care more about this than about my long running argument with Greg over Yelmalio}. Would you be interested in a spell which would aid generalship by allowing the caster to read a battle and declare intent first or last {a la Empires in Arms and the advantages it gives the French on land and the British at sea}? This is a nice advantage, worth about 2-3 points. I also think she shold be associated with at least one of Lodril, Pole Star, or Yanafal giving her followers the option of getting some military magic that way. The reasoning for Lodril is that Hwarin led a lot of Pelorian Lodril worshipping peasants in her day. Also, Lodril is big in metalworking, and Hwarin's craftsman followers do a lot of that. As a human hero with free will, Hwarin could easily have HeroQuested to create such an association. The case for Pole Star is that Hwarin was the greatest general of the Empire, which is strongly associated with the Yelm pantheon. As a general, it would make sense for Hwarin to go where generalship could be learned. If Hwarin is not Pole Star's rival, she is probably an understudy. As the big warrior hero/god of the Seven Mothers, many of whose people must have followed the Conquering Daughter in her lifetime, again I can see Hwarin creating a cultic association with Yanafal, even accidentally. I'm not so big on getting all the Lunar gods to take sorceror initates and even acolytes as I was; not as you say because it is Arkati {it is also Nysalorian and I doubt Hwarin would consider a comparison to Arkat wholly unflattering} but because with 2 hard skills minimum and separately mastering each spell sorcery is very hard. The sorceror may need his time and POW for sorcery enchantments, having a high POW to attack with, etc. I can easily see Yanafal turning down sorcerors not from deep aversion to sorcery but simply because a sorceror-Yanafali wouldn't be good in either area. Much as Math departments don't like people who want to mix in some physics with their math; and physics departments look askance at people who take a lot of courses from the Math department. Sorry you got in the middle of my argument with Greg's to my mind too facile invocation of culture to defend discrepancies in combat effectiveness. Carthage had a culture which was less supportive of military effectiveness than Rome, with results we know about. More recently, Napoleon and the levee en masse produced changes in Prussian military culture. Isn't cultural change what heroism is all about?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00561; Thu, 10 Feb 94 00:23:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15385; Thu, 10 Feb 94 01:23:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:23:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:23:01 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: fatigue, and spirit combat Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 14:22:13 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28FF88D5DAE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave Cake here > > About the proposed fatigue rules -- a lot of people are assuming that > everyone always fails fatigue rules. Many PCs won't even suffer the +3 > penalty until 20 or more rounds into a fight, a point most fights don't > reach. > I am sure that I have said this before Carl, this discussion is definately starting to repeat itself. But here are my two objections to this point. 1) A minor quibble is that I rather doubt that this is the case - apart from the plate armour types, there are the long term fatigue rules, which I expect could come up fairly often in many campaigns. There are drain spells as well. In other words, there are a lot of situations where people will start a combat at minus a level or two or fail a roll rapidly. There will probably be few situations where people actually pass out through loss of fatigue, but a few levels of fatigue loss could easily be very common. 2) Defending the rules on the basis that they won't be used very often is ridiculous, and tantamount to admitting that they are not that good anyway. Just because they are not used often does not make them any better. Remember, it is not the penalty that we object too, it is the nature of the penalty. > About both fatigue and the new shaman rules, a point: nobody has > mentioned trying them in a game. We've had some fine theoretical > discussion of them, but very little description of experimentation. Try > them both in your games, and see how they work, please. > Bad rules are seldom so bad that they significantly disrupt normal play when used in the normal way, but are often disruptive when pushed to the extremes. If I can see that the rules are not so good for myself, why should I encourage players to use them in a disruptive way just to show that they are bad? And in any case the fatigue rules are mostly bad in a probabilistic way, and using them a few times won't necessarily show up big problems. If you want I will make up a bad guy shaman and have him chop my players up with a few simultaneous ghost attacks, but I strongly suspect that the theory will be borne out in practice. > Thanks, > Carl > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01415; Thu, 10 Feb 94 00:40:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15849; Thu, 10 Feb 94 01:40:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:40:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:40:32 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 14:39:41 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <290432B3DA3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Personally, my only objection to the rules as they stand is that the defender is completely defenceless against at least one attack when attacked by multiple spirits (unless they all out defend - which means they do nothing else, and is a losing tactic anyway (because you don't attack back)). I would just like this one thing changed, preferably to defend at your mp total, or maybe at half as boris suggested. Maybe you defend at mp unless you spend a defense action and then you defend at POW? But there are other reasons why I dislike the 'defend at 0 mps' unless you spend an action rule. It makes spirit combat a ridiculously easy way to take down berserks (who can't make any defensive actions), it makes people with very high POW still very vulnerable to spirit attack, a big change. And it means hordes of small spirits are more dangerous than one big one, which is exactly the opposite of the way it has always worked. Please consider changing this one rule. Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01512; Thu, 10 Feb 94 00:42:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15877; Thu, 10 Feb 94 01:42:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:42:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:42:32 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: More RQ:AiG comments Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 22:42:23 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2904BB35D8B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> As Brad Furst pointed out, the ENC of armor is different in the Combat chapter and in Economics. My players felt that long-term Fatigue recovery was too slow. And I think that waiting 6 seconds is too quick for recovering combat Fatigue. 19 When you switch from "figure" to "combatant," don't forget the definition of DEX Strike Rank. 82 The ENC of a parrying dagger is 1.0 -- on 103 it's 0.5. 91 says horses can Defend -- p. 195 lists no Defense skills. 103 I suspect the ENC of a Large Hide shield is not 1.0. 119 While Fireblade is incompatible with Bladesharp, the reverse is not stated explicitly. 123 If Vigor adds 2 points/intensity to CON, then each point adds 1 point, not 1/2, to hit points. 141 I realize you can't incude everything, but your summary of Yelm makes it appear that getting cult magic and divine magic is like any other cult; in fact, the requirements are much more difficult. 150, 163, 179 I find it confusing that each magic tradition has a different spell called Armoring Enchantment, with completely different limits (divine: d4, once per location; spirit: d3, people only; sorcery: d4, objects only, once/object). 151 It's a little odd that the discussion of unenchanted metal is under Enchant Metal. Isn't information on unenchanted iron better in a place other than Divine Magic? 152 I thought Chalana Arroy was supposed to be the only deity who got reusable Resurrect? 156 Spirit Dance seems unnecessary -- why would a shaman need to avoid spirits when the most common interaction with spirits is either the chart on 161 or summoning? There's never a time to roll the skill. 160 "A shaman with affinity for a rune can learn divine magic of cults tied to that rune if he joins the cult." So can I, or any man. What differentiates this from standard initiate learning of divine spells? 168 If I have Maintain 80, can I use Intensity 8 AND Range 8 with a Maintained spell? If you spend a point of POW with the Maintain, you no longer need normal maintenance. But you then say that it must still be maintained. How come a standard Maintained spell can be fed MP from a spirit, but one you've sacrificed POW for can't? The last paragraph is very confusing. The MP are "automatically drawn from the caster's personal MP" but if that's not enough "reduce the caster's MP." How can they draw on MP without reducing it? Why are sorcery spells active, temporal, or transient, instead of active, passive, or transient? The term "temporal" isn't defined on p.107. 173 Do Uleria priestesses learn Enhance Feel? 173 Can Resist Damage be cast on objects? The first sentence implies people only. I had a hard time finding the fact that the Reasoning bonus was used for sorcery spells. 176 I find it hard to believe that a conversation can deafen anyone. 176 The damage for Touch Illusions doesn't correspond to the names -- a kick is for some reason missing from the Combat chapter, but I doubt it would do an average of 7.5 points of damage. A knife does only d3. It seems like you're somehow measuring pain, not touch intensity -- they're not the same. 179 A familiar's POW adds to the sorcerer's manipulation skills. How nice that sorcerers with familiars are better with their sword attack. [Come up with a different name! Spell shaping, enhancement, spell working, or something better.] 197 Take the editor's blue pencil to the paragraph on chaos features. My players wanted to know, can you teach spells to spirits? (E.g. have a spell spirit attack your magic spirit.) And one wanted to know if you could have your familiar sacrifice POW to Maintain a spell. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02333; Thu, 10 Feb 94 00:48:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16013; Thu, 10 Feb 94 01:48:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:48:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 1:47:59 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Encumbrance Penalty Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 22:48:34 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29062FE6F77@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. >Oops, shoudl have put this at the top, it's George Harris again. > On to the matter at hand. I very much dislike the current method >of scaling encumbrance by SIZ, for a couple of reasons. The first and >most important one is that it doesn't make any sense. Being bigger >doesn't help you carry things. Now, it may be true that in general in >the real world, bigger people can carry more, but that isn't because they >are bigger, it's because they are stronger, and in the real world SIZ >and STR are strongly correlated. This is the crux of the matter... STR should be based on SIZ, but currently is not. So as to avoid the problems in RQ of midgets able to lift as much as huge guys, encumberance should be based on both STR and SIZ, just like the damage bonus is. My proposal is to take the ENC/fatigue chart, and replace STR with (STR+SIZ)/2. This eliminates the need to divide the ENC carried by a scaling factor. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03222; Thu, 10 Feb 94 01:18:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16760; Thu, 10 Feb 94 02:18:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 2:18:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 2:18:00 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields; fatigue, and spirit combat; focus Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 23:17:47 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <290E30C513B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Graeme corrected me: >> I thought shields, unlike weapons, weren't damaged if their AP were exceeded. > > Is this new in RQ: AiG? I never saw anything saying that in RQ3. Not >that realistic, since shields were replaced quite frequently. Whoops, must have been a house rule in various campaigns. Carl suggested: > About both fatigue and the new shaman rules, a point: nobody has >mentioned trying them in a game. We've had some fine theoretical >discussion of them, but very little description of experimentation. Try >them both in your games, and see how they work, please. I am. Steve Barnes proposed >take the ENC/fatigue chart, and replace STR with >(STR+SIZ)/2. This eliminates the need to divide the ENC carried >by a scaling factor. Which sounds like a very good idea to me. George pointed out >fascinating campaigns >centered upon extremely highly skilled sorcerors from Loskalm who range >the continent Yes, they could, but if RQ:AiG is centering on Dragon Pass and attempting to introduce people to Glorantha, it doesn't necessarily have to have rules for all of Glorantha. And I'm still of the opinion that the smaller the book (as long as there aren't things missing in what is covered), the better the introduction. I _still_ haven't gotten to read the current Sorcery rules in any detail. While it would be nice if RQ:AiG could handle children and heroes both, I don't see that as essential -- if you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. I think RQ needs to focus on what it can do best, which is adventurers aspiring to and attaining Rune level. At that point, they're probably really no longer adventurers (whether or not the campaign allows them to be played). I'm not trying to say that sorcery campaigns are bad, or that nobody should play high level. Only that if RQ:AiG is to succeed at what I see as its goal (sell new people on Glorantha), it might not need to support such things.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03285; Thu, 10 Feb 94 01:21:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16920; Thu, 10 Feb 94 02:21:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 2:21:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 2:20:59 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 15:19:52 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <290EFCB1FEE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 1994 devinc@aol.com wrote: > > > Therefore, > > playing once per week, the system begins to break down in about a year of > > playing. Somehow, I don't forsee this as a selling point.... > > > Playing ONCE A WEEK? Sheesh. I have never been able to do this. As a > GM who also leads a life, and has interests besides RQ, 56 sessions is > three years or more of play. If the system "breaks down" every three > years (and remember, this assumes your characters don't do inconvenient > things like die or get diseases), I'm content. > Sorry, but I play once a week, am employed, and have an active social life and many other interests. Whats more, if you start at a level other than the traditional twenty year old peasant (which I deliberately did as I am running a playtest campaign and wanted to try out as much of the system as possible), then it takes even shorter a time to reach Rune Level - my players are starting to nudge it after only six months of play. And whats more some us even like to start play at high levels - I have run at least one experimental short term campaign where the players played the leaders of a Praxian tribe, rune level all - which certainly helped me find a few problems in RQ3. In any case, besides the arrogant attitude of assuming that if you can't get organised to play once a week, the people who can must be gaming zombies, there is also the arrogance of assuming that if the game meets you personal requirments, but not others, then that is a great product. Sheesh! Cheers Dave > ---Andy Weill > >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05919; Thu, 10 Feb 94 02:36:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18132; Thu, 10 Feb 94 03:34:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 3:36:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 3:34:20 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Encumbrance Penalty Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 09:34:12 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29228D6031F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> From: Henk Langeveld ______________________________________ |gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU (George Harris): | (there's a sentence to give you a headache). Something simple, that | bases the norm around a STR of 10, since that's as close to average | as you can get and remain with an integer. So, I present the simple | method of figuring ENC penalty: | | {Total ENC} - STR + 10. | | SO, please, somebody at least acknowledge that you saw this. |____________________________________________________________ I did, I like it. -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08087; Thu, 10 Feb 94 03:38:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19173; Thu, 10 Feb 94 04:38:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 4:38:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 4:38:07 EST From: ADRIAN M RUSSELL To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 09:35:49 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29339085126@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Please unsubscribe me from this list ADRIAN RUSSELL "WHAT WILL BE WILL BE"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12361; Thu, 10 Feb 94 05:43:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20431; Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:43:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 6:43:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 6:37:49 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Encumbrance Penalty Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:41:10 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29537E16BE9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg replying to George Harris: > On to the matter at hand. I very much dislike the current method > of scaling encumbrance by SIZ, for a couple of reasons. The first and > most important one is that it doesn't make any sense. Being bigger > doesn't help you carry things. Now, it may be true that in general in > the real world, bigger people can carry more, but that isn't because they > are bigger, it's because they are stronger, and in the real world SIZ > and STR are strongly correlated. Maybe, but I (2m tall) did have an advantage in a carrying contest (in a mock-Viking game) which I won because a) I carried most bulk and b) most weight over a short parcours. Weight was secondary, but being tall I had an advantage in tucking away large segments of trees uder my arms. Strengthwise, I consider myself to be average human, but my size would range in the max. human area. > The second and still important, but > slightly less so, reason is that it's a clunky, inelegant mechanic ( > mathematicians talk a lot about what's elegant and what isn't). You > have a table. Tables, in general, are bad, and should be avoided > whenever possible. You have these huge breakpoints, where someone who > is SIZ 21 can carry twice as much as someone who is SIZ 20. Ugh. This > is progress? No. Some linear (arithmetical) relation would be fine with me, although more important than to provide a tool to determine exact encumberance is to determine how exacting encumberance is. (Pardon me pun) > So, you ask, have I got a better idea? I'm glad you asked. Yes. > How much a person can carry, and how much what they carry encumbers > them should be primarily dependent on STR. The intuitive appeal of this > I trust escapes no one (ordinarily mathematicians avoid and are highly > suspicious of appeals to intuition). You use STR to lift, so why not > use it to hold what you lift. This has one important flaw. By strength, most people think of strength of arms, most important in striking, lifting etc. When it comes to carrying burdens, or doing specialized movements (like drawing a bow, and yes, hitting with a sword), a big biceps won't help much. RuneQuest makes this issue difficult by having the SIZ characteristic. I do agree that SIZ at least makes up for increased bulk of equipment when walking. So a greater carrying capacity for taller people seems about right. When it comes to lifting capacity, or performing quick actions while burdened, the extra bulk doesn't help. (This is why SIZ in RQ3 went negative into the agility modifier.) [...] > This method gives a simpler, more intuitive result > without putting in one of those space-hogging tables and cluttering the > game with breakpoints that minmaxers swarm over like flies on a ten-day > dead sable. SO, please, somebody at least acknowledge that you saw this. WRT to tables and breakpoints, I couldn't agree more. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08461; Thu, 10 Feb 94 03:46:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19269; Thu, 10 Feb 94 04:45:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 4:46:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 4:45:55 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Guy reviews the World of Magic Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 01:45:14 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2935A4345D6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OK, I now have had the RQ:AiG rules for almost a week now and I'm continuing to read in preperation for the first session of character generation soon. I've yet to make contact with some of the groups I plan to play test with but the response so far has been suprise and enthusiasm. To the business of proofing and reviewing The World of Magic. Battle Magic. I like this term and the rules attempts to clarify that this is more of a game term than the common term most Gloranthans use for it. I also like the concept of a relatively common magic that virtually everyone has a chance of possessing. Divine Magic, Shamantic Magic, Sorcery, Lunar Magic and Dragon Magic are the five other tyopes of Magic listed, of which Lunar Magic and Dragon Magic are not covered by this publication. The terminology is well described and covers the matter of touching someone to contact with a Touch spell. The addition of the Transient class of duration was a nice touch. The spell casting roll and cost. I'm not a great fan of rolling to see whether Battle Magic is successfull but I do like the handling of the spell cost when the roll is failed or fumbled. A fail means that you pay 1MP and a fumble means you pay the whole cost of the intended spell. There is a degree of controlled redundancy in RQ:AiG and I like this. If a rule only occurrs once you can spend a long time hunting for something specific but it occurs, albeit prehaps abbreviated, at another logical place then it make the rules clearer and simpler to read, provided the entries are consistent. The Apparent Affects of Sorcery I am ambivalent about. At least this discussion lend sa nother prespective on the Runes as the effects are listed Rune by Rune. I'll see how it plays later. Twilight. Wow, this is a usefull concept. I can imagine scouts of adventurers attempting to lie low to wait for this time when magic can be preceived by the naked eye. I can imagine that a critical time to patrol an area with covert magical defenses would be just before twighlight. The Glowline and Lunar Magic being affected by the moon. If I find a player keen to play a Lunar I'll let people know. Possession. The two flavours of possession I fully approve of as the RQ2 form, where the original spirit of the possessed person is ousted out into the Spirit Plane, was too harsh for my liking. I like the idea that a covert possession could manifest itself as a bad memory or dream. Curses. Dealt with very well. This is a description of a magical effect, not a actual condition in itself. What happens after death! I was extremely pleased to read this section entitled Death and the Path of the Death. There is agreement that a spirit lingers nears the body for 7 days in the viewpoints that actually care about the fate of the spirit. For the most obvious source of spirits for a non-shaman is the spirits of the people who have just been slain. I have not read enough of RQ:AiQ to see the whole picture but at least I know that the spirit lingers for 7 days and the after that cannot be ressurrected. Magic Items. This should really be the subject of another post but this section is well presented. The items themselves are compatable with the mythic Gloranthan background although most items you would only expect a Rune level character to possess. I've no complaints with that as the giving of a magic item to a cult by a lower 'level' member would be a great social gesture that would not be forgotten easily. Battle Magic. There is some very interesting material about the character's perception of Battle Magic spells which could be a bit difficult for player characters in practise. It is suggested that characters do not know excatly how many point their Battle Magic spells are and that spell might be taught in such a varied manner that someone might not be able to recognise the same spell from different sources. I'd certainly feel a bit guily about good role players being penalised for choosing the same spell twice (the example given is Slay Rat and Woundm whihc are both forms of Disruption) although this is good for background colour. The Battle Spells themselves. It is not clear whether Control only effects disembodied spirits or not. I presume it must as 1 point is far too low to conrtol an embodied spirit which takes at leats 2 points to Befuddle. I presume that later detail on Spirits will give more information Spirits being tied to certain Runes. Heal. I am suprised that Heal 8 only cures 1 HP total body damage while a Heal 6 can re-apply a limb. Is not Heal 4 more appropriate for healing 1 point total body, assuming that total body damage is going to be dealt in units of 1d6? Endurance. I like this spell as it allows you to both heal levels of Fatigue and stack them for later use. A very sensible skill to be developed in the presence of Fatigue. Tranquil Cut. An excellent spell for the ethicial herder, hunter or farmer. Rich background indeed. I can live with the rest of the spells although I agree that Shimmer adding to active defensives only is a bit ropey but an agrument could be put that a localised, imobile heat haze the size and shape of a person is about as easy to hit as an imobile person. Thats about it. Divine Magic, Spirit Magic and Sorcery each have their own chapter. I wil deal with those seperatley. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08262; Thu, 10 Feb 94 03:41:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19223; Thu, 10 Feb 94 04:40:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 4:40:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 4:40:07 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re; Various Recent Comments Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 04:45:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <293418D62F6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here. Dustin replies to my problems with First Aid: )This was never my reading of the rules, particularly PB, p.75 )where it )says, "First Aid can only be used successfully once against )injury to a specific hit location..." This sentence is ambiguous, but check out page 42 and pg 43 in the en try under First Aid. I quote: "Use First Aid once on damage from one source to a specific hit location. Thus, if an adventurer takes two woundsto his arm, First Aid may be used once against the d amage from each wound." I don't feel that Dustin's method is workable either as an alternative, since it produces the quirky result of allowing a person who takes 1 wound on MR 1 and then does First Aid and then takes another wound on MR 8 to do First Aid again (that's two wounds and two First Aids) but if he waits until after the fight he can only do one First Aid on both wounds? Makes no sense. Before suggesting an alternative of my own, I will still await comment on RQAig in this matter. Regarding multiple spirit attacks, put in my vote for allowing multiple attacks. I really did not like it in RQ2 when a single character could walk into a room full of ghosts with some spirit protection up and piick them off one by one. IMHO spirits should be nasty (although not unplayable, as they sometimes were in RQ2) and worthy of respect, since primitive societies always were very fearful of such things. Regarding Fatigue: Why not simply rule that fatigue penalties affect each person at a proportion of their skill. For example, if it is decided that fatigue level #1 (whatever that may be) will lower skills by 1/5th, then a person with a base 100% attack would be at 80% while a person with a 50% attack would be at 40%. This has the effect of a compromise (but maybe that means that it will please no one!). It does not monkey around with criticals and fumbles too much and everything is proportionate and, therefore, fair. It would preserve highbees' advantages and yet not shaft lowbees as much as highbees. BTW, I like Dennis' suggestions for limiting damage bonus to some multiple of the rolled weapon damage on any given hit. Preserves those grazes and nicks and cuts in combat while retaining some of the supposed advantages of an integer DB system. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12363; Thu, 10 Feb 94 05:43:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20435; Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:43:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 6:43:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 6:38:00 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shields, Spell Duration etc Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:07:16 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29538AC6028@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joreg to Graeme Lindsell >>>From: Dustin Tranberg >>>4) Adding a fatigue point every round seems little worse to me than >>> keeping track of when spells end. >> Surely you don't keep track of when spells end? We never do. They last a >> long time. Longer than almost any combat. > I usually use a variant on the Paranoia system for drugs: spirit magic > lasts "a while", Divine Magic "A few whiles" and sorcery either "a few > whiles" if it'll expire in an adventure, or "a long time" if it won't. > Works for me. A while ago, I had a party storm a cave occupied by a few chaotics. They prepared thoroughly, cast their spells, then advanced coordinatedly. Had I not kept track of spell duration, the whole thing would have been a walk-through, but with the imminent time-out of their spells (in the 4-point range each) they had to rush in and use their advantage. It was interesting, and held some suspense. Of course, one can handle this by rule of thumb, too. A while ago some victim managed to Slow 3 a PC Viking berserk, but another PC followed up and cancelled it partially with Mobility 2. (I rule that both have different effects and may be effective simultaneously.) For nearly five minutes, the berserk's opponents managed to play hit and run, then the Slow expired. Like a rocket, Mobility 2 still in effect, he caught up, and with a friendly "surprise" cleft them in half. They could have run, yes, but there were wounded comrades lying around. Anyway, the "little while" rule ought to keep in mind tactical decisions and opportunities like these. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15205; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:44:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25171; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:44:11 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 02:18:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A553790D1E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng writes: > > I believe I've also seen this applied (in print?) to other skills. Is > it just my feeble memory, or do I remember a published source > suggesting that a lock maker with skill over 100% would reduce the > chance of a pick attempt? > This used to be the standard approach to 101+% skills previous to Third Edition. I don't understand why it went away; it made the skills at that level useful, but didn't add much complexity. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.25/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26883; Thu, 24 Mar 94 16:05:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11417; Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:04:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:05:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 5:24:49 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spell Duration Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 02:24:25 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <294004F17E2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham and Graeme Lindsell wrote about not bothering to keep track of spell durations during fights... Well, I *do* keep track of them. Granted, for most fights even the shortest magics last throughout the combat, but a few fights have lasted long enough for it to matter, and it provides a wonderful level of drama, tension, and desperation. It happens often enough if there is a lot of movement in the fight, or if the characters are involved in a very large-scale battle (war). I remember a genuine sense of disappointment when I realized that Endurance wasn't temporal, because I had really enjoyed the extra drama that resulted from my war god cultist being in danger of passing out when his spells wore off. Dustin (dustin@ocf.berkeley.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12365; Thu, 10 Feb 94 05:43:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20442; Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:43:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 6:43:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 6:39:21 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields; fatigue, and spirit combat; focus Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:27:14 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2953E6401FF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to David Dunham > George pointed out >>fascinating campaigns >>centered upon extremely highly skilled sorcerors from Loskalm who range >>the continent > Yes, they could, but if RQ:AiG is centering on Dragon Pass and attempting > to introduce people to Glorantha, it doesn't necessarily have to have rules > for all of Glorantha. And I'm still of the opinion that the smaller the > book (as long as there aren't things missing in what is covered), the > better the introduction. I _still_ haven't gotten to read the current > Sorcery rules in any detail. Well, I'm going to play in the Holy Country, and I'm going to play out the Malkioni schisma to the extreme. I will need Rokari, Aeolian, Arkati, Issarian, Brithini, Vadeli and Old Hrestoli sorcerers, plus the assorted bunch of Lunar sorcery. Modern Hrestoli, Galvosti and Boristi might be the only Western sects I won't use in Heortland, God Forgot, Karse and Nochet. Just for this area of interaction, I need info on more than half of Genertela's major cultures. An introduction to Glorantha should at least give the necessary clues to woork oneself onward from that. > While it would be nice if RQ:AiG could handle children and heroes both, I > don't see that as essential -- if you try to please everyone, you end up > pleasing no one. I think RQ needs to focus on what it can do best, which is > adventurers aspiring to and attaining Rune level. At that point, they're > probably really no longer adventurers (whether or not the campaign allows > them to be played). Thenat least the GM opught to be given advice how to adapt the rules to a certain style of campaign. GURPS does successfully so, at least in the Vikings supplement. > I'm not trying to say that sorcery campaigns are bad, or that nobody should > play high level. Only that if RQ:AiG is to succeed at what I see as its > goal (sell new people on Glorantha), it might not need to support such > things. See my example above. I recall that Dragon Pass, Prax, and the Holy Country should be covered by the rules. Apart from "Strangers in Prax", there are a lot of cultures dominant in this area. Not as a serious proposal, but to illustrate: We might as well cut the Lunars, they don't live in Dragon Pass, a few strangers excepted. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13837; Thu, 10 Feb 94 06:21:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24859; Thu, 10 Feb 94 07:20:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 7:20:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 7:20:15 EST From: ADRIAN M RUSSELL To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: General Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:35:04 GMT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <295ECE24AF6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> O.K It seems that Nick Brooke has motivated me too write, so here goes.... As I havn't got any knowledge of the new RQ4 rules system, I can only give an opinion on RQ3 and its pros and cons. Also I am quite new to RQ. _ SORCERY_ A great asset to RQ but with a system that doesn't work well for PCs. Sorcery should be included in the initial rules package though the option of placing it in a 'western' supliment would not detract from the initial rules system.{ I would buy it anyway} I also like the manipulation skills of range etc{these should remain in some form} _COMBAT_ I like the RQ3 combat system, o.k it takes a while to get smooth game play with people who have never played before, but in my opinion it is good in this form. Except for high level combat 95%+ where combat can get a bit boring unless players are well versed in battle magic. This brings me on to strike ranks.. _STRIKE RANKS_ I like strike ranks-once players know how it works the game runs smoothly and quickly with no panic over who is doing what when. However changing the time scale of strike ranks may be a good idea as the movement allowance is too great in one melee round. _FATIGUE_ One thing I have learnt about fatigue and that is to use it as only a guide line to stop players overloading characters and thinking they can fight and run forever. Putting lots of extra fatigue rules into the game will only detract from what should be an easy and quick game to pick up. _SKILLS_ I don't know what plans you have for changing skills, but I would like to say that this is what is most attractive about RQ so don't mess it up! I seem to have forgoten what else i was going to say. So I wil say goodbye. {I,ve unsubsribed} ADRIAN RUSSELL "WHAT WILL BE WILL BE"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21610; Thu, 10 Feb 94 08:54:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01848; Thu, 10 Feb 94 09:54:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 9:54:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 9:54:20 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shields; fatigue, and spirit combat; focus Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:53:23 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2987E7C4BF8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > I'm not trying to say that sorcery campaigns are bad, or that nobody should > > play high level. Only that if RQ:AiG is to succeed at what I see as its > > goal (sell new people on Glorantha), it might not need to support such > > things. I thought that the goal of RQ:AiG was to be a good new edition of the rules? (irony laden, but serious, comment) Basically, the ideal of introducing new players to Glorantha is secondary to producing a good set of rules. (after all, look at the commercial sucess of Tekumel - interesting world, but the rules suck, so commercial failure). Cutting this or cutting that won't make it a better set of rules, nor will all the cultural background in the world. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17373; Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:38:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26161; Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:37:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:37:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 9 Feb 94 18:37:26 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Shields, Spell Duration etc Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 10:35:17 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28935F56F0D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > David speaking. > > I thought shields, unlike weapons, weren't damaged if their AP were exceeded. Is this new in RQ: AiG? I never saw anything saying that in RQ3. Not that realistic, since shields were replaced quite frequently. > > >From: Dustin Tranberg > >4) Adding a fatigue point every round seems little worse to me than > > keeping track of when spells end. > > Surely you don't keep track of when spells end? We never do. They last a > long time. Longer than almost any combat. I usually use a variant on the Paranoia system for drugs: spirit magic lasts "a while", Divine Magic "A few whiles" and sorcery either "a few whiles" if it'll expire in an adventure, or "a long time" if it won't. Works for me. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27409; Thu, 10 Feb 94 10:23:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09559; Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:22:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:23:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:22:28 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple attacks Date: 10 Feb 1994 11:20:41 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <299F6954382@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Raymond Turney writes: > I favor always defend with current MP as a minimum; only one spirit {highest > current MP first, otherwise random if a conflict} can attack an EMBODIED > enemy in a combat round, and maybe the creation of talismans that act as > spiritual armor. I agree with all Ray says. If you're defenseless against spiritual or magical attack you defend with current MP instead of POW, only one spirit can attack an embodied opponent at any one time (highest MP gets to attack if several try), and there should be talismans that act as spirit armor, that is some kind of Enchantment like the Armoring Enchantment that you can hang around your neck to keep the bad spirits away (it keeps good spirits away, too). In fact it would be nice to clarify the rules of spirit combat to explain how engagement works on the spirit plane. 1. if fought normally then any spirit may only engage one other spirit at any one time. this is because spirit combat is like grappling or wrestling, and it's impossible for to effectively combine forces while wrestling and rolling around on the ground. attacks take place at the Dex SR in this sort of battle, with high Dex breaking ties. Permanent denizens of the spirit plane are considered to have a Dex equal to their MP. Temporarily disembodied spirits (within 7 days of leaving the body) use their Dex instead of their MP, as they are still restricted by their physical body or memories of how it works. 2. there exist spiritual weapons which can allow spirits to battle at some range, which would allow a many-on-one battle. these can be called spirit swords, or axes, or pikes, or whatever. They add their SR to the Dex SR for purposes of determining who acts first. especially fine spiritual weapons can add to the damage of a successful spiritual attack (from +1 up to +10). fine spirit weapons were often used by the God Learners, and so most of them have been seized by the Gift Bringers of the Sending Gods. those remaining are very rare, of incalculable value, and dangerous to possess. 3. there are enchantments and formulae that armor embodied spirits, preventing attacking spirits from damaging them. rather than adding to MP/POW in offensive or defensive struggles, they reduce the damage suffered when the opposing spirit succeeds. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01057; Thu, 10 Feb 94 10:59:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12431; Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:58:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:58:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:58:37 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4: high level playing Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:28:58 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29A90C541A4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler said: > Also, I would, quite frankly, find a system that breaks down even after three > years of campaigning to be unsuitable. There are Warhammer campaigns that I agree that limiting skills to 100% is inappropriate, though none of my players are in any danger of getting there for some time yet (perhaps I am just mean, but it seems to take more like 4-5 years playing to get to Rune level). > Someone said: > >What is bad about this (fixed damage bonuses) is that you can't nick anyone > anymore. In RQ3 > Not so: in RQ3 the damage add to most weapons meant that it was impossible to nick someone anyway, even for a wimp. > I agree. I also dislike the idea of fixed integer damage bonuses because they > lend too much predictability to combat. I prefer variance. Are the proponents There is enough die-rolling in combat already. > of fixed integer DB saying that it is physically impossible for a troll with Not physically impossible, just much less likely than other outcomes. > a mace (D8 dmg presumably) and a +2 modifier to only do 1 or 2 hp damage with > a glancing blow? I pity the poor character with 3hp arms, he has no chance to > take a non-debilitating hit to the arm. Sounds fishy to me! What is this wimp doing fighting a troll with a (RQ3) +d6 damage mod!!! In RQ3 he will be slaughtered in any case! My rhetorical question: are the proponents of the RQ3 situation saying it is physically impossible for a wimp to do a non-disabling hit to a (3 hp) arm with an axe (d8+2) but possible for an incredibly strong troll not to disable the arm with a heavy mace (d10+d6)? The answer is that there are limits to how much complexity we want to add to simulate reality - after all it is only a game! If the GM and players are computers than they can use the binomial distribution for damage or indeed something really complicated. The trouble with using a variable modifier is that some people do not like using strange dice, though personally I like the damage ladder being +1,+d2,+d3,+d4,+d5,+d6,+d8,+d10,+2d6,... but the fixed amount is certainly simpler (and faster to use) than this. It is a noticeable improvement on the RQ3 table, speeds up combat, and for virtually all weapons does not introduce any "minimum damage" problem (indeed the weapon damage changes remove this for most). -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10189; Thu, 10 Feb 94 12:19:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19130; Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:18:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:19:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:18:21 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: SIZ, STR, and encumbrance Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:18:09 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29BE4FD4678@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George Harris makes a case for carrying ability to be based entirely off of STR and have no SIZ component. I would agree with this on ONE condition: STR must be adjusted for all creatures in RQ to be correctly proportional to SIZ. Now, since I don't have my books in hand, I can't say whether or not this is currently the case. PS: By "correctly proportional" I do not mean that SIZ and STR must rise at the same rate compared to human average. What I do mean is that, given the fact that very large creatures do tend to be very strong, and very small creatures do tend to be very weak (on ABSOLUTE scales, I don't care how much an ant can carry relative its own body weight, I can still out-lift it on an absolute scale).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12228; Thu, 10 Feb 94 12:31:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20167; Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:31:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:31:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:31:43 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "Bladesharp" and other "combat" spells. Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:30:55 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29C1E14569F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ahem, what's this stuff about "bladesharp" as a "combat" spell. Every sensible Orlanthi farmer knows that the PRIMARY use of the spell is to get your plow through the tough bits of sod. (Or is RQ4 going to abandon the wonderfully "civilian" feel that had been building up and go back to a more "wargaming" style of RPG?) Now, "bladesharp" at very high levels would be a different matter, and would only be available to specialists. One more thing: Bludgeon: The PRIMARY use of this spell is by metalsmiths and carpenters, who cast it upon their hammers. This spell is also used by folks who have jobs breaking rocks. The list could be endless. Anyway, unless RQ:AiG is going to regress to its purely militaristic old emphasis (and the 2nd edition was very heavily combat-militarism emphatic by modern standards), we need to rethink the basic philosophy of magic and many spells. Remember, the PRIMARY use of the vast majority of magic in Glorantha is NOT for combat, even spells that those of wargaming mentality call "combat" spells. If RuneQuest is going to truely become "RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha", let the magic reflect that. Therefore: Farming cults would probably teach "bladesharp" 1 but no higher. Craft cults might teach "bludgeon" 1 but no higher, etc. Remember, a knife can be a tool or a weapon, in many cultures it functioned as both. We, in our age of narrow specialization, have often lost the ability to see this versatility of function. Now, some spells are definitely "combat" in that their function is far less amenable to adaptation to a variety of situations. The only uses I can come up with for Speedart and Multimissile is to give one a better chance of hitting something else and doing damage to it. But this does not change the fact that emphasis on the "combat" aspects of magic is too damned heavy--unless RQ:AiG is meant to continue the D&D tradition of magic and campaign settings, that is...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15105; Thu, 10 Feb 94 12:59:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21877; Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:58:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:59:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:58:50 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: fatigue & combat skills >100% Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 14:04:02 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29C91C64B81@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> As I read through the discussions of Fatigue and skills greater than 100%, I wonder. Am I correct, that when the problem is discussed, the problem involves whether combat is decided by killing or disabling the opponent (and whether that defeat comes by luck or by skill)? (...Another writer recently inquired "Are we playing D&D...?") I am reminded of the stories of heroes such as Robin Hood (and John Little), Theseus (and Pirithoos), Sherlock Holmes (and Moriarty) etc. Heroic confrontation between Master Heroes does *not* need to be characterized by elimination. Many of the best legends are about the friendship or continuing enmity resulting from *stalemates*. RuneQuest combat can easily -- and very appropriately -- drag into stalemates. At that point, the characters should choose to interact without combat. Try ransom. Try surrender. Try friendship. Try agreeing to disagree. If the players need to play characters who must crush, kill, and destroy, then the players should consider to play D&D. In those situations where the enemy Master must be destroyed (neutralised?) because of differences of race or creed or politics or war or chaos or whatever, then the standard RuneQuest ploy can be used: outnumber the opponent. RuneQuest is, and has been, notorious for the danger of being outnumbered. Please, as you all reconsider Fatigue and Combat Skills Over 100%, think also about the supporting parties, not just the elite pair who think they are alone struggling toe to toe.   0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16229; Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:13:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23102; Thu, 10 Feb 94 14:13:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 14:13:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 14:13:11 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: More on Bladesharp Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:13:02 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29CCF166AD6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Neil Robinson here.. Bryan says... >But this does not change the fact that emphasis on the "combat" aspects of >magic is too damned heavy--unless RQ:AiG is meant to continue the D&D >tradition of magic and campaign settings, that is... My sentiments exactly! I like folk magic. And by this definition, all those Yemalion farmer types will have Bladesharp 1 as Plowsharp. Now maybe they think the spell doesn't work on spears (and so, perhaps it doesn't work on spears). About this rules discussion.... We have to be very careful about the basic rules. I'm sure everyone on this list has oodles of 'house rules', and often drops a rule if it doesn't fit the situation (dramatic licence I guess). However, any new players and GMs will ofter stick to the letter of the rules, and not the spirit. Neil  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00238; Thu, 10 Feb 94 15:18:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03127; Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:18:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:18:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:17:53 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: A test Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:17:39 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29EE32A7D70@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I sincerely apologize for the bother of this message, but I just got a shitload of bounced mail, and I'm testing to see if my messages are getting through. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker I blame the failed Giuliani administration.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16746; Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:07:13 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15013; Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:05:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:07:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:05:16 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue Date: 10 Feb 94 16:18:25 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A1AD7413A0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke (again): Adrian Russell brought us back to basics, saying: > One thing I have learnt about fatigue and that is to use it as only a > guideline to stop players overloading characters and thinking they > can fight and run forever. Putting lots of extra fatigue rules into the > game will only detract from what should be an easy and quick game > to pick up. True enough. When I run RQ, I tend to see the fatigue rules as a set of parameters operating in tandem with encumbrance to define the limits on player capabilities: they tell me whether hoplites can carry the gear I want them to, etc. I cannot recall fatigue ever being important in combat, nor can I recall wishing it was. The RQ:AiG linkage between Encumbrance and Fatigue is the aspect of the system I like most (not having other playtesters' worries about varying a CONx5 roll being a greater penalty to high-CON characters). The routine, "roll every ten rounds" stuff will be forgotten when I play the game. I like the connection. I am not sold on the penalties, but would like them to inconvenience characters at all levels of power. In fantasy fiction, the likes of Corwen and Elric can be captured because they are too knackered to defend themselves after beating dozens of opponents. Why not in Glorantha? I believe getting tired is a problem Rune Lords will have to face, and can counter (if they so desire) more easily than us common folk. BTW, congrats to Boris for a v.fine post on the limitations of Shamans. (If anyone out there can quote me a published text supporting the bizarre theory that the plural of "shaman" is "shaman", please name your source. I find it baffling that this obvious error is still, apparently, defended.) ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26632; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:40:56 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22402; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:40:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:40:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:40:25 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Proposed rule change Date: 10 Feb 94 16:24:14 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A4438C0573@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From Dennis Hoover I'd like to propose a rule change. I do not actually have a copy of RQ:AiG, so it's possible some of this is already there. If it is, I apoligize for wasting everyone's time. Change the Bladesharp spell to [weapon]sharp. Why should a Humakti be able to bladesharp an axe or a Babeester Gor a sword? Why shouldn't Yelmalio be able to bladesharp a spear or Yelm a lance? Thus you would have something like: Humakt - Swordsharp 6 Babeester Gor - Axesharp 5 Yelmalio - Spearsharp 2 Yelm - Lancesharp 2 I realize this complicates the spell somewhat and may lengthen the cult description slightly, but I think the change is worth it. The precedent for this is of course Iron[body-part]. Something similar should be done for bludgeon. Shaman would be the main source for the generic version of the spell. Dennis  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02004; Thu, 10 Feb 94 15:39:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04666; Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:37:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:37:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:37:31 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Bounces Date: 10 Feb 1994 16:35:51 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <29F36F870CB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> No need to send test messages to the list folx. I got a few bounces this morning too, but it's clear (to me at least) that most people receive e-mail from the list. There are a few hosts that haven't been accepting e-mail today, among them America On-Line and Netcom, and I hesitate to take those people off the list because they include Ken Rolston and some of our other prominent playtesters. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26171; Wed, 9 Feb 94 23:49:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13940; Thu, 10 Feb 94 00:49:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 0:49:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 0:49:34 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Cults and Spirit Spells Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 16:47:46 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <28F69BB5737@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell here (readjusting the lines to 80 characters long, I hope) > > ( Dennis Hoover ) > > To the blessed few with copies of RQ:AiG: > > I applaud the limitations on spirit spells in RQ4. The game has no need for > variable spirit spells stronger than 6. If powerful spirit spells will be > harder to find, will weaker ones be easier to find? I don't see any need to make weak ones _easier_, they are easy enough as is. With the new reduced armour/damage levels, I think spirit magic stronger than 3 should be rare. > > With certain cults, Yelmalio for example, my players were always hunting >around for a second cult just to get decent weapon-enhancing magic. I always >hated this; it's ruleplaying not roleplaying. With limits, though, I see no >reason not to give Yelmalio a Bladesharp (or Spearsharp) 3. Even a grain >goddess or Ty Kora Tek should maybe get a Bladesharp 1 or 2 for her >scythe/knife. I've seen this behaviour as well. I really don't think they should get Bladesharp: Yelmalio isn't worshipped for killing opponents, but for surviving the worst the universe that could be thrown at him. Even though Orlanth took his weapons and armour, I think spells like Protection, Countermagic and Spirit Block that enhance survivability should be available. Yelmalions should be durable. As for grain goddesses and Ty Kora Tek, I think it cheapens cult spirit magic a bit much to give total non-combatant gods weapon magic. Also Gifts, even random ones, that give 90% skills are far from weak, IMO. > > Is there anything like this in RQ4? > Can't answer that, haven't seen it yet. > Dennis > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12649; Thu, 10 Feb 94 17:19:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11217; Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:18:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:19:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:18:13 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans: multiple spirits Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:03:55 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A0E4C54E10@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Wed, 9 Feb 1994, Jim DeGon wrote: > I have always envisioned spirits to be able to execute orders without > explicit > direction, even if they have low INT attack dogs require no coordination. > As many attack as can sink their teeth in at once. But with the attack dogs, the defender can manuveur to evade the multiple attacks. I agree -- on occassion, a defender can be swarmed and surrounded, attacked from all sides. I just don't buy it that spirits always will have that swarming capability. I suspect I will simply allow this rule to be used by shamans with a special (and rare) skill, or defensively with suitable enchantments. (Incidentally, that could make haunted graveyards really nasty ...) ;) ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14499; Thu, 10 Feb 94 17:43:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13479; Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:43:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:43:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:42:58 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:31:16 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A14E5B095B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Wed, 9 Feb 1994, Kevin Maroney wrote: > Do you really want people to play RQ > for a year, break the system, then move on to something else because > there's no point in building up a character? > Let me editorialize a bit here. This comment, to my mind, equates the "point" of roleplaying in Glorantha with maximizing character stats and skills, thereby allowing the "system" to be "broken". This is, IMHO, a very shallow view of what Glorantha has to offer. In my campaigns, the PC's are too concerned with issues of survival; family and clan loyalty; cult duties; economic obligations; revenge and honor; and any of hundreds of other motives to be so concerned with skill checks and training. Yes, some rather single-mindedly pursue certain forms of power; but in my universe, there's no truly free lunch. I've roleplayed the guarding of a 12 year old heir to the throne of Sartar; have you ever tried to watch a normal healthy 12 year old? No number of 100+% skills will work, as my Wind Lady learned to her considerable annoyance... What I am saying is that, after 56 sessions of gaming, the roleplaying aspects should be able to drive and sustain a campaign, not the raw numbers. Adventuring in Glorantha is an art; these rules are the canvas and the oils, and the correct color for a given situation may require a bit of mixing and thinning... In fact, I think I am glad that the rules do not create huge and obvious benefits, in game mechanic terms, to the high leveled characters. Such characters should be motivated by different concerns. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16004; Thu, 10 Feb 94 17:57:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14496; Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:56:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:56:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:56:21 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:54:48 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A1876671DE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Wed, 9 Feb 1994 gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU wrote: > Well, I'm an RQer who also has a life, spending ~60 hours a week > on work-related activities and also running a play-test for a PBeM game > that I cowrote, and I manage to play RQ once a week. My GM, preparing a > thesis defense, also has a life. So do most of the people in the campaign. > Moreover, many people *begin* play at higher power levels (expert or master, > in RQ:AiG terms), and in those campaigns, >100% skills come up very quickly > and very frequently. Now, if you'd prefer that I and all those whose gaming > styles are not *completely* the same as yours wrt power level leave RQ and > devote our gaming dollars (or pounds or DM or...) to some competing product, > well, then perhaps you haven't thought this through. Absolutely fair point. To you and the other weekly gamers who have (correctly) chastised me: my apologies and my envy. --- Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26002; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:24:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21682; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:24:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:24:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:24:25 EST From: Peter Maranci To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: 3 Comments Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 19:31:53 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A3FF40234D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Argh. My host goes down for a day or two and I find 201 messages racked up. Even *logging* them is taking forever, much less *reading* them! I can understand why some folk are unsubscribing. Still...as a playtester I guess I have an obligation. Some of these may have already been said by someone -- if I wait until I read all the back messages I won't be done for two days. 1) Promoting RQ:AIG. Maybe we're all missing a really obvious possibility. Sandy Petersen's DOOM! is the hottest thing on the Software Plane these days, right? Why not ask him to whip off a quick Glorantha adventure game? I can see it now: "From the creator who brought you DOOM! and _Call of Cthulhu_ comes an entirely new breed of horror: BROO!" "They have horns. They're diseased. They worship Chaos. And they want you to have their babies." 8^>} Okay, it would probably be impossible to do anything like that in anything less than several years. But it might be something to think about for the long term. Personally I think that the Big Rubble would make a *great* game area...I'd love to see the Puzzle Canals. 2) RQ:AIG art: I agree that art is crucial. I'd like to nominate the guy who did the art for the _Field Guide to the Creatures of the Dreamlands_ CoC supplement. Far and away the best FRP art I've ever seen. Hell, he could do an "airial map" of Glorantha (or a section of it) like the full-color map of the underworld in the _Guide_. That would be a great cover for RQ:AIG -- he could put in little details like Broo in Dorastor, the Block, etc.. A few gods could be looking over the land. Maybe a Griffon and flying Orlanthi fighting it out with a sky bull or something in the foreground. 3) About pain: I have to agree that you don't tend to feel it in crisis situations. Another result of adreneline boost is time compression. I recently set fire to my foot. It seemed as if at least five seconds passed while I decided to smother the flames with my hands, but in fact it was less than a second; I don't know if I've ever moved so fast in my life. No pain, either. I wonder if there's any way to reflect this in the system...I suppose not. More later... -->Pete ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci Malden, Massachusetts maranci@max.tiac.net, pete@slough.mit.edu, rune@trystero.com, rune@ace.com Editor, _Interregnum_ Roleplaying Amateur Publishing Association -- ask me! Captain, Bozztown Bashers -- Champion Trollball team of RuneQuest Con 1994!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23309; Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:45:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19883; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:44:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:45:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:44:51 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Bounces Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:44:38 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A356561204@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am getting a lot of bounced mail, too. On the other hand I seem to getting all of the mail myself, to judge from the volume.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24453; Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:55:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20310; Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:54:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:54:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:54:14 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:54:10 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A37E7D01F4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On this issue, most of the complaints seem to be about combat. While I would like over 100% to have automatic access to Feint, Flurry, etc on the grounds that maybe knowledge of these special tactics is what over 100% really means, I cannot go with the idea that the rules are broken. What the rules seem to be saying is that one both sides know all the moves, hand to hand combat is basically a matter of who blows it first, and that a lot of luck enters into it. I think there probably really are a certain limited number of moves in basic hand to hand combat, and that if both sides know them, and no one else intervenes, combat will probably take awhile and be decided largely by luck. Tactically, what I want to know is that if this is not a Humakhti duel, why isn't some third party intervening with a spell?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17765; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:24:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27046; Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:23:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:23:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:23:50 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: higher level playing; Fatigue Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 20:23:59 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A5FCA87CD7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Shadow asks: >What was wrong with the old trick of having skill percentages above 100% >percent function as penelties on competing skills (attacks versus parries The problem with straight reductions is that Dwarfs are presented in Elder Secrets as attaining 2000% skill levels in their chosen craft in an average of 700 years practice. Since many Dwarfs have been around since the dawn, this "additive" system can never work in conjunction with the above. I support Ray Turney in that I'm not sure this is really broken? There really is a top end of effective skill advancement somewhere. By that I mean that there are only so many moves in a combat skill, and so many facts in a lore skill. What you should offer particularly high skill level players is the ability to make use of special effects such as flurry etc. Steve Maurer's HeroQuest rules in the archives suggest an alternative however... Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29351; Fri, 11 Feb 94 01:02:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02779; Fri, 11 Feb 94 02:02:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 2:02:59 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 2:02:37 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Proposed rule change Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 23:03:16 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A8A23D3A20@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. >From Dennis Hoover >Change the Bladesharp spell to [weapon]sharp. > >Why should a Humakti be able to bladesharp an axe or a Babeester >Gor a sword? Why shouldn't Yelmalio be able to bladesharp a spear >or Yelm a lance? Thus you would have something like: >Humakt - Swordsharp 6 >Babeester Gor - Axesharp 5 >Yelmalio - Spearsharp 2 >Yelm - Lancesharp 2 Let me make a counter proposal - change the spells to Bless Weapon, which will work on any weapon, thus eliminating the distinction between Bladesharp and Bludgeon.... Actually, I don't mind the current distinction too much, but I really hate weapon specialization; RQ needs less specialization, not more. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02828; Fri, 11 Feb 94 02:29:29 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04847; Fri, 11 Feb 94 03:29:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:29:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:29:20 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirit Combat Date: 11 Feb 94 03:25:47 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2AA144939DA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. Ray sums up: > On reflection, I favor always defending at current MP, and only the most > effective spirit attack on any given round takes effect. This avoids > total defenselessness {just as one is never totally defenseless against > incoming MindBlast} and knocking an enemy out with a swarm of rubbishy > spirits in all out attack mode, in one round. It still allows concen- > tration of spirits, but makes concentration vs dispersion against several > enemies a real tactical choice, since their will now be diminishing > returns to attacking one enemy with all your spirits. I agree with Boris on always defending at half MP against any spirit attack. Taking a "Defend" combat option allows you to defend at full MP. Taking "All Out Defend" allows you to defend with 2xMP against one, or full MP against all enemies. I like your "only the most effective attack takes effect", and can see how it's meant to work. Does this mean rolling MP damage for every attack that gets through the Resistance Roll, then taking only the single highest hit? Or rolling every resistance roll and then deciding which set of D3s you're going to throw? As Spirit Combat critical chance is fixed at "01" while damage done varies with Attack option and attacker's POW, this is presumably the way to show what you want. It's a little clunky, but *far* nicer than old-style spirit combat. And, as you say, it does create tactical choices. > I also think enemies with a lot of stored MP should be able to take MP > loss in spirit combat from stored MP, but regard this as far more > debatable. I don't like this suggestion at all. They are attacking you, not your toys. If it takes as long to withdraw MPs from storage into your psyche as it does to put them there, not a hope. You can of course power those Spirit Screen etc. spells you know from stored MP. Perhaps we need a "Spirit Disruption" spell to blow away enemy spirits' MP at range? "Spirit Dart" or some such name? 1MP spell does 1D3 MP damage to a visible disembodied enemy spirit (before critics: compare with real Disruption v. Healing costs). Joerg said: > Well, I'm going to play in the Holy Country, and I'm going to play out > the Malkioni schisma to the extreme. I will need Rokari, Aeolian, Arkati, > Issarian, Brithini, Vadeli and Old Hrestoli sorcerers, plus the assorted > bunch of Lunar sorcery. Not counting two schools of the Lunar College, the rules will give you half what you're wanting: Arkati, Issarian and Brithini (God Forgot) sorcerers, plus narrative on the West (Rokari, Vadeli) and a neat format for building up new schools of Sorcery. I was quite impressed. But I'm also looking forward to the Western expansion. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02967; Fri, 11 Feb 94 02:37:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05015; Fri, 11 Feb 94 03:37:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:37:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:37:26 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Bounces (and digesting...) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 09:38:04 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2AA36D44FF3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> rturney@well.sf.ca.us (Raymond D Turney): >I am getting a lot of bounced mail, too. On the other hand I seem to >getting all of the mail myself, to judge from the volume. Maybe Loren could put in a 'Precedence: junk' line in his listserv. Some mailers honour this, and don't include the body of a mail in replies. I'm working on digesting the playtest list. As a test, you may send a request to my regular RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM address with a line: sub rq-playtest Your F. Name Later next week I'll try to set up a digester and send out the first batches. Don't count on anything yet.... Henk -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03797; Fri, 11 Feb 94 02:49:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05245; Fri, 11 Feb 94 03:49:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:49:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:49:09 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: How Bladesharp and civilian spells occurr in RQ:AiG Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 00:48:37 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2AA68D65B0E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson responding to the wave of Battle Magic hysteria: As a playtester with access to a copy of RQ:AiG I can only reassure people that there is nothing to get worried about Battle Magic and it's civilian applications. Each Battle Magic spell is listed with a militaristic name as a title but the there is up to half a dozen other names in smaller italics below this. For example the aliases of Bladesharp are Keenedge, Plowsharp, Runeblade, Sharpen and Swordsharp. The aliases of Bludgeon are Bash, Drive Post, Hammer[r]ight, Pound and Smite. Before the Battle Magic spells are introduced there is note that these spells are often preceieved to have very different effects depending on your perspective. The spell taught to a farmer to allow him to slay pests (Disruption) might not be used on a human opponent because he may not be aware that that it is essentially the same spell that more martial types are using. Hence the Battle Magic that the militant use is actually the same 'Life Magic' that the 'civilians' carry. Probably not many people realise this on Gloranatha and if they did, seeing how the God Learners were so viciously clamped down upon, I doubt they would have the courage to make this observation public. Looking a RQ:AiG I would give a RuneQuest farmer, who has a keen interest in leaneing spells to add his daily work, the following Life Magic spells: Plowsharp (Bladesharp), Dowse 2 (Extinguish), Longview (Farsee), Peaceful Cut and Hobble (Slow). For an even richer farmer I would think about Lift Cart (Strength), Repair and Detect Enemies. The thought that RQ:AiG has ignored the civilian and the common lot of the average Gloranthan would be a valid concern if it was the case but let me assure you that this is not so. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04713; Fri, 11 Feb 94 03:16:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05825; Fri, 11 Feb 94 04:16:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 4:16:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 4:16:11 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spirit Combat Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 01:15:48 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2AADC3B10BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I believe that the best way to resolve the Sprit Combat rules is to find a solution that compares favourable with the other RQ:AIG rules which govern spirit and subconcious interaction. No-one is currently complaining about Mindlinks for example. Then we play test them to see if they work. I'm still reading at the moment but by Monday I should be able to come up with a few alternatives that do not jar with the rest of the rules. My first bout of playtesting will probably start next week although the first session of character generation may take place tonight. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08077; Fri, 11 Feb 94 04:49:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07198; Fri, 11 Feb 94 05:49:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 5:49:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 5:49:39 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Summary of RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 5:36:26 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2AC6B1041A4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha The Summary This summary is Copyright (C) 1994 Oliver Jovanovic, but may be freely distributed. It is meant to provide people with information as to some of the major rule changes in Adventures in Glorantha. The information is laid out in the order the chapters appear in the book. There are numerous minor changes, improvements and adjustments, but these would take far too long to detail. This summary should allow those without access to a playtest copy to get an idea as to what some of the new rules will look like, and even make it possible to playtest a few of the changes summarized below. Those with access to a playtest copy may find it useful to look through this, as it may highlight a change they've missed. Unfortunately we cannot provide all comers with a copy of the full draft, as it is available only in manuscript format, and the costs of copying and mailing the manuscript make this prohibitively expensive. Comments may be sent via Internet to "jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu". COVER The cover painting will be done by a commercial artist who works on fantasy, science fiction and children's book covers for a living. If you are by any chance familiar with the writings of Gene Wolfe, the artist did the covers for the last few Gene Wolfe (Book of the Long Sun, etc.) novels. INTRODUCTION One of the aims of Adventures in Glorantha is to present the world of Glorantha to players and gamemasters in a single volume. The introduction explains what role playing games are, introduces the world of Glorantha and the runes, and gives information on the cosmology, history, lands and peoples of Glorantha, focusing on the regions around Dragon Pass. It also includes information on play aids, including other sources of Gloranthan material and other resources, such as RQ magazines. Based on the feedback we've gotten, we will probably split this chapter into a shorter Introduction chapter, with another page of material aimed at new players and gamemasters added, then follow with another chapter containing more detailed information. CREATING AN ADVENTURER Our aim here was to improve upon a number of mechanics, including how attributes are calculated, and to present a system for character generation which would have three aims: 1) Allow players to generate fleshed out Gloranthan characters, 2) Allow gamemasters to quickly generate realistic NPCs, and 3) Give players and gamemasters a picture of the range of skills and skill levels one encounters in day to day life in Glorantha. Some specific changes are discussed below: Characteristic Increase - characteristics can increase to half again the original value, or species maximum (generally 21 for humans). The STR, CON, SIZ limitation is no longer in effect. Why? Simplicity and realism. A short human can put on muscle or build endurance as well as a tall one. Damage Bonus - this is now a single value that is added to or subtracted from weapon damage dice rolls. STR + SIZ = 16 to 20 is -1, STR + SIZ = 21 to 25 is 0, STR + SIZ = 26 to 30 is +1, STR + SIZ = 31 to 35 is +2, etc. Why? Simplicity and realism. The adjustment of human SIZ to 2D6+6, while reasonable in terms of making human SIZ have a more reasonable range, also gave nearly everyone a +1D4 damage bonus. Thus, a normal dagger blow can easily sever an arm, and a normal kick will cripple an unarmored target. We would prefer a more reasonable range of damage, and to not force characters to wear armor to survive a fist fight. In addition, this provides a much smoother gradation of damage bonus values, eliminating the old 1D4/1D6 breakpoints. A single add also makes it much easier for gamemasters to roll NPC weapon damage. The only disadvantage of this system is that it makes a weapon do a minimum amount of damage, particularly at higher levels. A mighty gladiator with a Cestus will do 1D3 + 4 damage, or a minimum of 4 points. However, this was a problem in RQIII as well (the same gladiator would do 1D3+2+1D6, or a minimum of 4 points). From our point of view, a missed attack roll does not only represent a clean miss, but can also represent being clipped or nicked by an attack - a blow that causes a shallow cut or bruise doesn't have to cause a HP of damage. We may include an optional rule to allow for finer damage resolution, but we're not sure it is really worth using normally. Skill Category Modifiers - the calculation of these has been considerably simplified. For example, the Communication Skills Modifier = APP + INT -20. POW, which can fluctuate from session to session, has been removed from the modifiers, so that modifiers and skills need not be recalculated every time POW changes. POW is still essential to the working of magic, and in some ways even more valuable than before so this change has little effect on its importance. Move - a Move score now exists, equal to (SIZ + DEX)/5 for humans. Why? It allows for some variation in human speed, based on quickness and length of stride. Character Generation - background information on four areas in the region of Dragon Pass: Sartar, the Lunar Empire, Pavis and Prax, as well as profession templates specific to those areas, allow players and gamemasters to generate characters with magic, skills and possessions appropriate to these areas, and provides information on the history, culture and people of each region. Additional templates allow for the generation of characters from other regions, or the generation of unusual characters. A Renown system allows gamemasters to track how well known players become. The system is not as linear or dependent on age as the RQIII system, so all elderly farmers are not necessarily weaponmasters and skillmasters, and older adventurers do not automatically outshine younger ones. GAME MECHANICS To both make the system more consistent and easier to explain to new players, we have instituted the following meta rules for handling numbers and dice. With percentile dice, rolling low is always good. With other kinds of dice, rolling high is good. An 01 is a critical, an 00 a fumble. Always round up from .5, round down below .5. These rules are then consistently applied throughout all of the game's mechanics, which makes the system logical and easy to explain, and allows gamemasters to easily improvise on the spot. SKILLS In general, a few new skills have been defined, and the definitions and organization of skills have been improved. A few specific changes are discussed below: Complementary Skills - with non combat skills, if one skill is the most appropriate to a task, but another skill could help, one can add 1/5 of the second skill to the first one, increasing one's chance for success. Thus a character with Craft/Armoring trying to bargain for a piece of armor would add 1/5 his or her Craft/Armoring skill to their Bargain skill. Skill Difficulty - skills can now be Easy, Medium or Hard. In general, a hard skill takes twice as long to learn as a Medium one, while an Easy one takes half as long. Why? A simple way to point out that some skills are easier than other. The crossbow is an easier weapon to learn than the bow. It also allows for lore skills of narrow scope, which are easier to learn than harder ones. Subskills - to allow players and gamemasters some control over the extent of skill proliferation they desire, skills are organized into skills and subskills. Thus, Sleight has the subskills Juggle and Pickpocket; Stealth has the subskills Hide and Sneak. If you want to run a character that can do both parts of the skill equally well, or don't think that level of detail is necessary, use the main skill. If you want a character that knows how to juggle, but knows nothing about picking pockets, you could learn only the Juggle subskill. Subskills are easier than the main skill they belong to. TIME AND LEARNING Learning by Experience - the system has been modified so that skill check hunting is deemphasized, and allows characters to learn from failure as well as success. If gamemasters do not want to have to award checks during the course of the session, a system for awarding skill checks after the session exists. POW gain - human (and other) POW can now increase above 21, though with only a 5% chance of success. Only 1 point of POW is gained through each increase. This brings humans, elves, etc. into slightly greater parity, and allows for characters of more heroic stature, though increasing POW above 21 is a slow and painstaking process, due to its difficulty (priest no longer automatically gain a point of POW leading worship, they gain free divine magic instead). Spending your time - the rules now provide for a means for characters to spread their time among jobs, duties, practice, training, research, or socializing, each with attendant benefits. Socializing gains friends and allies, which can be even more helpful than mastery of a weapon skill in a sticky situation. Skill Training - the training rules and calculations for training time have been simplified and streamlined. Time is calculated in days of training instead of hours. Characteristic Training - a system which is simple, yet makes extraordinary characteristic gains more difficult than initial gains has been put into place, to both simplify the process and make it more realistic. COMBAT One of our major goals has been to streamline and simplify the combat system, so that a combat can be settled in a reasonable amount of time, letting you get back to the rest of the game. Melee Round - the melee round has been more clearly structured, and includes a new movement system. The changes are intended to make combat less confusing, less prone to artifacts, and quicker to run. A number of combat options allow characters a wide range of choices, but combat is structured so that this variety does not slow things down. Armor Values - armor values have been reduced (to RQ2 levels), to both simulate the partial armor worn in the Dragon Pass region and to make fighting in little or light armor a more reasonable (and realistic) option. Weapon Values - weapon damage values have been simplified, generally to values of 1D4, 1D6, 1D8, 1D10, 2D6 or 2D8. This is meant to simplify and speed the calculation of weapon damage, particularly for gamemasters. Thus, with the new damage bonus rules, a scimitar would do 1D8+2, as opposed to 1D6+2+1D4 in RQIII. The Parry AP of weapons have been slightly reduced to adjust for the reductions in weapon damage and damage bonus. Hit Locations - a single hit location table is used for all attacks, which simplifies combat, particularly for new players and gamemasters. The separate melee/missile tables will be included in an appendix for those that don't mind the added complication of using them Hit Points - death now occurs when one has taken twice their total HP in damage, or three times the hit points in their head or chest. Thus it is still possible to kill someone with a single, spectacular blow, but more difficult to die from a number of small wounds. It is easier to knock someone out (they go unconscious once they have taken their total HP in damage) without killing them accidentally. This is meant to simulate the true effects of injury and shock more faithfully. Spirit Combat - the mechanics of spirit combat are now integrated with the melee round, so that a battle involving physical and spirit attacks can easily be run. Special Successes - a special success with a parry now has an effect, doubling the weapon's parry AP. Any kind of weapon that achieves a special success on an attack does double weapon damage. Optional additional special effects for impaling, crushing and slashing weapons exist as well. Special Weapon Tactics - a number of special weapon tactics, typically the provenance of weaponmasters and the fighting cults, now exist. These special tactics (Flurry, Evade, Feint, Riposte, etc.) add color and help to differentiate skilled fighters, and make highly skilled opponents less predictable foes. Special Combat Rules - a set of spot rules covers the unusual situations that may arise in combat (mounted combat, flying, cramped quarters, etc.). THE NATURAL WORLD This chapter provides rules for dealing with the hazards of the natural world, including fire, falling, and fatigue. The fatigue rules have been greatly simplified, requiring only a single roll every minute of combat, and include provisions for fatigue due to lack of sleep, wearing heavy armor, and exhaustion. ECONOMICS This chapter provides information on trade and barter, giving information on standards of living, income, and prices for a wide range of items and creatures, both magical and mundane, in the regions of Sartar, the Lunar Empire, Prax and Pavis. THE WORLD OF MAGIC This chapter provides information on the basic mechanics of magic, magical phenomena, enchantments, magic items, and details on the spells and mechanics of the most common form of magic, known as spirit magic to shaman and cult magic to divine magicians. Based on the feedback we've gotten, we will probably split this chapter into two or more parts, one dealing with basic mechanics and spirit/cult magic, the other dealing with enchantments and magic items. The general term for spirit/cult magic will probably change from battle magic to personal magic. Some specific changes are detailed below: Attack With MP, Defend with POW - spells now use a character's current MP to attack, but attack against POW (that is, all characters resist spells with their POW, not their MP). Why? Primarily to make characters less dependant on MP storage items. You can now safely cast a spell or two and not leave yourself magically undefended if you lack MP storage. If you cast too many spells you will find it difficult to affect others, but can still cast spells on yourself or your weapons and armor, and attack less directly. Spirit/Cult Magic limits - it is now considerably more challenging to gain access to large spirit/cult magic spells. A Bladesharp 8 is now a very rare spell. The mechanics of this are fairly straightforward - it takes a shaman longer to find larger spirit magic spells, which means you must seek long and hard and pay dearly for the privilege of learning a large spell, while divine cultists are limited in the size of the cult spells they can comprehend by the depth of their initiation into the cult and the importance of the spell to their god. Spirit/Cult Magic casting - the chance to cast a spirit/cult magic spell is POW x5. Characters may elect to have favored spells, whose casting chance is POW x6, but must select a spell that they do not use as often (casting chance POW x4) for each such favored spell. Spell casting range is always equal to POW x5 in meters. Spirit/Cult Magic spells - these have been expanded and corrections have been made to a number of spells. DIVINE MAGIC Temple sizes - temple sizes have been adjusted for Glorantha. Divine Intervention - the most common effect of divine intervention now allows characters to manifest a portion of their god's power, and draw upon their link with the god to cause magical effects appropriate to the god to occur. The effects can be devastating, but so is the cost. Cults and pantheons - eight different pantheons and cults from each pantheon, including many previously unpublished cults (such as Danfive Xaron, Deezola, Jakaleel, Hwarin Dalthippa and Pole Star) are described in a capsule format that includes information on the worshippers that belong to the cult, skills and duties special to the cult, and what cult and divine magic is available to the cult, as well as providing background information on each cult. Cult Magic spells - some of the unique cult magic spells which only members of certain cults have access to are described. Divine Magic spells - corrections have been made to a number of spells, and a number of divine magic spells have been added. SPIRIT MAGIC This chapter provides information on shaman and the unique spells, skills and abilities available to these specialists in spirit magic. Spirit Magic - some of the unique spirit magic spells which only shaman have access to are described. Shamanic Traditions - a number of shamanic traditions are described (including the Kolating, Black Fang and School of Red Masks), with information on their followers, favored spirit magic spells, favored shamanic abilities, and taboos. Shamanic Abilities - shaman now function differently. To summarize, not all shaman have the same shamanic abilities (second sight, discorporation, possession, spirit trapping, mind expansion, etc.). What abilities a shaman will have will depend on the abilities available to the shaman's tradition, and the focus the shaman chooses to take. A shaman may specialize in hunting and trapping spirits, in casting spirit magic, or discorporating and possessing others. Their abilities increase as their fetch grows. Finding Spirits - A simpler and far more convenient system by which shaman can seek and find spirits is described. The larger the spirit sought, the greater the investment of time on the shaman's part required. SORCERY A new system of sorcery is presented, which differs in a number of ways from the system of sorcery presented in RQIII. To summarize, free INT no longer plays a role - sorcery is strictly skill based. The mechanics of sorcery are simpler and easier to use. A number of additional sorcery manipulations have been added, some unique to particular schools of sorcery. Sorcerers cannot obtain the extreme durations and ranges they could before without the expenditure of permanent POW, although they can maintain a few spells without spending POW. By expending POW, sorcerers can gain saint's blessings or greatly enhance the effects of casting their spells. This is meant to more accurately portray the kind of sorcery used by Gloranthan sorcerers, and better balance their abilities against shamans and divine magicians. Schools of Sorcery - a number of schools of sorcery are described (including the God Forgot, Black Arkat, Trader Prince, Carmanian and Dying Moon schools), with information on their students, duties, saints, and the sorcery spells and manipulations available to them. Schools have unique spells and manipulations that they jealously guard. Sorcery spells - sorcery spells have been divided into Low Magic spells (available to any student of sorcery) and High Magic spells (whose teaching is carefully guarded). The spells have been rebalanced and a number of additions, changes and corrections have been made to bring them in line with the effects of Gloranthan sorcery. Familiars - familiars are now created differently. Briefly, their creation now involves the sacrifice of POW, not other characteristics, and they may take on a variety of forms, including animated or inanimate objects or enchantments. CREATURES This chapter presents information and statistics for creatures, both magical and mundane, and the elder races that can be found in the area of Dragon Pass. For those of you concerned with the absence of ducks, fear not, they will be added to the finished product, along with a few other missing creatures. GAMEMASTERING This chapter will present information on introducing new players to the game, running games, creating Gloranthan adventures, and adapting the world and rules to your particular needs. THE WORLD OF GLORANTHA This chapter further details the world and mysteries of Glorantha, and is primarily intended for the gamemaster, containing information on the Six Worlds, Genertela, the Islands of the Central Seas, Pamaltela, and an extensive timeline of Gloranthan events across the world. APPENDICES These are not yet complete, but will include a character sheet, information on converting characters and scenarios, optional rules, and an index.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09046; Fri, 11 Feb 94 05:44:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08101; Fri, 11 Feb 94 06:44:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 6:44:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 6:43:54 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: higher level playing; Fatigue Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:23:34 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2AD5287577C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> For really high level playing, there are the (IMHO good) Ki skills from Land of Ninja which make special abilities into a kind of heroic skill/magic mix. Another approach to heroes, and "official"... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16042; Fri, 11 Feb 94 08:35:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB16385; Fri, 11 Feb 94 09:35:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 9:35:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 9:35:18 EST From: ngl28 To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "CIVILIAN SPIRIT MAGIC Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:31:15 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B02DFB23E1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg picking up a thread from Graeme Lindsell: >Brian Maloney writes: >> Ahem, what's this stuff about "bladesharp" as a "combat" spell. Every >> sensible Orlanthi farmer knows that the PRIMARY use of the spell is to >> get your plow through the tough bits of sod. > No, every sensible Orlanthi farmer knows that using Death magic - like > Bladesharp, which originated from Humakt - is a great way to get no crops > at all, as Death is the opposite of Fertility. No, Graeme (and Tim), within the Compromise Fertility can't exist without death. To harvest means to kill, as ceremonies like Food Song and Peaceful Cut show. In the less primative (spelling intended) societies which farm by ploughing and mass sowing, ploughing is the death ritual which is performed to allow for new fertility. (The actual kill during the harvest receives its own festival, too). Bladesharp=Plowsharp is a bit silly, too. Strength cast on the plowman works better, IMHO, although I must admit never to have used a beast-drawn plow. Who has? Bladesharp, or better Whetting, is much more appropriate for harvesting teh grain. Keep your sickle/hoe sharp, and work is more easy. (Yes, I did mow one or two lawns. > I've seen this proposal for giving all the battle magic spells of RQ2 > civilian spinoffs before, and I find it very weak. These spells were > designed as combat magic; if we want to have spells for ploughs then the > rules should have spells for ploughs. Some other spells (like Strength > or Healing) have much more civilian uses, but there is no reason why > Bladesharp should increase the ability of a plough at all: the sharpness > of a blade does not determine your chance to hit: Bladesharp increases > that through some other magical manner. I have to agree here. The +5% to attack don`t help much with plowing or mowing, so a more specialized spell like Whetting would rather really sharpen a blade, and additionally keep it form dulling during its duration. More a variant of Repair than Bladesharp. A more sensible plow magic might be Straightfurrow which keeps the furrows nice and parallel... >> (Or is RQ4 going to abandon the wonderfully "civilian" feel that had been >> building up and go back to a more "wargaming" style of RPG?) > What is particularly "civilian" about the RQ3 spirit magic list? While > I dislike the name "Battle Magic", at least it's honest - the majority > of those spells were designed for combat. Look at how the combat gods > tend to get more spells than non-combatant dieties: that's because there's > more to give them. RQ3 didn't have it. Sandy Petersen tried - not too successful, IMHO - to induce this feeling in his article on Folk Magic (now there is a better term than Personal or Battle Magic), but by sticking with the old combat oriented spells nothing much is won. >> Now, "bladesharp" at very high levels would be a different matter, and would >> only be available to specialists. > If it's so useful for the farmer cults, they should offer Bladesharp 6... Rather Whetting 6: increases sharpness (damage) by one per point, and increases armour points (preserves keenness of edge and straightness/curve of blade). Straightfurrow 6 on a spear might offer 6* +5% to hit, but no increased damage - the blow is made harder to deflect from its aimed target. Bladesharp is a perfectly valid sword, axe or spear magic - only. Thus, carpenters, hunters, fishermen and swordsmen are likely to have a few points of this. >> One more thing: >> Bludgeon: The PRIMARY use of this spell is by metalsmiths and carpenters, >> who cast it upon their hammers. This spell is also used by folks who have >> jobs breaking rocks. > Pity then that the cults who have it are mainly trollish war gods.... Obviously this needs some correction. Given the lack of Craft deities (best distribution still for smith cults, but no patrons of pottery, carpentry, one only for masonry and engineering - Flintnail, a local cult only) this is hard to encourage. Orlanth Thunderous, Lodril and other main cultural deities need subcults which can be entered by craftspersons of that trade for no extra cost than a certain level of mastery, and then gain access to these spells. But this is more a question for the various pantheon packs to be published after RQ:AiG hits the market. >> The list could be endless. > Yes, we could be provided with an endless list of civilian spells; instead > we get a short list of combat spells, plus a few inordinately effective > treasure hunting spells like Detect (Substance). The really useful non- > killing magic is mainly cult rune magic Agreed. >> Anyway, unless RQ:AiG is going to regress to its purely militaristic old >> emphasis (and the 2nd edition was very heavily combat-militarism emphatic >> by modern standards), we need to rethink the basic philosophy of magic and >> many spells. > RQ3 spirit magic is not much different from RQ2 battle magic; sorcery > is a bit better, but still mainly for killing people. The difference did not make it into the RQ3 rules, but built up as kind of consensus between most people on this list. I doubt that the many isolated RQ3 groups view this as we do. But including civilian magics on a larger scale surely would be a plus to distinguish RQ4 from other systems. >> Remember, the PRIMARY use of the vast majority of magic in Glorantha is NOT >> for combat, even spells that those of wargaming mentality call "combat" >> spells. If RuneQuest is going to truely become "RuneQuest: Adventures in >> Glorantha", let the magic reflect that. > Absolutely agree about the primary use of magic: I just don't think we've > ever seen much of the rest. We've seen combat spells. Too true. These are what Adventuring characters will take. To allow for sedentary characters who go averting dangers we need some other magics. >> Therefore: Farming cults would probably teach "bladesharp" 1 but no higher. >> Craft cults might teach "bludgeon" 1 but no higher, etc. > No, farming cults teach Ploughsharp, a spell unrelated to Bladesharp. > Craft cults teach Stronghammer, a spell to create things, not to smash them > to pieces. They can teach powerful versions of these spells. Agree about Ploughsharp (or Straightfurrow), disagree about Stronghammer, unless this is made a song or a rhythm struck by the smith which keeps working as long as the song is sung or the rhythm beaten. The possible minor effectivity of these spells in combat I discussed above. >> Remember, a knife can be a tool or a weapon, in many cultures it functioned >> as both. We, in our age of narrow specialization, have often lost the >> ability to see this versatility of function. > And when you use it as a tool, use use tool magic; as a weapon, weapon > magic. In his "Lord Darcy" books, Randall Garrett (sp?) wrote that > "Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent" > The symbolism and intent of Bladesharp are swords and killing, respectively. Killing is harvesting, and to shape something from metal, one first has to kill its old shape, and to strike a nail into something has a certain killing effect, too (did you see lethal weapon 2?). >> But this does not change the fact that emphasis on the "combat" aspects of >> magic is too damned heavy--unless RQ:AiG is meant to continue the D&D >> tradition of magic and campaign settings, that is... > Absolutely: I'd love to see civilian spirit magic, but the list is very > small. Detect, the Characteristic increasing spells, Second Sight, perhaps > a few others. Ok, so lets write up a few more. I'd suggest: Straightfurrow (instead of Ploughsharp) see above Whetting see above, also useful for shearing sheep Hammer's Dance a smiths' and carpenters' magic, allowing to beat with increased accuracy and effectivity as long as a certain rhythm is beaten on the anvil or nail, partially between the strikes "Rapid Cooling" (I forgot the technical term, and can't look it up here) also smiths' magic, gives minor benefits on the producing process Nimblethread a weavers' magic useful for lassos or whips as well Hotneedle a tailors' spell useful for pointed objects, "hot" indicating speed, not heat, Shapefast a potters', bakers', thatchers', coopers', cobblers' spell to reinforce a shape temporally, gives extra AP to objects or hit locations, too (replaces Glue for some of these trades) Kneading a potters' and bakers' spell used on clay or dough, incidently increasing fist damage Most of these give a certain bonus to a craft roll, e.g. as complementary skills (on efor each point of magic invested). All ought to be maintainable for longer than 5 min or whatever spirit spell duration is by _keeping doing it_ for no extra cost. In combat situations, keeping doing it is impossible, so the effect is limited in duration. All are accessible craft secrets. Master craft secrets ought to include lasting effects which yield superior products. Maybe a variant of those Ki skills. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (currently at work at ngl28@rz.uni-kiel.d400.de)  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 11-Feb guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org #SPIRIT MA Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06997; Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:05:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27112; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:04:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:04:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:04:31 EST From: guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: SPIRIT MA Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 11:07:49 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B3AAD26F88@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Many thanks to Oliver for the RQ 4 summary. It's very exciting, and very true to the spirit of Glorantha. I'd shell out the bucks for xeroxing and postage today if I could get a copy (hint, hint). Someone posted a couple of notes on alternate names and uses for spirit/battle magic earlier, e.g. using Bladesharp on plows and Bludgeon on smith's hammers. This has caught my interest; what other uses are there for "battle" magic spells? Also, I'd like to get a more in-depth explanation of the changes in Sorcery. If it's entirely skill-based, do sorcerors have any limits on the number of spells they can memorize (say, 1 per point of INT, just as in spirit magic?) Will there be some kinds of rules for the effects of extreme thirst and starvation in the Natural World chapter? At last, it seems we'll be getting an official look at Dragon Pass! I'd shell out whatever the final cost will be for this part alone. WHY has this area been neglected for so long? Anyway, may Lhankor Mhy speed your quill, and may Issaries give us a generous discount on the finished product. --Guy Hoyle guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 11-Feb rturney@well.sf.ca.us #Re: Spirit Combat Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05419; Fri, 11 Feb 94 11:49:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25977; Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:44:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:49:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:44:04 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spirit Combat Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 09:43:45 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B3537649AA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I meant roll all damage dice, and see if the attack worked for each down to the first attack that worked. That is probably the fastest way of going about it. Ray Turney on multispirit attack. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 11-Feb ddunham@radiomail.net #Shaman_s_; levels; Life Magic; high skills Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06776; Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:03:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27009; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:02:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:02:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:02:32 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Shaman_s_; levels; Life Magic; high skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 10:01:51 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B3A24B3E49@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. >(If anyone out there can quote me a published text supporting the bizarre >theory that the plural of "shaman" is "shaman", please name your source. I >find it baffling that this obvious error is still, apparently, defended.) Can't Oliver just ask Greg (since Greg is heavily associated with actual shamans)? BTW, I pulled out the first book to hand, and in Frazer's _The New Golden Bough_, the index does indeed have "shamans" with the final 's.' Andrew Weill reminisced >I've >roleplayed the guarding of a 12 year old heir to the throne of Sartar; >have you ever tried to watch a normal healthy 12 year old? No number of >100+% skills will work, as my Wind Lady learned to her considerable >annoyance... Ah yes, I remember that. All you rune levels were gallivanting around casting rune spells while Masha (who I believe was generated by the straight RQ3 rules, i.e. wimpy) found the kid and was playing in mud slides with the otters. Guy Robinson wrote >Hence the Battle Magic that the militant use is actually the same >'Life Magic' that the 'civilians' carry. Good name! "Life Magic" makes perfect sense, because it's the magic you use in your everyday life (unlike divine magic, or sorcery High Magic). Sorcery Low Magic could arguably be Life Magic too, but we'll just arbitrarily say it isn't. Graeme suggested > Attack: For each 10% group (round up) above 100% skill you can: > iii) Reduce the strike rank of the attack by 1 Whoa, if people are really running those 150% skill folks, this means you can be attacked twice before you get to attack once! Too generous. (Otherwise, the general concept of trading critical/special chance for another effect seems reasonable. Might be better as full 10% or some other number.) 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10646; Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:47:31 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29413; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:47:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:47:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:46:56 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Date: 11 Feb 94 13:19:55 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B45FC845E4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> enumerate  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10089; Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:42:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29189; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:41:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:41:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:41:38 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:39:16 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B4492D788C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) >> Subject: High Level Skills >> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:03:21 EST >> >> Combat Skills: >> >> Attack: For each 10% group (round up) above 100% skill you can: >> i) Add +1 damage to a hit, maximum possible damage is equal to highest >> rollable critical. I like. >> ii) Change the hit location roll by +-1, after the roll I like. >> iii) Reduce the strike rank of the attack by 1 I hate. There's no provision for negative strike ranks, and they have never appeared, or been possible with any other part of the system. They are possible, unsing this. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11284; Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:50:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29531; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:49:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:49:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:49:16 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: ... higher level playing Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 12:46:35 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B469B46E7A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: "Andrew J. Weill" >> Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing >> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:31:16 -0800 (PST) >> >> In fact, I think I am glad that the rules do not create huge and obvious >> benefits, in game mechanic terms, to the high leveled characters. Such >> characters should be motivated by different concerns. I agree that there should not be any large benefit for higher level skills. After a point, there should be a diminishing return on increases in skill. People can "top-out" in the real world, why not in Glorantha? *Some* benefit could be there, and the combat bonuses suggested by Graeme seem like a decent idea, though perhaps being too cheap for the degree of benefit ( thinking about it, the +1/-1/whatever bonus should come for maybe every 20 points, not 10 points ). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12713; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:06:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00615; Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:05:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:05:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:05:35 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Encumbrance Penalty Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:03:15 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B4AF667E4C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: gharris@jade.tufts.edu >> Subject: Encumbrance Penalty >> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:05:33 EST >> >> ... >> {Total ENC} - STR + 10. >> >> This gives the fellow with an average STR an encumbrance penalty >> equal to his ENC/ It allows people with somewhat greater STR to carry >> somewhat more, and causes those weaklings to struggle under comparatively >> lesser burdens. This method gives a simpler, more intuitive result >> ... STR and SIZ are ill-defined in RQ, and with that we will need to live. Your idea is fine by me, if the formula is modified to either: {Total ENC} - (STR+SIZ) + 10 or {Total ENC} - STR - SIZ + 20 Definitely do away with the table. However it can be done. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14540; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:36:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24805; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:36:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:36:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:36:23 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "Bladesharp" and other "combat" spells. Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:04:08 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A532247C2C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brian Maloney writes: > > Ahem, what's this stuff about "bladesharp" as a "combat" spell. Every > sensible Orlanthi farmer knows that the PRIMARY use of the spell is to > get your plow through the tough bits of sod. > No, every sensible Orlanthi farmer knows that using Death magic - like Bladesharp, which originated from Humakt - is a great way to get no crops at all, as Death is the opposite of Fertility. I've seen this proposal for giving all the battle magic spells of RQ2 civilian spinoffs before, and I find it very weak. These spells were designed as combat magic; if we want to have spells for ploughs then the rules should have spells for ploughs. Some other spells (like Strength or Healing) have much more civilian uses, but there is no reason why Bladesharp should increase the ability of a plough at all: the sharpness of a blade does not determine your chance to hit: Bladesharp increases that through some other magical manner. > (Or is RQ4 going to abandon the wonderfully "civilian" feel that had been > building up and go back to a more "wargaming" style of RPG?) What is particularly "civilian" about the RQ3 spirit magic list? While I dislike the name "Battle Magic", at least it's honest - the majority of those spells were designed for combat. Look at how the combat gods tend to get more spells than non-combatant dieties: that's because there's more to give them. > > > Now, "bladesharp" at very high levels would be a different matter, and would > only be available to specialists. If it's so useful for the farmer cults, they should offer Bladesharp 6... > > > One more thing: > Bludgeon: The PRIMARY use of this spell is by metalsmiths and carpenters, > who cast it upon their hammers. This spell is also used by folks who have > jobs breaking rocks. > Pity then that the cults who have it are mainly trollish war gods.... > > The list could be endless. > Yes, we could be provided with an endless list of civilian spells; instead we get a short list of combat spells, plus a few inordinately effective treasure hunting spells like Detect (Substance). The really useful non- killing magic is mainly cult rune magic > Anyway, unless RQ:AiG is going to regress to its purely militaristic old > emphasis (and the 2nd edition was very heavily combat-militarism emphatic > by modern standards), we need to rethink the basic philosophy of magic and > many spells. > RQ3 spirit magic is not much different from RQ2 battle magic; sorcery is a bit better, but still mainly for killing people. > > Remember, the PRIMARY use of the vast majority of magic in Glorantha is NOT > for combat, even spells that those of wargaming mentality call "combat" > spells. If RuneQuest is going to truely become "RuneQuest: Adventures in > Glorantha", let the magic reflect that. Absolutely agree about the primary use of magic: I just don't think we've ever seen much of the rest. We've seen combat spells. > > > Therefore: Farming cults would probably teach "bladesharp" 1 but no higher. > Craft cults might teach "bludgeon" 1 but no higher, etc. > No, farming cults teach Ploughsharp, a spell unrelated to Bladesharp. Craft cults teach Stronghammer, a spell to create things, not to smash them to pieces. They can teach powerful versions of these spells. > Remember, a knife can be a tool or a weapon, in many cultures it functioned > as both. We, in our age of narrow specialization, have often lost the > ability to see this versatility of function. > And when you use it as a tool, use use tool magic; as a weapon, weapon magic. In his "Lord Darcy" books, Randall Garrett (sp?) wrote that "Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent" The symbolism and intent of Bladesharp are swords and killing, respectively. > But this does not change the fact that emphasis on the "combat" aspects of > magic is too damned heavy--unless RQ:AiG is meant to continue the D&D > tradition of magic and campaign settings, that is... Absolutely: I'd love to see civilian spirit magic, but the list is very small. Detect, the Characteristic increasing spells, Second Sight, perhaps a few others. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13108; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:10:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00922; Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:10:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:10:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:10:43 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Proposed rule change Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:08:24 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B4C5486422@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@compuserve.com> >> Subject: Proposed rule change >> >> Change the Bladesharp spell to [weapon]sharp. >> ... >> I realize this complicates the spell somewhat and may lengthen >> the cult description slightly, but I think the change is worth it. >> The precedent for this is of course Iron[body-part]. Something Good point. >> similar should be done for bludgeon. Shaman would be the main Argh! Oliver's infected him! Either "A shaman" or "Shamans". >> From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) >> Subject: Re: Proposed rule change >> >> Let me make a counter proposal - change the spells to Bless Weapon, There's something about the word 'bless' which just doesn't seem very Zorak Zorani to me. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14749; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:35:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02523; Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:35:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:35:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:35:07 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:39:39 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B52D753293@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Boris here, replying to Graeme > Combat Skills: > Attack: For each 10% group (round up) above 100% skill you can: > i) Add +1 damage to a hit, maximum possible damage is equal to highest > rollable critical. > OR > ii) Change the hit location roll by +-1, after the roll > OR > iii) Reduce the strike rank of the attack by 1 Every 10% seems a bit much. Why not expand on something Oliver posted (months) before the latest draft, that for some reason didn't make the cut (hey Carl, any reason why this didn't make it?). He proposed that if a fighter takes a -20% to their skill they can add +1 to the damage (I think this is right). This makes sense to me; you lose 4% from special and 1% from crit chance for a lesser benefit. Make it only something weapons masters (90%+ skill) can do, and add in Graeme's options (change hit loc, reduce SR) and maybe some others (each -20% reduces chance to parry by 10%, perhaps) and the high skill mavens are happy. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15705; Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:48:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25312; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:48:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:48:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:48:13 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Higher level playing Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:45:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A564AF426F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney writes: > > On this issue, most of the complaints seem to be about combat. While I > would like over 100% to have automatic access to Feint, Flurry, etc on the > grounds that maybe knowledge of these special tactics is what over 100% > really means, I cannot go with the idea that the rules are broken. > Though most people are complaining about combat since this is where the rules are tested most often and the results the most significant, the same problems occur with any skills over 100% where simple success level determines effect. > What the rules seem to be saying is that one both sides know all the moves, > hand to hand combat is basically a matter of who blows it first, and that a > lot of luck enters into it. I think there probably really are a certain > limited number of moves in basic hand to hand combat, and that if both sides > know them, and no one else intervenes, combat will probably take awhile and > be decided largely by luck. This can be experimentally tested: observe a number of world heavyweight title fights. These men can be argued to have skills over 100% in boxing - they've been training and fighting from and early age - and are in the same weight class. Do the victories in the fights tend to be random, or does a single fighter tend to consistently beat another. A similar test could be done for fencing matches. Alternatively, we could ask those people on this list with SCA or martial experience. > > Tactically, what I want to know is that if this is not a Humakhti duel, why > isn't some third party intervening with a spell? > I don't know, maybe they are fighting the other opponents with 100%+ skills and waiting for the luck of the draw to see who wins, even though the system says they have a 50% skill advantage over them. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17813; Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:57:55 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03816; Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:57:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:57:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:56:45 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Feedback and Rule Proposals Date: 11 Feb 94 14:47:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B589BB642A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> From: Dennis Hoover Sorry to inflict this on all of you, but I was working on this posting when three postings from the past week bounced at the same time. Odd. SKILL INCREASES I'd like to add my thumbs down to the current method for skill increases. I much prefer either d3/d6/2d6 or the best-of-two/worst-of-two mechanism proposed recently. If 2d6 is too much, 2d4 or d10 seems fine to me. I am unconcerned with any apparent asymmetry. SKILLS OVER 100% RQ must be able to handle long-term characters that have acquired high skills. I have abandonded 2 game systems in the past because they periodically forced me to trash the campaign and start over again. Besides, 100+% is not that hard to get. It is possible to START an Aldryami (as per Elder Races) at around 130%. Despite this, I found the RQ3 system acceptable, if not perfect, as regards high skill levels. My Aldryami (113% Elf Bow), goes to 226% with Arrow trance. A 45% chance to impale is very rude. Non-impaling weapons were kind of screwed in RQ3, but RQ:AiG seems to have addressed that. FATIGUE AND FUMBLES In general I like the new fatigue system, but I don't like the effects of adding directly to the die roll for fatigued characters. Fumbles already play too big a role in RQ (a much bigger role than in real life). The main results of fatigue ought to be 1) to make the character fail more often, and 2) to slow the character down. A fixed percentage subtraction doesn't work very well for effect #1, especially with very high skills. What is -30% to someone with 140% attack? Maybe a multiplier would work better, say .8/.5/.2/.05 (easy enough to do you your head). A tired master would still be much better than a tired novice, but by the time they are both exhausted, there's not much difference between them. To simulate slowing down, maybe SRs could be added to every action except resting. Eventually a character would lose first one action, then the other. She'd be forced to rest. I haven't tried either of these mechanisms yet, so I don't know if they're practical. SPIRIT SPELLS AND SPELL LIMITS With caps on cult spirit spells (thumbs up!), might it be possible to spread around weak versions of some spells to cults that didn't get them before? I see no reason no to give Yelm or Yelmalio a bladesharp 2 or 3 or a Grain Goddess or even Ty Kora Tek a bladesharp or 1 or 2 for her scythe or knife. Lest people think there is no purpose to this suggestion, I have had a running battle with my players over joining extra cults just to get spirit spells. This detracts from the game, and I don't think it is just because players tend to be greedy and deceitful. I think it is because the rules encourage the behavior. PROPOSED RULE CHANGE Change the bladesharp spell to [weapon]sharp. I see no reason why a Humakti should be able to bladesharp an axe or a Babeester Gor a sword. Give Yelmalio a weak spearsharp. Shaman would still be able to get the generic version of the spell. I realize this would add a little to the cult description, but I think it would be worth it. The precedent for this is, of course, iron[body-part]. DEATH IN RQ:AiG I don't much like death at -HP. Lethality is good. It's true that resurrection through DI will be rarer, but if there's 1 Heal Wound in the party, no one's going to die except by a fluke. I liked RQ3's death at 0 in bookkeeping even less. A variant rule I used in RQ3 seemed to work fairly well -- death occurred N strike ranks after reaching 0 HP, where N equals CON+CurrentHP. A 12 CON character goes to -5 general HP; he dies 7 SR (12 + -5) after taking the blow. The only complication comes if he gets healing/damage after going to 0. I played that this would extend/shorten the time before death by 1 SR/Pt of healing/damage. Thus, a Heal Wound would keep the character alive long enough to work if it could be started in time. If excess damage exceeded CON, death was instantaneous. This seemed about as lethal as RQ3 but without the arbitrariness.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18720; Thu, 10 Feb 94 22:45:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28006; Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:45:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:45:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:45:08 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: A new combat option Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:44:38 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A6579701D9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here Just a wild idea that I have for weapons masters,the "Errol Flynn" combat option - allow them to roll damage and then choose the amount of damage inflicted. The damage inflicted can range from 0 to the damage rolled. A special success allows the weapon master to choose the location hit. A critical hit allows the weapon master to hit even more precisely something from their opponnents body (e.g. cut armor strap or belt, cut off ear, poke out eye, chop off nose, carve rune on cheek). This ability cannot be used against another master. Specials and criticals don't do any extra damage. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24290; Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:59:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07569; Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:59:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:59:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:58:54 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Feedback and Rule Proposals Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:58:53 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B692F146B2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In RQ2 there were several categories for battle magic as taught by cults, including Free, 1/2 Price, Normal, 2x Price, and Forbidden. The price was important, 1 pt. of battle magic cost more than a chain hauberk (I think.) With the caps on cult magic, maybe cults could offer a 'common' pool of 1 or 2 point magics, except where explicitly forbidden. Of course, one can learn from associate cults already. Ernaldans can learn Bladesharp from husband-protectors, etc. more another day, must go Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27532; Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:31:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09355; Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:31:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:31:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:31:33 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:25:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B71E471A81@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't think this is too strong at all; in fact I had a similar suggestion that seems to have found its way to the bit bucket. I would prefer that when you use an option, like adding one to your damage or changing hit location by one or whatever, that you have to subtract a corresponding amount from your skill. So, if you decide you want to add four points to the damage you do, then you would subtract 40% from your skill. The advantage of this is that you could then throw away the restirction on who can use this special ability, so long as they have learned it, which would probably take 4-8 weeks of training. Special effects you could get from voluntarily reducing your attack by n*10%: Add n to the amount of damage you do; Be able to modify your hit location roll by +-n; Subtract 5*n from your targets parry or dodge roll (similar in feel to the RQ2 rule, but less powerful since a)the attacker reduces his attack chance, and hence his special and critical chance, and b) the attacker has to sacrifice 2 points to lower the defense by one point. Special effects you could get from voluntarily lowering your parry by n*10%: Add n to the parry armor of the weapon; Subtract 5*n from your opponent's attack roll; Special effects you could get from voluntarily lowering your dodge by n*10%: Subtract 5*n% from your attacker's skill; Be able to modify the hit location in which you are struck by +-n; A free psychiatric evaluation from the local Deezola mental health center. I prefer this method to the one Graeme proposes, for the following reasons: This method does not require limiting these techniques to characters with skills over 100%, while still making them *much* more useful to those characters. I would prefer that these options being used primarily by very highly skilled warriors be a consequence of their mechanic rather than a seemingly arbitrary rule; This method also makes using these techniques a trade-off. Under Graeme's system, there is never any reason not to use the special tactics. Under my proposed system, you have to weigh the reduced special and critical chances (and success chances, if you're lowering your skill <95%) against the possible benefits these options present. So, how do those seem? I certainly prefer them to the special options in the rules, which seem much more chancy and present very little benefit as you are basically forfeiting your chance to special. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28036; Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:36:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09531; Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:35:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:35:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:35:32 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: How Bladesharp and civilian spells occurr in RQ:AiG Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 13:36:15 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B72F3E0F19@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here: >Guy Robinson responding to the wave of Battle Magic hysteria: > >Each Battle Magic spell is listed with a militaristic name as a >title but the there is up to half a dozen other names in smaller >italics below this. I am somewhat wary of this idea, but am willing to give it a try. My big gripe is that Sorcery effects are specific to highly limited classes of objects (Bless Needle won't work on a spear for example, but the battle magic equivalents will). I think it should be the other way around. Spirit magic should have all the dinky little spells of limited usefulness, whereas Sorcery should be more versatile (you have to develop each spell separatly, after all). >Before the Battle Magic spells are introduced there is note that >these spells are often preceieved to have very different effects >depending on your perspective. The spell taught to a farmer to >allow him to slay pests (Disruption) might not be used on a >human opponent because he may not be aware that that it is >essentially the same spell that more martial types are using. It wouldn't take very long, IMHO, for farmers to realize that Slay Pest also works on people, horses, and even inanimate objects. >Hence the Battle Magic that the militant use is actually the same >'Life Magic' that the 'civilians' carry. Probably not many people >realise this on Gloranatha and if they did, seeing how the God >Learners were so viciously clamped down upon, I doubt they would >have the courage to make this observation public. First off, I hate explainations based on fear of God Learners; another point to remember is that many of these spells should come from gods within a pantheon. Rather than having Barntar worshippers develop their own version of Bladesharp, perhaps they simply get the spell from Orlanth, and figured out that it also works on plows? >Looking a RQ:AiG I would give a RuneQuest farmer, who has a keen >interest in leaneing spells to add his daily work, the following >Life Magic spells: Plowsharp (Bladesharp), Dowse 2 (Extinguish), >Longview (Farsee), Peaceful Cut and Hobble (Slow). > >For an even richer farmer I would think about Lift Cart (Strength), >Repair and Detect Enemies. The name "Lift Cart" really bugs me. Since the spell can obviously be used to also lift rocks, logs, or anything else, why would anyone call it by this name? This is a bad attempt at a non-militaristic name. Drive Post, Get Cow's Attention, Slay Rat are also poor names, IMHO. The rest look good. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23646; Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:55:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00937; Fri, 11 Feb 94 00:54:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 0:55:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 0:54:52 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "Bladesharp" and other "combat" spells. Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:54:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A7812A0EF7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here Graeme A Lindsell writes: > > Brian Maloney writes: > > > > Ahem, what's this stuff about "bladesharp" as a "combat" spell. Every > > sensible Orlanthi farmer knows that the PRIMARY use of the spell is to > > get your plow through the tough bits of sod. > > > No, every sensible Orlanthi farmer knows that using Death magic - like > Bladesharp, which originated from Humakt - is a great way to get no crops > at all, as Death is the opposite of Fertility. > > I've seen this proposal for giving all the battle magic spells of RQ2 > civilian spinoffs before, and I find it very weak. These spells were > designed as combat magic; if we want to have spells for ploughs then the > rules should have spells for ploughs. Some other spells (like Strength > or Healing) have much more civilian uses, but there is no reason why > Bladesharp should increase the ability of a plough at all: the sharpness > of a blade does not determine your chance to hit: Bladesharp increases > that through some other magical manner. I basically agree with Graeme. Maybe mention of these mundane spells should be made in the rules, but simply state that as,in general, they have minimal impact on game play descriptions have been omitted. At most provide an example mundane spell or two. [More of Graeme's good points deleted - but I agree with him] Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05014; Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:53:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13556; Fri, 11 Feb 94 17:52:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 17:52:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 17:52:41 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 14:50:39 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2B8787B3874@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I like the idea of masters reducing their attack percentages to get better effects, but I think it is a little too strong at 10%/point. Why don't we use 20%/point of damage or SR change? This way, it exactly maps to losing a percentile for criticalling. You can add similar rules for parrying and other skills (sorceror spells?). I would have like to ensure that the bonus damage is limited so that only maximum weapon damage can be done. Otherwise you will have Rune Lords killing great trolls with daggers on every hit. :-) Once our 'high-power' game gets rolling again I'll have to test it out. The rules don't matter much for my Roraki squire. Neil  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02238; Fri, 11 Feb 94 02:05:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04358; Fri, 11 Feb 94 03:05:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:05:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 3:05:36 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:03:21 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2A9AEEF154B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Here are a few tentative suggestions for added bonuses for high level skills. I don't know anything about the RQ: AiG combat system, but have read the RQ4 2.0 draft. Combat Skills: Attack: For each 10% group (round up) above 100% skill you can: i) Add +1 damage to a hit, maximum possible damage is equal to highest rollable critical. OR ii) Change the hit location roll by +-1, after the roll OR iii) Reduce the strike rank of the attack by 1 Bonus chosen has to be declared during statement of intent. Example: Ronny the Terrific has 141% scimitar attack. If he attacks with unmodified skill, then he can add up to 5 points to damage, change the hit location roll by +-5, or reduce the strike rank needed by 5, or any of the combination of the above, as long as the total bonus is no more than 5. Parry: Each 10% above 100% (round up) adds 1 to the parry armour of the weapon used to parry. No limit (since you can parry infinite damage on a critical parry). Dodge: Each 10% above 100% (round up) gives an extra point of armour on a successful dodge roll, even if your enemy surpassed it. To keep the advantage of parry, this is considered armour that can be ignored by criticals. Non Combat skills For most skills the method of checking degree of success should give an advantage to skills above 100%. If the system is roll made by x then no extra system should be used. If it's high roll wins then skill over 100 should be added to an ordinary success (but not to specials or criticals since the chance of them happening is less than 100). If the system is low roll wins then skill over 100% should be deducted from the roll. Notes: a) I thought rounding up would be better since then the effects of the system appear when characters reach 101% skill. b) This will give the effect for Bladesharp-type magic that each 2 points applied to a skill over 100% will give an extra 3 damage. I don't have too much of a problem with this. Comments? Does it seem too strong? (That it starts to break down with 2000% Mostali isn't a problem for me, they auto-critical anyway) Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12516; Fri, 11 Feb 94 18:32:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17783; Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:31:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:32:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:31:34 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 8:30:49 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BA1E782D74@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am still thinking about the proposal for interesting things to do with %iles above 100%. I think that I like it - but I would not want it to get to overpowering, to the point that Berserks are instant killers. That said, I kind of like it, and do not really have a problem with it - even at 200%, the max extra damage is +10, equivalent to an RQ3 Crush 4 or Slash 3, and no one has ever got to +10 in my games, other than by Berserking. But that might be a bit high, maybe +1 damage for +20, or 1 hit location changed for +10, or some other sliding scale. Or, if the game balance is a real worry, just remove the extra damage option? In any case it does not seem that overpowered vs. the existing attack spitting option, almost the only useful thing to do with %iles over 100 now. > > I like the idea of masters reducing their attack percentages to get > better effects, but I think it is a little too strong at 10%/point. Maybe. > exactly maps to losing a percentile for criticalling. You can add > similar rules for parrying and other skills (sorceror spells?). > We are starting to get complicated, but then again, they are optional rules, so they are allowed to get complicated. Sounds alright to me. > I would have like to ensure that the bonus damage is limited so that > only maximum weapon damage can be done. Otherwise you will have Rune > Lords killing great trolls with daggers on every hit. :-) > And whats wrong with that? Seriously, if the Rune Lord has high enough skill to add 10 points to his dagger attack, as far as I concerned he should do heaps of damage, enthusiastically slashing at your vital bits. Does make 'heroquest' type levels of play that much more interesting, and dangerous. But thats cool, providing the rules don't seriously break down in the first few hundred. > Once our 'high-power' game gets rolling again I'll have to test it > out. The rules don't matter much for my Roraki squire. > > Neil > > When my high power game gets rolling (shortly after my RQ:AiG arrives, which it still hasn't (aaarrrrgh!!) ) I will probably test out somehting like this too. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12903; Fri, 11 Feb 94 18:43:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18202; Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:43:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:43:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:43:07 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 16:43:54 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BA4FC725FB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I would prefer that when you use an option, like adding one to your >damage or changing hit location by one or whatever, that you have to subtract >a corresponding amount from your skill. So, if you decide you want to add >four points to the damage you do, then you would subtract 40% from your skill. I want a system where I declare my intent then roll dice. If I get a special result, then I can do something unusual. This avoids the pre-dice roll computations and decision making. Having played various versions of the Hero System, which allow similar combat options, I can state that these decisions are non-trivial: do I try and max out my damage, or aim for a hit location? But if I do either of them, I will be reducing my special/crit percentage... > This method does not require limiting these techniques to characters >with skills over 100%, while still making them *much* more useful to those >characters. I would prefer that these options being used primarily by very >highly skilled warriors be a consequence of their mechanic rather than a >seemingly arbitrary rule; It is even worse if you allow characters below 100% to use them. It becomes what I call a "gambling system". You could attack with 90% certainity of hitting; but wait... You can risk it all, and attack with 10%, and +8 damage! > So, how do those seem? I certainly prefer them to the special options >in the rules, which seem much more chancy and present very little benefit >as you are basically forfeiting your chance to special. Obviously, I don't like them. Your system is far more "chancy", since you have to trade away your % chance to hit, for a possible greater benefit. I want a system where I can just roll the dice, and figure out the most optimal thing later, in the event that I roll a special. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15767; Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:31:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19869; Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:24:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:31:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:24:01 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Feedback and Rule Proposals Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 9:23:07 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BAFE4A6EE4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave Cake here > > SKILLS OVER 100% > RQ must be able to handle long-term characters that have > acquired high skills. I have abandonded 2 game systems in the > past because they periodically forced me to trash the > campaign and start over again. Besides, 100+% is not that hard > to get. It is possible to START an Aldryami (as per Elder Races) > at around 130%. Too right. Hear, hear. Other approving noises. I once had a PC roll up a Green Elf character that had the skill qualifications for Wood Lord WHEN ROLLED UP, and this perfectly according to the RQ3 rules. I stalled them for a while as regards need for a new Wood Lord, cult acceptability, etc. but I mean, really. And then there is Berserk, the monstrous spell called Axe Trance (anyone else noticed how appalling this spells is?), and numerous other magic. > Despite this, I found the RQ3 system acceptable, if not perfect, > as regards high skill levels. My Aldryami (113% Elf Bow), goes to > 226% with Arrow trance. A 45% chance to impale is very rude. > Non-impaling weapons were kind of screwed in RQ3, but RQ:AiG > seems to have addressed that. > I found that high skills with bows and things felt OK, but that melee combat between two weapon masters (especially if neither has much offensive magic) could become extraordinarily dull. I once a Rune level combat where while the offensive magic users where having epic battles (Mindblasts, Madnesses, Lightning, spirits) the Zorak Zorani and the Lunar Rune Lord hit-parried doing negligible damage for the entire combat. Even impales are pretty useless with Shield spells and decent armour and 100% parry skills. > FATIGUE AND FUMBLES > In general I like the new fatigue system, but I don't like > the effects of adding directly to the die roll for fatigued > characters. Fumbles already play too big a role in RQ (a much > bigger role than in real life). The main results of fatigue > ought to be 1) to make the character fail more often, and 2) > to slow the character down. Who really likes this mechanic? I know some people are prepared to defend it (mainly those who wrote it), but does anyone actually think that this is the best mechanic there is? I am really quite incapable of understanding the attraction, unless it is intended simply as equaliser, to make Rune levels die more - and I really cannot see how this is a desirable feature of the game. > A fixed percentage subtraction doesn't work very well > for effect #1, especially with very high skills. What is > -30% to someone with 140% attack? Maybe a multiplier would > work better, say .8/.5/.2/.05 (easy enough to do you your head). > A tired master would still be much better than a tired novice, > but by the time they are both exhausted, there's not much > difference between them. Well personally I think that someone with a skill level like 140% should be able to keep performing very well when tired. I mean, surely this is exactly what professional athletes tend to do, for example. And they get precious few other benefits for that 40% extra skill. And I have certainly watched people carry on to the point of exhaustion and continue to do better than I possibly could of - I suspect that well before the point where masters are reduced to novices, they actually collapse. In any case, the multiplication has pretty much the same effect at high %ages - What is a 0.8 multiplier to someone with a skill of 130%? And at exceptionally low multipliers, it reduces almost everybody to uselessness, and makes luck a huge factor. > To simulate slowing down, maybe SRs could be added to every > action except resting. Eventually a character would lose first > one action, then the other. She'd be forced to rest. In theory, I rather like this idea, but in practice I think that the RQ SR rules are too primitive to really cope with it well. I could be wrong. > PROPOSED RULE CHANGE > Change the bladesharp spell to [weapon]sharp. > I see no reason why a Humakti should be able to bladesharp an axe > or a Babeester Gor a sword. Give Yelmalio a weak spearsharp. Shaman > would still be able to get the generic version of the spell. I > realize this would add a little to the cult description, but I > think it would be worth it. The precedent for this is, of course, > iron[body-part]. > Personally, I go against this one. I see spirits magic as having a pretty wide area of application, and divine magic as more specific. Of course, I would like to see sorcery even wider in application (which on this precise issue, it already is I guess). I also don't like the sounds of Iron[body-part] To maintain some sort of compatibility, I don't think that divine spirit magic should be any different to shamanic spirit magic except in spell aquisition. > DEATH IN RQ:AiG > I don't much like death at -HP. Lethality is good. It's true > that resurrection through DI will be rarer, but if there's 1 Heal > Wound in the party, no one's going to die except by a fluke. I > liked RQ3's death at 0 in bookkeeping even less. A variant rule I used > Personally, I rather like death at -HP. It is much more lethal than it appears if you use the bleeding rules (which often end up with bleeding at 2-3 points a round). I also feel that it is fairly realistic - in reality mortal wounds are more common than instant death, things like sucking chest wounds, severed femoral artery, broken ribs puncturing lungs. These will kill quickly, but not Instantly. Instant death is really only heart or brain trauma. I particularly like that bleeding is general HP damage, which means that people who have suffered really serious injuries and been healed are not instantly back in fighting trim (well, unless there is a Heal Body around - but what is 3 point Rune magic for?). In fact I like the current damage rules a lot. They make it unlikely that characters will die all the time, especially experienced ones (I thought RQ3 was too lethal), but they make serous injuries very serious, less of the RQ2 syndrome of arms and legs being stuck on and removed like Lego. The rules are a lot less lethal without bleeding, however. Perhaps there should be a different optional rule for people that do not use the bleeding rules? > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15776; Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:31:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20133; Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:31:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:31:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:24:52 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Damage, Shields, Fatigue Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:29:58 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BB01E719FA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here: David Dunham writes: ) I thought shields, unlike weapons, weren't damaged if their ) AP were exceeded. I would like to know where RQ3 states this. My understanding is that they take damage like any other weapon. Remember, they are listed as weapons on the weapon table, and nowhere does it specifiy an exception for shields. I personally would like to see shields (and armour for that matter) take damage in some slow way. ) Surely you don't keep track of when spells end? We never do. ) They last a long time. Longer than almost any combat. I have had plenty of combats go over 25 MR. Try playing Munchrooms, the Cradle scenario, or toher large combats. Also, dungeon-type romps, with a lot of crawling around and exploring and a few combats also necessitate tracking when spells end. Shadow on the Borderlands Dyskund Caverns meets this requirement, as does Snake Pipe Hollow. In any case, I agree that it is difficult for a GM to track spell duration, so I just have my players do it. If I can't trust them to be honest and diligent on this simple matter, then I should get new players. Ray Turney writes: ) B) Allow the defender to defend with full stored MP's ) including POW storage crystals, etc. If Gaining the RQAiG equivalent of POW Spirits is as easy in RQAiG as it is in RQ4 (1 POW, an enchant and summon roll), then I would hate to see a rule like this make most spirits nuisances rather than the beings of superstitious dread that they should be. Ray also writes: ) What the rules seem to be saying is that one both sides know ) all the moves, hand to hand combat is basically a matter of ) who blows it first, and that a lot of luck enters into it. I ) think there probably really are a certain ) limited number of moves in basic hand to hand combat, and ) that if both sides know them, and no one else intervenes, ) combat will probably take awhile and ) be decided largely by luck. This is possibly true in t he real world, but it doesn't make for good fantasy role playing. Are you saying that a figure like Conan was basically not much better than many of his opponents, but merely got lucky over and over again? Same for Aragorn, Boromir, Elric, Moonglum, Fafhrd, I could go on and on. Certainly, these people fought against other with high skill levels, yet certainly something more than blind luck prevailed. RQ ought to be able to simulate heroic combat ability in a amnner more worthy than saying that the only difference between a 100% fighter and a 150% fighter is 3% critical chance, a 10% special chance, and an increased ability to fight in the dark. Bye, Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15951; Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:38:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20269; Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:36:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:38:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:36:15 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Learning magic; "over 100%" Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 17:35:56 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BB328905F2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David typing. Dennis Hoover said > Lest people think there is no purpose to this suggestion, I >have had a running battle with my players over joining extra cults >just to get spirit spells. This detracts from the game, and I don't >think it is just because players tend to be greedy and deceitful. I >think it is because the rules encourage the behavior. 1) that's what lay membership is for; 2) it's not the rules, it's the way Gloranthan cults work. George Harris made some good enhancements to the trade-off-skill idea; only thing I don't like is having to learn to do it. (I'd assumed skill reduction in Graeme's original, tho he didn't state it; it didn't make sense otherwise.) Neil Robinson suggests that the tradeoff be 20%/enhancement, which I think is probably better than 10%. >I would have like to ensure that the bonus damage is limited so that >only maximum weapon damage can be done. Otherwise you will have Rune >Lords killing great trolls with daggers on every hit. :-) You'd have to be 200% to even get +5, which is hardly enough to kill a troll. I don't have a problem with the idea that a Master does know how to do draw cuts or twist the weapon or whatever, doing extra damage. David Cake said >I am still thinking about the proposal for interesting things to do with %iles >above 100%. I think that I like it - but I would not want it to get to >overpowering, to the point that Berserks are instant killers. That said, I >kind of like it, and do not really have a problem with it - even at 200%, the >max extra damage is +10, equivalent to an RQ3 Crush 4 or Slash 3, and no one >has ever got to +10 in my games, other than by Berserking. Perhaps it's based on native skill only? No magic or modifiers (it doesn't make sense that you can do more damage to a giant). Totally unrelated topic: I picked up Pagan Shore today, minutes after the store put it on the shelf. It looks excellent, has good stuff on geas which may be useful in Sartar (recall a King of Sartar was defeated by being forced to break a geas -- it's not clear this was a Humakti geas).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16756; Fri, 11 Feb 94 19:46:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20614; Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:44:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:46:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:44:02 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Higher level playing Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 9:43:09 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BB53AE41DF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Ray Turney writes: > > > > On this issue, most of the complaints seem to be about combat. While I > > really means, I cannot go with the idea that the rules are broken. > > > Though most people are complaining about combat since this is where > the rules are tested most often and the results the most significant, the > same problems occur with any skills over 100% where simple success level > determines effect. > Actually, there are definately problems with combat that do not show up with the rest of the skill system. There are good reasons for it, the combat system does not use anything like the general opposed skill system (whatever that is :-)), and in combat a quick, simple resolution is not what one is looking for. And combat also suffers from the additional restriction that combat should ideally be INTERESTING to resolve. > > What the rules seem to be saying is that one both sides know all the moves, > > hand to hand combat is basically a matter of who blows it first, and that a > > lot of luck enters into it. I think there probably really are a certain > > limited number of moves in basic hand to hand combat, and that if both sides > > know them, and no one else intervenes, combat will probably take awhile and > > be decided largely by luck. > >From my limited martial arts experience (mostly based on observing those much better than me :-)) mastery is much more than knowing the basics well, it is having a much greater repertoire of manouvers, and being able to react to the unexpected and pick up new manouvers quickly. While many new manouvers are variations on the basics, they are often tactically very different. And while in many modern fighting forms, combat between skilled parties appears to take a long while, I would argue that this has a lot to do with both the artificial restriction of manouvers in competitions, the artificial restrictions of lethality in competition, and the fact that any given martial art inevitably develops a large number of defenses specific to its own attacks. > This can be experimentally tested: observe a number of world heavyweight > title fights. These men can be argued to have skills over 100% in boxing > - they've been training and fighting from and early age - and are in the > same weight class. Do the victories in the fights tend to be random, or > does a single fighter tend to consistently beat another. A similar test > could be done for fencing matches. > Both of these cases are where the competition has been artificially restricted, and at least partly so that competitions continue for a relatively long time. And also the competitions are carefully set up by promoters etc. so that the combatants are as evenly matched as possible, so not really a very good example at all. I don't think that they resemble real combat much at all. > > > > > Tactically, what I want to know is that if this is not a Humakhti duel, why > > isn't some third party intervening with a spell? > > because they are busy reponding to some other threat that is more immediate. Besides, if Rune Lord combats are decided usually on the basis of waiting till your allies get around to helping you, that is even worse than just waiting for a failure. > > I don't know, maybe they are fighting the other opponents with 100%+ skills > and waiting for the luck of the draw to see who wins, even though the system > says they have a 50% skill advantage over them. And we want to encourage rules like this? Bleagh! > > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au > > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17490; Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:02:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21241; Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:02:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:02:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:02:00 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: high skills Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 10:01:14 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BBA06946C2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Graeme suggested > > Attack: For each 10% group (round up) above 100% skill you can: > > iii) Reduce the strike rank of the attack by 1 > > Whoa, if people are really running those 150% skill folks, this means you > can be attacked twice before you get to attack once! Too generous. I thought that you needed a second action to attack twice? Unless of course mr 150% wants to forfeit all his defensive actions? In which case, he has now a new interesting, effective, and very courageous and risky new tactic] for his repertoire - exactly the sort of thing I would like to see more of in RQ combat. In any case, I have certainly met people who could definately attack me twice before I managed anything, really. > (Otherwise, the general concept of trading critical/special chance for > another effect seems reasonable. Might be better as full 10% or some other > number.) > > 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18270; Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:29:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22219; Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:29:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:29:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:29:33 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: How Bladesharp and civilian spells occurr in RQ:AiG Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 10:28:49 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BC15EC11B4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave Cake responding to > > Guy Robinson responding to the wave of Battle Magic hysteria: > > As a playtester with access to a copy of RQ:AiG I can only Don't flaunt it! If you carry on like this I might start to cry :-( (my copy still has not arrived) [Stuff about variant names for spells] > The thought that RQ:AiG has ignored the civilian and the common lot of > the average Gloranthan would be a valid concern if it was the case but > let me assure you that this is not so. > Well, I think many of us where aware of the variant names for spells (these were in earlier drafts), I think that a lot of the complaint was simply over the return of the name 'Battle magic', which seems to be motivated by little other than RQ2 conservatism (at least I can't think of any other reason for it, please correct me if I'm wrong). As for the idea of inventing new non-combat spells, whatever happened to good old Enhance [skill]? If it was considered, and rejected, that is OK, there were some potential problems - but was it considered for RQ:AiG? In fact, in general it would be nice to know about dozens of issues whether the authors of the current draft actually considered the various alternatives, and considered the objections raised here, and then made the decision that they did. It is partly important because I would like to know on what issues we are likely to be able to change their minds (do they intend to wilfully persist with the very silly fatigue system? :-)) Another points about the civilian applications of magic - while the cults and the people might call the same spell by different names, I do not think that it would take very long for people to work out the inherent similarities. Never make the mistake of assuming that people with primitive cultures are stupid - I think that they would work it out very quick. It is possible that they may still think of the spells as different, but not fundamentally different, more optimised for different tasks. I do not think that any farmer would purchase 'Drive Post' from the temple once he gave his old 'Strike Harder' spell he learnt in the militia a go, and I think that they would certainly give it a try before spending time and money. And then he would tell his friends. > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers' Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20986; Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:04:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23327; Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:04:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:04:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:04:03 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Higher level playing Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 22:03:45 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BCA8F91B89@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) writes in part: G> This can be experimentally tested: observe a number of world heavyweight >title fights. These men can be argued to have skills over 100% in boxing >- they've been training and fighting from and early age - and are in the >same weight class. Do the victories in the fights tend to be random, or >does a single fighter tend to consistently beat another. A similar test >could be done for fencing matches. I don't know from boxing, but in fencing, if two moderately skilled people are opposed, individual touches *are* lucky. I was never better than "okay", but I've scored single touches against excellent fencers. BTW, if Mr. 150% fights Mr. 90%, he will win most times, under the current draft.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21057; Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:04:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23334; Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:04:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:04:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:04:14 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: How Bladesharp and civilian spells occurr in RQ:AiG Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 22:03:56 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BCA9C12DEA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> akuma@netcom.com (Steve Barnes) writes: A>I am somewhat wary of this idea, but am willing to give it a try. >My big gripe is that Sorcery effects are specific to highly limited >classes of objects (Bless Needle won't work on a spear for example, >but the battle magic equivalents will). I think it should be the >other way around. Spirit magic should have all the dinky little >spells of limited usefulness, whereas Sorcery should be more versatile >(you have to develop each spell separatly, after all). That's "Low Magic". Low Magic is by design weaker than Spirit Magic/Battle Magic. "High Magic" -- the spells usually used by professional sorcerors -- *are* better than the Spirit Magic equivalents. --Carl  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08571; Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:31:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25874; Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:30:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:30:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:30:41 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Slings Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 20:30:27 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BE1AA947C0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> According to "The Sling as a Weapon" by Manfred Korfmann in Scientific American, slings may have outranged archers. "...it seems probable that a slinger casting lead missiles could attain a range in excess of 400 meters." In an inpromptu test conducted with pebbles, 200 metres wasn't difficult. Anyway, the key quote: "The staff sling is inferior in range to the hand sling. At the same time it is easier to handle and can be employed to throw larger and heavier missiles." This suggests that the range for either sling or staff sling to be adjusted. It sounds like the maximum range for sling should be greater, perhaps 200 metres. And maybe staff sling should be easy (tho from the article, it's far from clear it's half as difficult). The damage is probably too low too: the stone could mass 25 grams and have a velocity of 100 km/h. "Vegetius said that biconical sling missiles were more deadly than arrows against opponents clad in leather armor. Even if the missile did not penetrate the armor, Vegetius noted, it was capable of inflicting a fatal intermal injury." The Peruvian slingers encountered by the Spaniards could "throw a large stone with such force that it could kill a horse. Its effect is indeed only slightly less than that [of a Spanish firearm]; I have seen how a stone flung from a sling over a distance of 30 paces broke in two a word that a man was holding in his hand." The sling may well do the same d8 as an arrow, and staff sling d10. In one picture, they're using stones bigger than a golf ball. The new Pendragon supplement Pagan Shore has rules for the sling which give it a very short range (60 metres), and let you hit yourself on a natural 1 (on d20), but say it does concussion damage so that at least 1/3 of the damage always goes through, no matter the armor. I don't know that this is a good idea, but I thought I'd mention it since Pagan Shore is so new most of you don't have it yet. I don't know the date of publication (I have a copy in my files), but unless someone has more recent information, I'd suggest revising the weapon table. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13743; Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:39:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27749; Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:39:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 0:39:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 0:39:32 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 21:29:21 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BF406776D0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Now that I am suitably scolded for my thoughtless comments on frequent gaming, I'd like to offer something constructive to this issue. I think that the various suggestions on how to "spend" 100+% skills allows for a chance for something uniquely Gloranthan and spicing up the game. I suggest that the 100+% skillmaster be acquainted with "Mysteries" of the skill. These would vary from culture to culture and from school to school. The "Ki" abilities of Land of Ninja would be an example (obviously Vormain). I suggest that some -- but not all -- of the suggestions previously posted could be available to differing masters. Thus, an Orlanthi master duelling a Yelmalian will have certain techniques he may use offensively or defensively, and will know of the likely techniques he may face from the opponent. One thing I like about this is the element of gamemaster control. As in Land of Ninja, you may not find a teacher of the "Mystery". Adventurers will be motivated to go on quests to find reputed teachers of the mysteries. I think that this could operate as a powerful inducement for the higher level characters. There are always more mysteries to uncover ... ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15138; Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:52:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28142; Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:51:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 0:52:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 0:51:45 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Higher level playing Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 21:47:58 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BF748D6EE4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Fri, 11 Feb 1994, Carl Fink wrote: > I don't know from boxing, but in fencing, if two moderately skilled > people are opposed, individual touches *are* lucky. I was never better > than "okay", but I've scored single touches against excellent fencers. > > BTW, if Mr. 150% fights Mr. 90%, he will win most times, under the > current draft. > > A related point: remember, we will have players with 90% going up against the big bad NPC's with greater skill from time to time. The rules should certainly allow the lesser skilled a chance ... I remember the first time an initiate level dwarf character killed a Karrg's Son (okay, he was lucky; he had an iron axe; he had Blade Venom, too). ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15610; Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:01:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28421; Sat, 12 Feb 94 01:01:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 1:01:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 1:01:29 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 0:58:41 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BF9E232826@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steven Barnes replies to someone: # > This method does not require limiting these techniques to characters # >with skills over 100%, while still making them *much* more useful to those # >characters. I would prefer that these options being used primarily by very # >highly skilled warriors be a consequence of their mechanic rather than a # >seemingly arbitrary rule; # # It is even worse if you allow characters below 100% to use them. It # becomes what I call a "gambling system". You could attack with 90% # certainity of hitting; but wait... You can risk it all, and attack # with 10%, and +8 damage! Even worse!?! I think this is a great idea! As long as the GM didn't allow the player very long to decide, I think decisions like this "made in the heat of battle" add more excitement to combat. "That guy's tough - he's got chainmail and some kind of protective magic. My good sword shot just nicked him. Do I hold out for a special, or do I sacrifice (20%/40%) skill for +2 damage?..." The player then gets to agonize when he would have gotten a special if he didn't reduce his skill, or if he misses due to the subtraction, etc. However, such a tactic could also win a fight. I also like the -10%/20% = -1 SR. Sounds like a "desperate lunge" to me. Again, it can win the fight for you, but it can burn you too... To emphasize: I think it should say in italics below the rule that the GM should be encouraged not to let the players deliberate over such decisions; they should be made quickly during the statement of intent phase. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17162; Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:40:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29650; Sat, 12 Feb 94 01:39:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 1:40:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 1:39:54 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 22:39:40 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C04217266F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >From Ray Turney re: Andy's suggestion of special techniques as high level mysteries of cults and fighting schools, I think this is good. Unfortunately, I am not sure we have time to playtest these various ideas with a GenCon release date for RQ IV AiG. Personally my preference would be to take the existing special combat techniques, and have characters pick one when they get to be 95%, one when they get to 115%, etc, as appropriate. If they special their weapon skill attack roll, they can choose among the standard special and any optional results of special combat techniques they know. Which one you pick first could be determined by the cult or school you trained in. My motives for proposing this: a) the proposals for special combat techniques have presumably already been playtested to some degree. They are specifically intended to provide differention among high level fighters, and to increase the potential effectiveness of the master warrior {I particularly like halving the enemy's Parry skill myself}. b) Some question has been raised as to whether it is worth it to master one of these skills, for the specialized result of replacing a special with something that might, depending on the tactical situation might not even be an improvement. c) A point which has not yet been made, but soon will be. I have a trained user of the 2H axe, at about 50%. Under the existing system, his best means of increasing his effectiveness might be to learn 50% in the special combat technique of feint 2H Axe. This is an easy skill, since it is specialized for one weapon. Now we throw him against a beginning Yanafali scimitar, whose normal skill is 90% to parry. His special combat skill gives him a 10% chance to halve the enemy parry. The Yanafali now has his parry halved, meaning about 5% of the time I get through. A little weapon enhancing magic and our scimitar is now in bad shape. This raises the question of whether we really want special combat techniques to be used as a means for relatively low skilled characters to reduce parrying effectiveness? At least at first glance, learning a special technique looks like a better and maybe easier way to increase effectiveness against nominally tougher foes than increasing weapon skill to 75% would be. d) multiplication of specialized rules for the purpose of making masters more effective is on the face of it undesirable. It is better to find more uses for existing rules than to add new ones. In short, my proposal, by eliminating treatment of special combat techniques as a skill, attacks both the question of whether it is worth it for masters to learn special attacks, and the use of special attacks as a form of torpedo {i.e. a cheap but chancy equalizer to help inexperienced characters bring down masters}. It offers masters something we have some experience with, that adds flavor to the game, and may increase the decisiveness of master vs master combat. I am reluctant to see entirely new optional rules, even very promising looking ones, added to the system at this stage. It will be hard enough figuring out the implications of what is in RQ IV AiG now, in time to put them in something for GenCon release. I don't see how we have time to figure out the implications of imprecise new proposals such as Andy's. From bitter experience with, among other things the RQ II experience system, I can assure everyone that it is hard to figure out the results of even the best looking rules.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18545; Sat, 12 Feb 94 01:04:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00563; Sat, 12 Feb 94 02:03:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 2:04:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 2:03:49 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Higher level playing Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 15:02:56 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C0A82119FE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't think even with all the possible rules we have been considering, that a 150% warrior cannot be beaten by one with half his skill, given lots of luck and good tactics - but I think the key with the special combat manouvers is that they mean with skilled fighters tactics become more important, and this is good. We do need to avoid overpowering highly skilled fighters - this is why I don't like the RQ2 'attack over 100% subtracts from skill' rule - but we need to give highly skilled fighters more options. I like the most of the ideas so far proposed. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18810; Sat, 12 Feb 94 01:13:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00852; Sat, 12 Feb 94 02:13:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 2:13:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 2:13:14 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Learning magic; "over 100%" Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 15:12:20 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C0D04912F7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > David Cake said > >I am still thinking about the proposal for interesting things to do with %iles > >above 100%. I think that I like it - but I would not want it to get to > >overpowering, to the point that Berserks are instant killers. That said, I > >kind of like it, and do not really have a problem with it - even at 200%, the > >max extra damage is +10, equivalent to an RQ3 Crush 4 or Slash 3, and no one > >has ever got to +10 in my games, other than by Berserking. > > Perhaps it's based on native skill only? No magic or modifiers (it doesn't > make sense that you can do more damage to a giant). > I dislike this idea - I do not particularly want to underpower spells like Berserk or Arrowtrance (except Axe Trance which is way overpowered). I also dislike the distinction it creates between 'real' and 'magic' skill - one more little distinction to keep track of. And I do not really have a problem with you being able to do more damage against a giant - it is a huge target, and it is easier to aim for its rather large vital spots, and the extra damage you get to do is far outweighed by its extra hp and armour for being so big, so who cares? > > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27544; Sat, 12 Feb 94 06:44:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09983; Sat, 12 Feb 94 07:44:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 7:44:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 7:44:44 EST From: klyfix@ace.com (Klyfix) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Random Thoughts Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 03:00:32 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C656EF57A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> V.S.Greene {klyfix@ace.com} with some bits and peices thoughts I like the new way of handling Heal; it makes sense that one's First Aid skill should be a factor in the success of re-attaching limbs and I like that a Heal 8 can restore general hit points. I don't agree with the notion that healing should be rare or difficult, or that a better way to handle healing would involve having to "overcome" wounds. While in Greg Stafford's vision of Glorantha healing may be rare, I'd note that at least in _King of Sartar_ you've got a few Heros able to do incredible things and thousands of arrow fodder redshirts I think in a regular campaign universe, PCs should be somewhere between these extremes. The new version of Shimmer is a condidate for "Murphy's Rules", in my opinion. I agree that encumbranch shouldn't affect the difficulty of casting Divine and Spirit magic as those magics are invoked as opposed to being a skill. I'm not so sure about Sorcery though; it depends on how much movement, gestures and all that are involved in casting such spells. Perhaps Special Combat Tactics should work like Martial Arts; if you succeed in your attack or parry skill role and also your Special Tactics skill you get the benefit, as opposed to replacing the Special success. I'd tone down the affects, and require a minimum weapon or parry skill before you can use a Special Tactic, maybe. I like the connection of Spirit Magic and Divine Magic spells to runes; this adds background and flavor, I think. Note to Nick on the plural of Shaman: The word shaman comes from Turkic languages; how do they normally indicate plurals? Note to Jeorg on "Rapid Cooling": I think the term you're looking for is "quenching", in which the hot metal is rapidly cooled by placing it in water or sometimes a living thing. I suspect this is one effect of the Sorcery ritual Form/Set, maybe. V.S.Greene | klyfix@ace.com | Boston Mass., sorta | "Oh, there'll be carnage."-Crow T. Robot  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26985; Sat, 12 Feb 94 05:57:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05908; Sat, 12 Feb 94 06:56:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:57:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:56:37 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Helmet fatigue Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:16:59 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C5898B6617@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) writes: > > The real point, in any case, is whether any sort of rule for extra > fatigue for a hemet (as opposed to any other kind of ENC) are > worthwhile. I think the absolutely ARE NOT. This level of realism is > not anything anyone misse, is it? When was the last time you heard > soemone say " I really love that new RuleHammer game, it has really > detailed encumbrance rules!" > It rather depends. I've certainly cursed at games for NOT being detailed enough in certain areas. But I do agree that if the regular encumberance rules interacted with fatigue properly, this sort of kluge would not be necessary. I'm not sure they do. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21524; Sat, 12 Feb 94 02:29:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02610; Sat, 12 Feb 94 03:28:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 3:29:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 3:28:43 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: skills over 100% Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 00:28:35 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C2126712BF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David typing. Graeme Lindsell replies to me >>(I'd assumed skill >>reduction in Graeme's original, tho he didn't state it; it didn't make >>sense otherwise.) > > Why doesn't it make sense? I was giving characters with high skills extra >abilities, not saying that they can take negative mods to get a better result. >The second system would imply that characters with any skill could take >the same chances, as George Harris suggests; I don't think combat is >broken under 100%. At the least, I don't like it that the person at 101% is magically able to do stuff that the person at 100% cannot. Also, I'm very much in favor of tradeoffs, that's what makes combat interesting. Andy Weill suggested making the various tradeoff options Mysteries only available from Yoda-like teachers. (OK, so he didn't say Yoda.) This is a better way of looking at the training I disliked earlier -- and doesn't have to be limited to 100%+ characters, either (though an easy abstraction would be once you found Yoda, you'd have to make your skill roll in order to be taught a Mystery). Ray Turney amplified: >Personally my preference would be to take the existing special combat >techniques, and have characters pick one when they get to be 95%, one when >they get to 115%, etc, as appropriate. If they special their weapon skill >attack roll, they can choose among the standard special and any optional >results of special combat techniques they know. Which one you pick first >could be determined by the cult or school you trained in. which solves my complaint of having to learn the special techniques to specific levels (I liked the earlier draft, where you knew themor you didn't), but doesn't have the nicety that non-Masters can use them. (And I still think you need to decide ahead of time what tactic to use, and not choose after you've either specialed or criticalled -- and like David Cheng said, quickly.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26979; Sat, 12 Feb 94 05:56:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05905; Sat, 12 Feb 94 06:56:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:56:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:56:36 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: STR Dam bonus idea; masters Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:39:06 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C5897B0E40@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Kevin Maroney writes: > > Maybe we played a Gloaranthan Monty Haul campaign, but I don't think so; > we had our first Rune Lords within a year and a half of starting, with > weekly sessions. Skills well in excess of 150% (because of magical > enhancements) were reached fairly quickly, especially for the Orlanthi and > Humakti. (And for certain NPCs and monsters.) > We didn't gust quite that high, but by about the same time period, we were seeing a fair spread of rune lords in the 110-125% range. And this was with RQ1/2 where there was NO training for the majority of skills above 75%. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26973; Sat, 12 Feb 94 05:56:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05901; Sat, 12 Feb 94 06:56:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:56:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:56:35 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Spell incompatability and higher level playing Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:51:40 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C5896C4DE5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Raymond D Turney writes: > Andy, college students often play once a week or even more often. Also, how > much you play depends to some degree on the demands of your job. As it > happens, your job is quite demanding and as a parent of a young > child much of your remaining energy is also committed. I suspect once a > week would be normal for the market as a whole. Certainly the groups I've been associated with have at least ATTEMPTED to game each campaign once a week for most of my career in the hobby. At most every other week. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25485; Sat, 12 Feb 94 04:54:21 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05011; Sat, 12 Feb 94 05:54:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 5:54:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 5:53:54 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: High Level Skills Date: 12 Feb 94 05:52:09 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C47E0216B0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here. The recent discussion on "High Level Skills" is going the right way, I think: methods *anyone* could use, by penalising their skills to get a bonus of some kind. Not "one bonus effect for free per 10% above 100% skill". The penalty should perhaps be 20% per point (i.e. 1 critical % lost), not 10%, given that under-100%ers can use them too. Though I am not yet sold on this. If we add a sensible caveat that you can't more than halve your skill by going for adds, it seems fair enough to me. With a 40-79% attack, I could pick *one* reduction-plus-bonus (at 20% per pick); with 80-119%, two. Not really a problem for balancing off those tricky decisions... Graeme Lindsell: > However, Steven E Barnes points out that systems with subtractions for > extra bonuses take more time to calculate, and slow the game down... To > make it even simpler, just give increased damage, since that balances > off the increased parry AP and Dodge armour given. Nick Brooke points out that high level combats take more time to calculate and slow the game down. That said, Graeme's last suggestion seems fine to me. RQ:AiG has a very good "aimed blow" mechanism, IMHO: if you say you're going for one location, you can hit it on a special or a critical -- but the critical only does damage as per a special hit. David Cheng: > To emphasize: I think it should say in italics below the rule that the > GM should be encouraged not to let the players deliberate over such > decisions; they should be made quickly during the statement of intent > phase. Seconded. All GMs should have a bucket of cold water handy for players who bring calculators and standard deviation tables to the game. David Cake: > We do need to avoid overpowering highly skilled fighters - this is why > I don't like the RQ2 'attack over 100% subtracts from skill' rule - but > we need to give highly skilled fighters more options. Seconded. This should be our priority. David Dunham: > Andy Weill suggested making the various tradeoff options Mysteries only > available from Yoda-like teachers. (OK, so he didn't say Yoda.) This is a > better way of looking at the training I disliked earlier -- and doesn't > have to be limited to 100%+ characters, either (though an easy abstraction > would be once you found Yoda, you'd have to make your skill roll in order > to be taught a Mystery). Or to critical it (with one roll per full week of training?). I too dislike the mechanic of these skills which *only* have a special chance, and prefer the "know it or you don't" simplicity of the previous system. FATIGUE David Cake: > Who really likes this mechanic? I know some people are prepared to defend > it (mainly those who wrote it), but does anyone actually think that this > is the best mechanic there is? Nope. >> A fixed percentage subtraction doesn't work very well >> for effect #1, especially with very high skills. What is >> -30% to someone with 140% attack? Maybe a multiplier would >> work better, say .8/.5/.2/.05 (easy enough to do you your head). >> A tired master would still be much better than a tired novice, >> but by the time they are both exhausted, there's not much >> difference between them. [Multiplying by x0.8 is easy to do in my head, is it? I feel subnormal] > Well personally I think that someone with a skill level like 140% should > be able to keep performing very well when tired. I mean, surely this is > exactly what professional athletes tend to do, for example. And they get > precious few other benefits for that 40% extra skill... I suspect that > well before the point where masters are reduced to novices, they actually > collapse. > In any case, the multiplication has pretty much the same effect at > high %ages - What is a 0.8 multiplier to someone with a skill of 130%? > And at exceptionally low multipliers, it reduces almost everybody to > uselessness, and makes luck a huge factor. I concur. Straight subtractions from skill are probably a better fatigue mechanic than adds to the die roll. KI SKILLS (Land of Ninja) I agree with the discussion on "Ki" skills (I once rewrote these and called them "Mastery" rules, to make 90% skill *special*). They are neat, and fun. But these, IMHO, are the *perfect* example of optional rules, *completely* unnecessary in the basic game. Save them for an expansion. SLINGS David Dunham is right. 1D8 for a normal sling, 1D10 for a staff sling, and up the ranges. This was less of a problem than the ludicrous javelin rules in RQ3, but we can (and should) cure it now. Lead bullet rules were fun! LIGHTWALL I hate it too. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25960; Sat, 12 Feb 94 05:22:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05467; Sat, 12 Feb 94 06:22:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:22:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 6:22:17 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 03:22:53 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2C4F70A70A7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> From: David Cheng >Steven Barnes replies to someone: ># > This method does not require limiting these techniques to characters ># >with skills over 100%, while still making them *much* more useful to those ># >characters. I would prefer that these options being used primarily by very ># >highly skilled warriors be a consequence of their mechanic rather than a ># >seemingly arbitrary rule; ># ># It is even worse if you allow characters below 100% to use them. It ># becomes what I call a "gambling system". You could attack with 90% ># certainity of hitting; but wait... You can risk it all, and attack ># with 10%, and +8 damage! > >Even worse!?! I think this is a great idea! >As long as the GM didn't allow the player very long to decide, I think >decisions like this "made in the heat of battle" add more excitement >to combat. The players always have more time to decide. The GM is dealing with PCs one-by-one, and coordinating NPC actions. Even so, as a math/sci nerd, and long time player of RPGs, I hate this kind of system. It can be found in various Hero System versions, and in Steve Maurer's sorcery system. Computation based trade-offs are a pain. I wouldn't mind a standard list of maneuver options with *fixed* bonuses and penalties (such as Lunge: -1 SR / -10% skill). >"That guy's tough - he's got chainmail and some kind of protective >magic. My good sword shot just nicked him. Do I hold out for a >special, or do I sacrifice (20%/40%) skill for +2 damage?..." My friends will quickly deduce the optimium strategy and use that; or perhaps just get lazy and go for the big damage pay-off. This isn't role-playing, it is numerical analysis. Anyway, as others have pointed out, it is a bit late to propose such a radical change... -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10109; Sun, 13 Feb 94 09:24:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26337; Sun, 13 Feb 94 10:24:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 10:24:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 10:24:01 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 12:57:28 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E0FF5E013F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg in reaction to Dave Cake: > Personally, I rather like death at -HP. It is much more lethal than it appears > if you use the bleeding rules (which often end up with bleeding at 2-3 points > a round). I also feel that it is fairly realistic - in reality mortal wounds > are more common than instant death, things like sucking chest wounds, severed > femoral artery, broken ribs puncturing lungs. These will kill quickly, but not > Instantly. Instant death is really only heart or brain trauma. There might be a few more reasons, but I agree. Especially when you think of the epic deaths of Boromir (who was heroic to the end) or Harald Hardrada (an arrow wound in the chest, probably piercing the lung, but he lived on for several hours). BTW: Could we introduce a weaker 2 point divine spell Heroism which only allows to ignore non-crippling wounds and blood loss until collapsing, no skill doubling, for Humakti and similar warrior cults? The ability to parry makes up for no skill increase, IMHO. > I particularly like that bleeding is general HP damage, which means > that people who have suffered really serious injuries and been healed are not > instantly back in fighting trim (well, unless there is a Heal Body around - but > what is 3 point Rune magic for?). Only the rate of bleeding and the ease of stopping it is something I disagree with. The rules are ok for limbs and superficial cuts, but not for deep chest, abdomen or neck injuries. The bleeding rate ought to vary, similar to disease, so that an internal injury might be detected only hours after the fight. I know, a bit extra bookkeeping, but worth the effort for realism and suspense. I wrote up a background story for an important NPC which involved the slow death (in the bed) after receiving a serious and (without an able surgeon at hand) incurable wound. (A Heal Body wasn't available so soon after the battle.) Under RQ3 such a death scene (or the ensuing scenario of the characters fetching the healer) was impossible. RQ:AiG ought to make it possible. > In fact I like the current damage rules a lot. They make it unlikely > that characters will die all the time, especially experienced ones (I thought > RQ3 was too lethal), but they make serous injuries very serious, less of the > RQ2 syndrome of arms and legs being stuck on and removed like Lego. > The rules are a lot less lethal without bleeding, however. Perhaps there > should be a different optional rule for people that do not use the bleeding > rules? RQ3 was too lethal, in my experience with a Viking band. Ok, pole-axes doing 3d6 damage tend to blow out the light even of armoured characters, as do impaling long spears (2d10+2, damage boni not included, but irrelevant). The few standard Vikings with battle axe and shield were far less effective, but also they managed to sever limbs more often than I liked. While I'm at it: How are maimed limbs treated in AiG? Where are the characters walking with a limp, but still with a externally whole leg? Same for stiff but at least partially useful arms? Yeah, I'm nasty. Combat results tend to be so, too. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07809; Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:21:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25617; Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:20:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:21:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 11 Feb 94 23:20:47 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Higher level playing Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 15:18:15 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2BDF05F0132@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme replying to a lot of people: Carl Fink writes: > BTW, if Mr. 150% fights Mr. 90%, he will win most times, under the >current draft. Is this through the use of special maneuvers? Given that it's based on the chance of achieving specials the chances are 30 vs 18; I suppose you could call that winning most times. I'd tend to give a 60% advantage in skills rather more, since I tend to see the difference, rather than the ratio. It takes an awful lot longer to raise a skill from 90 to 150 than it takes to raise a skill from 18 to 30. David Dunham writes: >thing I don't like is having to learn to do it. (I'd assumed skill >reduction in Graeme's original, tho he didn't state it; it didn't make >sense otherwise.) Why doesn't it make sense? I was giving characters with high skills extra abilities, not saying that they can take negative mods to get a better result. The second system would imply that characters with any skill could take the same chances, as George Harris suggests; I don't think combat is broken under 100%. > Neil Robinson suggests that the tradeoff be 20%/enhancement, which I think >is probably better than 10%. For 1 point of damage, I think 20% skill is too much. The idea is to try and give enough advantage that there is a significant difference: with 1pt/20%, the difference between 101% and 139% is 1 point of damage. Also rememeber that each point of (say) Bladesharp gives 1 point of damage, and characters can easily get 3 or 4 points of it: equivalent to the bonus given by 161% skill in the 1/20 point, or 131% skill in 1/10 point. These skills don't come nearly as cheaply as Bladesharp 4, except by other cheap magic. John Medway write: >>> iii) Reduce the strike rank of the attack by 1 >I hate. There's no provision for negative strike ranks, and they have >never appeared, or been possible with any other part of the system. >They are possible, unsing this. Actually, I should have said: "... to a minimum of SR1". While this is pretty fast, and would result in a lot of combats between masters taking place on SR 1, I tend to think skill is a big factor on speed. However, Steven E Barnes points out that systems with subtractions for extra bonuses take more time to calculate, and slow the game down. If that is a real problem, then drop the -1 SR/10% idea, so that you only have the options of increasing damage or location: you could then decide on the effect you want after the to hit and parry rolls. To make it even simpler, just give increased damage, since that balances off the increased parry AP and Dodge armour given. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17065; Sat, 12 Feb 94 15:29:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27085; Sat, 12 Feb 94 16:28:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 16:29:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 16:28:46 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Higher level playing Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 16:28:32 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2CF13113AA4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell asked: > This can be experimentally tested: observe a number of world heavyweight > title fights. These men can be argued to have skills over 100% in boxing > - they've been training and fighting from and early age - and are in the > same weight class. Do the victories in the fights tend to be random, or > does a single fighter tend to consistently beat another. A similar test > could be done for fencing matches. Well, before his incarceration, Mike Tyson was routinely demolishing other fighters. Now, Tyson is very strong, even for a heavyweight boxer; and very fast, even for a heavyweight boxer. But there is some evidence that he is just a _damn skillful_ fighter. He carefully studies his opponents' fights to discover their styles; he find their weaknesses while he fights them; and he doesn't offer many opportunities for his opponent to hurt him. He is certainly a high-level boxer, above and beyond his STR and DEX, and he lost only one fight. I don't know what this says about high-level RQ characters, but I suspect it says this: a 150% swordsman should be able to kick a 75% swordsman five ways to Darkday. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker I blame the failed Giuliani administration.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23639; Sat, 12 Feb 94 18:04:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02769; Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:03:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:04:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:03:40 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 16:01:26 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2D1A82563D2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Fri, 11 Feb 1994, Raymond D Turney wrote: > In short, my proposal, by eliminating treatment of special combat techniques > as a skill, attacks both the question of whether it is worth it for masters > to learn special attacks, and the use of special attacks as a form of > torpedo {i.e. a cheap but chancy equalizer to help inexperienced characters > bring down masters}. It offers masters something we have some experience > with, that adds flavor to the game, and may increase the decisiveness of > master vs master combat. > > I am reluctant to see entirely new optional rules, even very promising > looking ones, added to the system at this stage. It will be hard enough > figuring out the implications of what is in RQ IV AiG now, in time to put > them in something for GenCon release. I don't see how we have time to > figure out the implications of imprecise new proposals such as Andy's. From > bitter experience with, among other things the RQ II experience system, I > can assure everyone that it is hard to figure out the results of even the > best looking rules. > I completely agree with Ray for the short term. I am simply proposing something which could easily be a supplement, and can be an interesting flavor for future scenarios. I would hope, however, that the imprecise idea could be mentioned in the GM'ing chapter. We need to give some guidance to GM's on how to run with the rules and make them their own... ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25514; Sat, 12 Feb 94 18:54:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04218; Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:54:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:54:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:54:06 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 16:53:58 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2D27F646D79@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Andrew and Ray are reluctant to add new rules to RQ:AiG as this time. Maybe we should concentrate on rules fixes as opposed to additions. Saying that, I will probably playtest the -1 SR/+1 Damage/-10 Parry rule, and base it on -20% to attack, where the attacker may not go below half of his/her attack skill. To me, we can easily add it as a 'Spot Rule' (from Elric) or equivalent. Ki Skills: I have been using Ki skills with a Vormain character in our high-level game. They work reasonable well, but don't really allow you to tailor your high-level fighter to a specific fighting style.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17786; Sat, 12 Feb 94 22:23:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09935; Sat, 12 Feb 94 23:23:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 23:23:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 23:23:28 EST From: Kevin Maroney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The Commericial Failure of Empire of the Petal Throne Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 23:23:10 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2D5FCA93C0E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Basically, the ideal of introducing new players to Glorantha is secondary to > producing a good set of rules. (after all, look at the commercial sucess of > Tekumel - interesting world, but the rules suck, so commercial failure). I think you oversimplify here. If there is one lesson to be learned in the process of the canonization of games, it is that it is almost completely chaotic and unpredictable. That said, I think that there are two major reasons why EPT failed, neither of which are directly related to the rules system. The first is lack of support. TSR published relatively little material for EPT during the years it was at TSR-- little even by the low standards of support of the RPG industry at the time. The only EPT material I can think of from TSR besides the original boxed set was War of Wizards, which is a marginally-related boardgame. The second is that Tekumel is _just plain weird_. It's brilliant, it's unique-- and it's weird. It is a world that strongly appeals to a certain type of gamer, and completely alienates the others. Both of these flaws (to much lesser degrees) hampered the release of RQ3. There was little support for the system; I think that in the first four years of RQ3, there were a total of eight supplemental products, and two of those were character sheets. And Glorantha is _strange_-- not as exotic as Tekumel (not by a long shot), but not like Tolkien or Howard, either. A game _can_ survive both of these problems, and some have. And a game can survive a bad system as long as the setting is engaging enough to the audience (the current perfect example is still _Shadowrun_, which is a deeply flawed system and a very popular setting). But RQ:AiG should strive, as much as possible, to be both accessible and well-polished, for both the new player and the returning player; and it must be supported by AH or it will die. Kevin J. Maroney|kjm@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker I blame the failed Giuliani administration.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23954; Sun, 13 Feb 94 00:08:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12473; Sun, 13 Feb 94 01:08:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 1:08:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 1:08:06 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The mysteries of the Masters. Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 01:07:57 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2D7BB3E3A29@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well... Here's my take on fun things to do with skills over 100%. Given the fact that it is actually not too difficult to get a skill at 100% to 105% (attribute bonuses included), I don't think this low level of "mastery" should have special bennies. However, after this point, I do agree that "secret ways" should be available. How does one attain them? Simple, the same way one attains any wierd abilities in Glorantha: Heroquest for them! How to handle this in a gaming context? I dunno, when characters get to be that mega, I've found that any system that works for the human level of things just breaks down, anyway.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26097; Sun, 13 Feb 94 01:16:37 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14442; Sun, 13 Feb 94 02:16:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 2:16:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 2:15:51 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatigue Date: 13 Feb 94 02:12:40 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2D8DC525B2C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dennis Hoover ABOUT FATIGUE Nick Brooke wrote: NB>I concur. Straight subtractions from skill are probably a better fatigue NB>mechanic than adds to the die roll. and Graeme Lindsell replied: GR>Glad to know that you agree. My question for the RQ4 designers is: what is GR>so wrong with straight subractions that you felt the need to create a whole GR>new mechanic? I'm not one of the game designers, but straight subtractions don't scale well. Whatever numbers you pick, the extremes get screwed. However, I like adding to the die roll even less. That's why I suggested a multiplier instead of a straight subtraction -- it scales better. I wrote: DH> A fixed percentage subtraction doesn't work very well DH>for effect #1, especially with very high skills. What is DH>-30% to someone with 140% attack? Maybe a multiplier would DH>work better, say .8/.5/.2/.05 (easy enough to do you your head). DH>A tired master would still be much better than a tired novice, DH>but by the time they are both exhausted, there's not much DH>difference between them. Nick Brooke replied: NB>[Multiplying by x0.8 is easy to do in my head, is it? I feel subnormal] I'm not happy with doing extra math (though subtracting your chance to special from 100 is not THAT difficult). But I'm REALLY not happy with adding to the die roll. I could live with a straight subtraction, if nobody can come up with a better alternative. Dennis.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09526; Sun, 13 Feb 94 08:57:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25565; Sun, 13 Feb 94 09:55:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 9:57:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 9:55:28 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "Bladesharp" and other "combat" spells. Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 01:46:49 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E0858361C0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes: > > Now, some spells are definitely "combat" in that their function is far > less amenable to adaptation to a variety of situations. The only uses > I can come up with for Speedart and Multimissile is to give one a better > chance of hitting something else and doing damage to it. > Though, I should note, only if you are defining "combat" very broadly. Is shooting your dinner (as a hunter) "combat"? In a broad sense, of course; but I suspect a lot of people in most such cultures tend to do a certain amount of distinguishing between war and hunt magic, even if the actual spells overlap a lot. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09547; Sun, 13 Feb 94 08:58:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25586; Sun, 13 Feb 94 09:58:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 9:58:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 9:55:30 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: higher level playing; Fatigue Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 02:02:40 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E085A23B5B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) writes: > The problem with straight reductions is that Dwarfs are presented in > Elder Secrets as attaining 2000% skill levels in their chosen craft in > an average of 700 years practice. Since many Dwarfs have been around > since the dawn, this "additive" system can never work in conjunction > with the above. I support Ray Turney in that I'm not sure this is > really broken? I'd say that's a flaw with the Elder Secrets data, not the approach. I can beleive that creatures of indefinite lifespan might get mighty good over time, but the simple fact is that the opportunity to improve is certainly going to slow down over time, and I find it hard to beleive that a set of beings doing EXACTLY the same job week in, week out are learning much after a while. > > There really is a top end of effective skill advancement somewhere. By > that I mean that there are only so many moves in a combat skill, and so > many facts in a lore skill. What you should offer particularly high > skill level players is the ability to make use of special effects such > as flurry etc. Steve Maurer's HeroQuest rules in the archives suggest > an alternative however... > This sounds remarkably like the argument that was running around a few years before the end of the Nineteenth Century that physicists had "learned almost all there was to learn about physics." I think it's sort of dumb here, too. A lore is never complete because THINGS CHANGE...but that doesn't mean all of them change. Old data is never completely useless, but new things keep happening. With combat, it's even worse; old tactics fall out of favor, new ones occasionally get developed, and reading them into someone's actions so you can make the right moves is never cut and dried. I find it very hard to beleive that a weapon master will EVER exhaust his ability to usefully improve; I certainly don't think it happens within a human lifespan, and I can probably find some pretty famous combatants of the past and present who agree. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09537; Sun, 13 Feb 94 08:58:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25578; Sun, 13 Feb 94 09:57:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 9:58:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 9:55:29 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue, Encumbrance, etc. Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 02:16:06 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E08593535A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> akuma@netcom.netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) writes: > I don't like RQ2 rule of subtracting skill over 100%. It is extra > overhead, and it has the strange effect of reducing special chance > for the defender (two 200% guys fight each other; their special chance > is 40% on the attack, but 20% on defense). > Who says? We always ran those recipricol; 200% sword and shield users were effectively reducing each other's chances to 100% on both ends as far as the rolls went. A 150% attacker with a 100% parry versus another of the same would be a little odd since they would both have a 30% special on the attack and only 10% on the parry, but any system where the actual attack skill of the attacker normally has not effect on the defender until a breakpoint is reached is going to look a LITTLE odd; the effects of this one never seemed out of preportion to the differences, and at lower levels it's already covered by the normal success/failure issues. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14225; Sun, 13 Feb 94 11:13:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29408; Sun, 13 Feb 94 12:13:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 12:13:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 12:13:37 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Cultural Initiation Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 11:18:21 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E2D3163381@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A while back there was some discussion about what it meant to be to be an Orlanthi initiate; not so much an initiate of the cult of Orlanth, but to be a member of the Theyalan culture who has just gone through initiation. There were several ideas batted around, but nothing that seemed satisfying to me. After some of thought, I have come up with the following, some (perhaps most) of which was mentioned in that previous discussion. It can stand a lot of going over, so if anyone has ideas that seem germane, please comment. (Note: In the following I will use the term "Theyalan" when referring to the culture or the pantheon, and Orlanthi when referring to just the cult(s) of Orlanth, to save confusion.) When a Theyalan youth or maiden comes of age and is initiated, at first they become what is referred to in the RQAG draft as "Low Initiates". What this is is not defined in the draft; I assumed (and the authors probably intended) it to mean low ranking initiates in the cult, more a matter of "time in grade" (so to speak), than any real degree of initiation. Well, I intend to define a Low Initiate now as follows: a Low Initiate is someone who has been initiated into the basic mysteries of a pantheon. What cults the pantheon consists of varies from clan to clan; in KoS p239, it says "Children become adults after a formal initiation ceremony, parts of which are the most closely held secrets of the clan." In some of the Lismelder clans, for instance, the pantheon may include Humakt as an associate of Orlanth and the Ernaldan household. This is not an initiation into any of the cults of the pantheon, just to the pantheon itself. This allows one to take part in cult worship to any of the deities as an initiate. This may or may not allow one to sacrifice for divine spells; at most only those spells which are offered to associate cults would be accessable. One would not have to be bound by the harsher strictures of the individual cults; the Lismelder clansman mentioned above could be resurrected, for instance. Any rules held to by all of the cults would be binding, however. Later, when the Theyalan initiate has seen some of the basic mysteries of each cult, and has had a chance to decide, they may advance to become a Full Initiate. This is when they become a full member of a particular cult. However, they would not necessarily loose the benefits that they had before; an Orlanthi initiate may (and might be expected to) take part in Ernalda services. However since they are not Full Initiates of Ernalda they will never see anything but the basic mysteries of that cult. Some cults, particularly Humakt, may require a severing of the Low Initiate status; this also may vary from clan to clan. Note that when one becomes a Full Initiate one does not sacrifice any more POW; that was done at the basic initiation. One goes to the priest of the desired cult who performs the Initiation ceremony (a new spell added in RQAG, gladly enough). Anyway, I think this is the core of a workable system to reflect the "real world" process of initiation. A youth of 15 may have no idea that he will become a great Storm Bull berserker; why would he be forced to decide yet? But he is still able to participate in the community through worship. In some clans, most of the people may never go past the Low Initiate level; they may view those who dedicate themselves to a single cult as "dangerous fanatics", especially any cult other than Orlanth and Ernalda (and perhaps the household cults such as Barntar, Mahome, etc.). Such is best left for the thanes and lords; common farmers need all the gods' favor, not just one, even if that one is Orlanth. ---- Boris  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15780; Sun, 13 Feb 94 11:49:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00589; Sun, 13 Feb 94 12:48:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 12:48:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 12:48:35 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The mysteries of the Masters. Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 09:47:05 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E3683F6D2D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Sun, 13 Feb 1994, Bryan J. Maloney wrote: > However, after this point, I do agree that "secret ways" should be available. > How does one attain them? Simple, the same way one attains any wierd abilities > in Glorantha: Heroquest for them! > > How to handle this in a gaming context? I dunno, when characters get to be > that mega, I've found that any system that works for the human level of > things just breaks down, anyway. > I agree that the quests for these mysteries should be Heroquesting or similar. I don't believe that all of these should be found only on the Heroplane. I like the Land of Ninja approach to Ki masters, as an example. Rare, but accessible. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16823; Sun, 13 Feb 94 12:14:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01472; Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:14:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:14:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:14:07 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 10:13:59 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E3D54F6AD9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney to Jeorg Baumgartner I like your proposed heroism spell substituting the ability to parry for skill doubling as Berserker. I suspect Greg would have included it in COP for Humakht had he thought, and know I would have recommended it. It seems a very Humakhti-Yanafali type thing to have. Could we come with another name for it though. Heroes are a big thing in Glorontha in a way Berserkers are not, and the spell does not convert you into Argrath or BeatPot. Maybe Block Pain? To Oliver and Carl Fink, please note.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28862; Sat, 12 Feb 94 20:27:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06933; Sat, 12 Feb 94 21:27:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 12 Feb 94 21:27:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 12 Feb 94 21:27:16 EST From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Skills Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 13:24:55 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2D40CD5394C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell reply to > Nick Brooke here. > > The recent discussion on "High Level Skills" is going the right way, I > think: methods *anyone* could use, by penalising their skills to get a > bonus of some kind. Not "one bonus effect for free per 10% above 100% > skill". The penalty should perhaps be 20% per point (i.e. 1 critical % The reason I gave the "bonus effect" was to distinguish between characters with skills above 100%. A character with a skill of 90% already gets a "bonus effect" that a character with 80% doesn't have: an extra +10% chance of success. The basic problem has always been that the 110%er does not have anything near the same advantage over the 100%er. All IMO, of course. > lost), not 10%, given that under-100%ers can use them too. Though I am not > yet sold on this. > > If we add a sensible caveat that you can't more than halve your skill by > going for adds, it seems fair enough to me. With a 40-79% attack, I could > pick *one* reduction-plus-bonus (at 20% per pick); with 80-119%, two. Not > really a problem for balancing off those tricky decisions... > I would see players reducing their attacks most of the time: if you miss an attack, you can try again next round; but I don't think anyone with skill under 115% would ever reduce their chance to parry or dodge > > Nick Brooke points out that high level combats take more time to calculate > and slow the game down. That said, Graeme's last suggestion seems fine to I have never noticed such an effect. They take more time to _play_, because there are a lot more effective parries, but I haven't noticed more calculation time, unless your talking about the extra magic that rune lords have. > David Cake: > > We do need to avoid overpowering highly skilled fighters - this is why > > I don't like the RQ2 'attack over 100% subtracts from skill' rule - but > > we need to give highly skilled fighters more options. I agree that that overpowers things (as I think the LoN Ki skills do as well. I don't necessarily feel that many more options are needed, just better ways of distinguishing between fighters with 100% skills and those with 140%. > FATIGUE > I concur. Straight subtractions from skill are probably a better fatigue > mechanic than adds to the die roll. Glad to know that you agree. My question for the RQ4 designers is: what is so wrong with straight subractions that you felt the need to create a whole new mechanic? > > > KI SKILLS (Land of Ninja) > > I agree with the discussion on "Ki" skills (I once rewrote these and called > them "Mastery" rules, to make 90% skill *special*). They are neat, and fun. > But these, IMHO, are the *perfect* example of optional rules, *completely* > unnecessary in the basic game. Save them for an expansion. > I find the actual mechanics used for Ki skills odd: why consider them a separate skill that can only be increased at the same rate as the skill to which they are tied? This gives an advantage to masters with 90% skill over those with 100%+ skill. The same effect could be achieved by considering your chance of a Ki effect is equal to the Base skill - 90%. > > > LIGHTWALL > > I hate it too. It really looks like a D&D spell when I compare to the rest of the spirit/ battle magic spell list. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25139; Sun, 13 Feb 94 15:05:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08509; Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:04:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:05:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:04:41 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: High Lvl Skills & combat options Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:03:52 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E6AD2A6341@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Dawson here, NOT Kirsten Niemann. Many folks are struggling over the effects of the optional combat rules and the need for "extra" benefit from high level skills. Some folks seem to be suggesting some sort of merger between these two. I thought I would toss in another bit of confusion. I was the part of the original "Gang of Four" that started the RQ IV rewrite, and I was the person who originally proposed the Optional Combat stuff. HOWEVER, the method and implimentation I suggested was ENTIRELY different from the one Oliver turned around and proposed, and in my opinion, more complex. My original idea was for these combat options to be optional results of impales and crits. Thus, if your character had chosen "Flurry" as his optional result, eny time he got a special (or better) with his weapon, he had the choice of a) normal special result, or b) a flurry. I intended this to be a way of differentiating individuals, showing that different fighters have different innate talents, etc. Oliver & co. added all the extra training rules for these special abilities. Yes, i think that many or all of the special abilities are things that can show up in anyone's combat skills, but this is generally shown by the normal, slow increase of skills. I thought that by making these optional results a part of character creation, it would help to make characters more unique. Under the current rules, only those with the luxury of special training have the chance to do these fancy manuvers. My experience in SCA combat is that almost every serious fighter picks up some single technique that he becomes much better at than the rest of his repitiore of fighting techniques. I, for example, have a very accurate sense of range and targeting, so I can do what amounts to the "Aimed Blow" option. Other fighters, some MUCH better than I, can barely manage to aim in the general direction of a person, while I concentrate on hitting specific rivets on helms. Anyway, I read someone's suggestion that skill over 100% might go directly to raising impale & crit chances, so that a 110% weapon skill means a 30% special, not a 22% impale. Maybe just for specials, though, as a 15% crit for a 110% skill seems a tad generous. I'll bet this is destabilizing and needs playtesting, but I like the idea because it is simple and at least as intuitive as the rules for skills over 20 in Pendragon. I imagine it would speed up combats between high skill guys too. Mike >|< ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information aboout Codex Magazine. "Inquirines into the nature and secrets of Glorantha"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25657; Sun, 13 Feb 94 15:20:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09161; Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:20:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:20:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:20:22 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:19:34 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E6F00C245D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Dawson (not Kirsten Niemann) here. David Cake says he thinks Babeester Gor's Axe Trance spell is too overpowered. I have to disagree. I think it is perfect and scary for the types who end up in B Gor. Imagine some poor woman who has been (fill in your own terrible victimization here) by some nasty schmoes. She decides to Get Even Right Away. She joins Babeester Gor for 1 POW, then sacrifices for 1 single use of Axe Trance. She dumps all her MP ( or just a bunch of it) into the spell once she finds the schmucks, and blithely chops their arms off through their shields. And other bits too. Seems to work just right for me. A B Gori guarantees carnage. Mike Dawson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27680; Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:05:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10977; Sun, 13 Feb 94 17:03:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 17:05:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 17:03:43 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:58:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E7A90F4E5C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I have to say that I think Axe Trance is overpowered. Let's compare it to two similarly constructed weapon enhancing divine spells, Slash and Crush. Slash adds 1d6 to the damage done to a weapon on which it is cast, and is stackable. Crush adds 1d4 to weapon damage and 10% to weapon skill when cast on a mace or maul, and is stackable. The pro- blem with Axe Trance is the mechanic for getting greater effects. Sure, +20% per magic point is okay if it's some intiiate using it for instant revenge, but that isn't a good enough reason. First, Babeester Gor is *not* the Earth Avenger cult, Gorgorma. Babeester Gor is the Earth Defender cult. Instant revenge is what Second Mouth is for. Second, although this spell may be appropriately powered for use by initiates, it is completely unbalancing for a Priestess of Babeester Gor. Say she has an allied spirit with a Pow of 12 (not unreasonable), and twenty points of stored MP (also not unreasonable). With one divine spell she gets **+640%** to her attack, enough to add **128%** to her special chance and **32%** to her critical chance. That's absurd. Axe Trance should behave similarly to Slash and Crush. Make it a stackable divine spell that adds 20% per point to the attack skill. That makes four points each of Slash and Crush comparable to eight points of Crush (+80%, +4d6 compared to +80%, +8d4). Crushis a little more powerful, but also less flexible. A Babeester Gor initiate can choose to get six of one and two of the other instead. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27906; Sun, 13 Feb 94 16:14:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11434; Sun, 13 Feb 94 17:14:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 17:14:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 17:13:57 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: shamanS; smaller Berserk Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 14:13:50 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E7D4BD4962@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> V.S.Greene asked >Note to Nick on the plural of Shaman: The word shaman comes from Turkic >languages; how do they normally indicate plurals? It doesn't really matter; we're speaking English. English uses regular plurals for nouns of foreign derivation. (My dictionary says it's either Russian or Tungus; if Russian, the plural would be shamani.) Ray Turney responded to Jeorg Baumgartner: >I like your proposed heroism spell substituting the ability to parry for >skill doubling as Berserker. I suspect Greg would have included it in COP >for Humakht had he thought, and know I would have recommended it. It seems >a very Humakhti-Yanafali type thing to have. Could we come with another >name for it though. Heroes are a big thing in Glorontha in a way Berserkers >are not, and the spell does not convert you into Argrath or BeatPot. Maybe >Block Pain? I like the spell, too; I'm not sure who it's most appropriate for, but that doesn't matter. I do agree it needs a different name: Determination, Concentration, Battlesong, or something better. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00704; Sun, 13 Feb 94 17:24:30 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14702; Sun, 13 Feb 94 18:24:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 18:24:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 18:24:11 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: brief notes Date: 13 Feb 94 18:20:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2E900677837@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke, commenting briefly on Sunday's postings. I too like the "replacement for Berserk" spell, and hope we can use it. I enjoyed Boris's suggestion on "Cultural Initiations" a lot. Must think through the ramifications, but this does seem to make more sense than the current rules, with very little effort required to describe the new way of doing things. OTOH, if it can't be fitted it'd make a great optional rule. Forward compatibility with a hypothetical Tunguskan edition of RQ:AiG is not a high priority for me, V.S.. Backwards compatibility with the English language is. So far I note one quibble but no defenders for the shaman-as- plural school. Ignore Oliver's references to "Frazier": in my short edition of Frazer's (shorter) Golden Bough, the two indexed mentions of a "shaman" are plainly singular in context. This is an exercise in wool-pulling. So I repeat: can *anyone* out there quote me one published work that uses "shaman" as a plural? Frazer doesn't, Eliade doesn't, Campbell doesn't, and RuneQuest hasn't (until now). Nobody I have read uses this. I have read enough to make this worth saying. Please, please, please can O.J. confirm that this error won't appear in the final text!? I am sorry this is still an issue. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04939; Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:00:52 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18189; Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:00:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:00:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:00:30 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Plural of Shaman Date: 13 Feb 94 19:55:45 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EA9B642BC8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dennis Hoover Nick Brooke writes: >>So I repeat: can *anyone* out there quote me one published work that uses >>"shaman" as a plural? I did some quick [pseudo]scholarly research and found: 1) The _Oxford_English_Dictionary_ (1st edition, unfortunately) gives 2 quotes of the plural of Shaman. The first is from 1780 by one Tooke in a book on Russia: "Among all the Schamanes,..." (Schamane is given as a variant of Shaman). The second is from 1845 by one S. W. Williams in a book called _Middle_Kingdom_II_: "The ritual of the Shamans...". In the header for Shaman, no specific plural is listed, which means normal English formation applies. 2) My _Webster's_Third_New_International_Dictionary_ (unabridged) explicitly lists 's' as the plural ending of Shaman, i.e. Shamans. 3) I found the plural of Shaman in a footnote in C. G. Jung's _Psychology_ and_Religion:_West_and_East_ (vol 11 of the collected works), Princeton Univ. Press, Translated by R.F.C.Hull. On p227 I found footnote #9 which goes, "...[dismemberment] plays an importan part in the initiation experiences of shamans and medicine men,...". For those who might have a different edition, the footnote is for paragraph 346. I'm satisfied. The plural of Shaman is Shamans. Dennis  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05896; Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:28:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19159; Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:25:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:27:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:24:54 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Playing Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:30:11 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EB038D6006@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here. Being the one (I believe) who brought up the intial concern for high level playing in RQ in the first place, I thought I'd give my two cents on the various suggestions mentioned. 1) I do not particularly like the old RQ2 high skills act as penalties to opposing skills system as it makes high level characters too powerful when attacking low level characters, and makes little or no difference if both opponents are suitably over 100% (for example, a person with a 125% attack subtracts 25% from an opponent with a parry of 120%. The result is that the attacks and parries still come at 95%. 2) I do like the proposal of allowing masters to do special or heroic things with their excess skills (whether subtracting from their skill level or not). This is the type of thing that keeps combats interesting and exciting at higher levels and where having skills over 100% makes a difference. Regarding Civilian Magic, I love Joerg Baumgartner's suggestions for developiong an entirely new set of spells for civilian applications. It is true that trying to say that the "battle" magic spells are appl icible to civilian life seems stretched at best. Let's instead, if we want RQ to have folk magic, make up some true folk magic. Also, to Joerg, the term for rapid cooling is "dousing" I believ e. Finally, since more and more the "official" reply from the powers that be is that the rules are pretty much now set in stone, why are we wtill batting all of these rules changes around? For RQ5 (shudder the thought!)? Is it time to close this playtest forum, or should we just comment on areas to be covered by supplements (like Western Genertela), or should we continue on with RQAiG debates? Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07365; Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:00:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20623; Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:00:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:00:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:00:02 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fate of the List Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 17:59:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EB99683E15@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler remarks: >Finally, since more and more the "official" reply from the powers that be is >that the rules are pretty much now set in stone, why are we wtill batting all >of these rules changes around? For RQ5 (shudder the thought!)? Is it time to >close this playtest forum, or should we just comment on areas to be covered >by supplements (like Western Genertela), or should we continue on with RQAiG >debates? Personally, I hope that this forum will continue. Since I doubt that anybody will be 100% satisfied wth RQAiG, it would be nice to have a place to discuss rule variants, new spells, etc. In the final analysis, I suppose it is, of course, up to Loren. What do you say, Loren? Dustin (dustin@ocf.berkeley.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09820; Sun, 13 Feb 94 20:58:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22922; Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:58:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:58:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:58:03 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 18:55:25 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EC91063C7D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Imagine some poor woman who has been (fill in your own terrible > victimization here) by some nasty schmoes. > > She decides to Get Even Right Away. She joins Babeester Gor for 1 > POW, then sacrifices for 1 single use of Axe Trance. She dumps all > her MP ( or just a bunch of it) into the spell once she finds the > schmucks, and blithely chops their arms off through their shields. > And other bits too. > > Seems to work just right for me. A B Gori guarantees carnage. > > Mike Dawson > And equally true that a village or clan protected by a B Gor will not be a tempting target for rape and pillage ... I agree that Axe Trance is potent. But obviously, it is not culturally appropriate to use it in your average combat. I see B Gor as stingy in its use as can be. It's the true avenger's spell. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09949; Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:00:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23006; Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:00:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:00:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:59:53 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 18:59:42 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EC98D76A78@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> After reading George Harris' post, I agree with him. The potent version of the spell should go the the avenging goddess. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26940; Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:48:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25119; Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:48:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:48:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:48:42 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The Plural of Shamans Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:48:29 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2ED691B03A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Repeat after me: THE PLURAL OF SHAMAN IS SHAMANS THE PLURAL OF SHAMAN IS SHAMANS THE PLURAL OF SHAMAN IS SHAMANS. I have done quite a bit of reading on the subject of shamanism, and NO authority on the subject ever ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER has used any plural for "shaman" other than "shamans". Just go to a good library of theology and flip through the books, you'll NEVER see "shaman" as a plural. You'll ALWAYS see "shamans" as the plural. In fact, some books on the subject (particularly the later ones that have to deal with feminist revisionism bullshit) take GREAT pains to point out that the "-man" fragment of "shaman" has NOTHING to do with the English word "man" in meaning or derivation, and that the correct plural of "shaman" is, therefore, "shamans" as opposed to "shamen"--the most common mistake. As for citing Frazier--I turn a jaundiced eye to anything to be found in Frazier (I also consider Campbell a non-event, amusing for a bedtime read but in the same category as Parkers's _Montcalm and Wolfe_ would be were one talking about accurate history of the Seven Years War.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27141; Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:53:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25286; Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:52:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:53:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:52:40 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The list is not dead. Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:52:32 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2ED7A1038A7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Uh, folks, there are some people who have not received their copies of RQ:AiG. Let not the rarified air of RuneQuest con turn those fortunate enough of you to attend into Marie Antoinette. RQCon was not the only release of the playtest draft, so discussion cannot be over, no?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29953; Sun, 13 Feb 94 22:54:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27792; Sun, 13 Feb 94 23:53:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 23:54:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 23:53:39 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 23:50:41 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EE7E501CB0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # Mike Dawson (not Kirsten Niemann) here. # # David Cake says he thinks Babeester Gor's Axe Trance spell is too # overpowered. # # I have to disagree. I think it is perfect and scary for the types who # end up in B Gor. I agree with Mike. Please remember that there are very few Babeester Gors anywhere. There are a few attached to some other Earth temples; I might even posit that the only established BG temple is affiliated with the Maran Gor temple at Wintertop. BGs should be exceptional; even rarer than Storm Bulls. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 14-Feb MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu #Re: Fate of the List Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05292; Mon, 14 Feb 94 00:03:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00490; Mon, 14 Feb 94 01:03:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 1:03:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 1:03:13 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fate of the List Date: 14 Feb 1994 00:45:04 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EFA72453E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This list will cease to be after the publication of RQAIG, when we can all move our discussion to more-or-less public venues. That is, unless work will be continuing immediately on the development of RQ5... I've heard lots of different rumors about that, but currently my bet is that we won't be seeing any major developments in RQ for a few years now. -- Loren p.s. make that "major developments in RQ rules for a few years now."  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 13-Feb akuma@netcom.com #Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06190; Mon, 14 Feb 94 00:14:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01113; Mon, 14 Feb 94 01:14:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 1:14:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 1:14:35 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 22:15:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EFD7BC46A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # Mike Dawson (not Kirsten Niemann) here. # # David Cake says he thinks Babeester Gor's Axe Trance spell is too # overpowered. # # I have to disagree. I think it is perfect and scary for the types who # end up in B Gor. David Cheng Writes: >I agree with Mike. Please remember that there are very few Babeester >Gors anywhere. There are a few attached to some other Earth temples; >I might even posit that the only established BG temple is affiliated >with the Maran Gor temple at Wintertop. > >BGs should be exceptional; even rarer than Storm Bulls. These are not valid reasons why BG has one of the most powerful combat spells in the rules. If anything, given the alleged scarcity of GB worshipers, the spell should be weak. More importantly, it provides for unlimited bonuses to attack percentage, given enough available MPs. I don't care how rare the cult is, or how "appropriate" the spell is; the spell is flawed. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 14-Feb johnston@heart.enet.dec.c #Axe trance Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12592; Mon, 14 Feb 94 03:22:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05909; Mon, 14 Feb 94 04:22:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 4:22:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 4:21:48 EST From: Groove Requiem To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Axe trance Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:16:45 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2F2F6925AC1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> RE: All this discussion on axe trance problems. Our house rule for this was that each MP increases the skill by 5%, unless the worshipper was on holy ground, in which case the increase was 10%. (Holy ground in this case was temples or sites sacred to ANY earth goddess). This, to me at least, fitted Babeester Gor's role at earth defender. Nigel Johnston  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14567; Mon, 14 Feb 94 04:27:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06988; Mon, 14 Feb 94 05:26:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 5:27:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 5:26:54 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Cultural Initiation Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:13:36 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2F40C650E2D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Boris: > A while back there was some discussion about what it meant to be to be an > Orlanthi initiate; not so much an initiate of the cult of Orlanth, but to > be a member of the Theyalan culture who has just gone through initiation. > There were several ideas batted around, but nothing that seemed satisfying > to me. After some of thought, I have come up with the following, some > (perhaps most) of which was mentioned in that previous discussion. It can > stand a lot of going over, so if anyone has ideas that seem germane, > please comment. I a trying a similar concept for the Stygian heresy of Heortland, although there Orlanth as incarnation of the Invisible God plays an even more important role than in classical Orlanthi society, with the other deities and the single aspects of Orlanth as patron saints. > This is not an initiation into any of the cults of the pantheon, just to > the pantheon itself. This allows one to take part in cult worship to any > of the deities as an initiate. This may or may not allow one to sacrifice > for divine spells; at most only those spells which are offered to associate > cults would be accessable. This would be an all associated cult similar to the Seven Mothers, with lay member state in all specific cults of the local pantheon. This is certainly appropriate for more civilized Theyalans, but these rarely are without foreign influences - Malkioni or Lunar. > Later, when the Theyalan initiate has seen some of the basic mysteries of > each cult, and has had a chance to decide, they may advance to become a > Full Initiate. This is when they become a full member of a particular > cult. However, they would not necessarily loose the benefits that they > had before; an Orlanthi initiate may (and might be expected to) take part > in Ernalda services. However since they are not Full Initiates of Ernalda > they will never see anything but the basic mysteries of that cult. Some > cults, particularly Humakt, may require a severing of the Low Initiate > status; this also may vary from clan to clan. Note that when one becomes > a Full Initiate one does not sacrifice any more POW; that was done at the > basic initiation. One goes to the priest of the desired cult who performs > the Initiation ceremony (a new spell added in RQAG, gladly enough). This certainly makes sense. Only with a large number of associate intiates will the minor cults be able to entertain a priesthood. Since I haven't yet seen the rules, does RQ:AiG give instructions how to handle the magic of a worship ceremony as participating lay member or initiate? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14633; Mon, 14 Feb 94 04:31:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07100; Mon, 14 Feb 94 05:31:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 5:31:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 5:31:03 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Guy's Recommendations for Reorganising RQ:AiG Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 02:30:39 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2F41E13041F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Oliver, I'm at the point where I'm checking the rules for consistency and doing the necessary cross referencing I find I need to do before I run a game. Due to this I 'm finding gliches in the way things are orgainised. As one of my players will be my 15 year old stepson, a Warhammer 40K war game enthusiast, expect me to come back to you and the playtest list with no small number of adolesent concerns. The format of most chapters follow an unfortunate pattern. They are introduced well, follow though well untill they haemorrhage will another set of material and then conclude. Examples of this are each of the four magic chapters. World of Magic stops dead describing Magical Items when it has built up the discussion of Personal Magic. Devine Magic stops to discuss the cults when this information could be better presented somewhere else. Even Sorcery stops to discuss the Invisible God. Here are my comments on a re-ordering. RENAMING THE NATURAL WORLD. I suggest that the Natural World should be renamed the Inner World, with a suitable italic explanation at the title for Basic Roleplayers, and details of the Glorantha Inner World be dealt with. For after all metals are the bones of Dead Gods and crystals part of their life essences. METALS. The information on metals are spread about RQ:AiG. World of Magic gives details of their properties when enchanted, Economics give their prices and The Natural World states the temperature at which they will melt. The answers I failed to pin-point was what were exactly the unechnanted properites of Iron and was enchanted Rune metal still the exclusive provence of Rune Lords? If this information could be gathered into an Inner World chapter except for prehaps the Economic information then the descriptions of these metals might be more complete with a lower page count. After all, in a fantasy world the populace will not always be able to distinguish between the natural and the magical. CULTS and PANTHEON DESCRIPTIONS. The descriptions on Cults and pantheons might be better gathered with the cultural information included for character generation. For the cults play an essential part of the background of each culture. If you are generating any character higher than Trained you really have to make choices at the point of character genateration which cult you wish your character to join. Besides the character generation rules partially describe cults so to complete the task would be a wise move in my opion, especially as each pantheon is little more than a page or two. This would allow the Devine magic chapter to focus more on issues of Devine magic and Rune Cults. ISSUE CONCERNING SPIRITS and SHAMANS. The spirit combat page has been commented on with great intensity but I feel that it warrants a little more comment. I will not further discuss these mechanics but instead explore other issues. The page on spirit combat does not confront the consequnces of spirit combat. In the Magical World two types of possession are described but nothing about the fate of a vanquished spirit can be found. There is a note about what happens to Spell Spirits once defeated in Spirit Magic but that's about it. I would be inclined to gather the consequences of spirit combat, to both embodied and disembodied spirits, in one place along with the information that describes the views on the fate of the spirit after death. Prehaps this could be accomplished by renaming Spirit Magic the Spirit World, especially as Sprit Magic is another named for the doomed term Battle Magic. SORCERY and the INVISIBLE GOD. I am not convinced that rules on Sorcery are peoperly interwined with the rest of the magic systems. One of my players is extremely thorough and logical and I will set him to work on figuring out the interaction between sorcery and the rest of the magic systems. Untill then what I can observe about the Sorcery chapter is that it breaks to describe the Invisible God. This chapter is a bit out on a limb as no culture, except for the Lunar Empire, that RQ:AiG covers uses Sorcery. I guess that is chapter is one that will always be a bit wierd. It also suprisingly describes Lunar Sorcery, which the introduction claimed it would not address! SUMMARY. I am suggesting a re-ordering of RQ:AiG to improve the presentation and hopefully allow better coverage of the regrouped areas. The risk of this re-ordering is the fouling of current cross-references unless the resulting work is edited carefully. I have also suggested renaming the Natural World and Spirit Magic chapters the Inner World and Spirit World respectively. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23249; Mon, 14 Feb 94 08:38:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19268; Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:38:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 9:38:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 9:38:22 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: How Bladesharp and civilian spells occurr in RQ:AiG Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 05:24:26 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2F83D606F2E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson, here replying to various people Steve Barnes writes in response to Battle Magic spells having differeing title and even being taught as differing spells: >It wouldn't take very long, IMHO, for farmers to realize that >Slay Pest also works on people, horses, and even inanimate objects. There is an old saying that states that people are no less intelligent in times gone by than they are now, probably people could figure these matters out. However a world where the Gods are both very real and the main way to get on in life the taboo could be very rife and understandable. If my Priest of God X taught me a spell to plough the land and further the fertility of the soil I would be very disinclined to soil the very earth itself with the corpse of someone I had slain with the same spell. In my humble opinion, of course. >First off, I hate explainations based on fear of God Learners; >another point to remember is that many of these spells should >come from gods within a pantheon. Rather than having Barntar >worshippers develop their own version of Bladesharp, perhaps >they simply get the spell from Orlanth, and figured out that it >also works on plows? The advantage of a mythologicial explanation is that a number of conflicting views will exist, none of which may accurately portray the historical situation. The mythologicial explanation may be part parable, for example. I would be inclined to differentiate the spells on a more pragmatic level, using the same basic description but suggesting to players that a Ploughsharp spell might offer advantages over a Bladesharp spell if you want to plough a field. I would adjudicate over these variations on the fly unless I forsaw of a situation in advantage while I prepared for a particular session. David Cake writes, initially about my copy of RQ:AiG >Don't flaunt it! If you carry on like this I might start to cry :-( (my >copy still has not arrived) Just providing information. I had a long wait for my copy and I hope I can get the results of my playtesting out before things get too close to the publication date for feedback to be viable. >Well, I think many of us where aware of the variant names for spells (these >were in earlier drafts), I think that a lot of the complaint was simply over >the return of the name 'Battle magic', which seems to be motivated by little >other than RQ2 conservatism (at least I can't think of any other reason for it, >please correct me if I'm wrong). I think that as long you do not associate Battle Magic with AD&D hack and slay combat, but more with the living and dying by the sword that is more commonly associated with RuneQuest then the term is not too offensive. Here is my other reason for preserving the term Battle Magic: The best explanation I can offer is that the glorification of conflict is common in societies because most people would do without it except for the situations that directly affect them. Thus you need to pander to the ego of the warrior to persuade him to throw his life away for whatever abstract purpose a Priest, God or statesman might envisage. I would suggest the term Life Magic as a replacement for Battle Magic as it scans as the same kind of term, plus it focuses that the place of Gloranthan magic is within Life. However Battle Magic should still remain as the title for the preception of Life magic that views it's primary pupose as being for battle. Dave Dunham has said something positive about Life magic and if I hear more positve opinions, unsullied by counter arguments, I will post this suggestion to Oliver direct. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26222; Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:13:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22105; Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:13:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:13:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:13:21 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:11:28 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2F8D29F01C5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steven Barnes replies to me: # David Cheng Writes: # >I agree with Mike. Please remember that there are very few Babeester # >Gors anywhere. There are a few attached to some other Earth temples; # >I might even posit that the only established BG temple is affiliated # >with the Maran Gor temple at Wintertop. # >BGs should be exceptional; even rarer than Storm Bulls. # # These are not valid reasons why BG has one of the most powerful combat # spells in the rules. If anything, given the alleged scarcity of GB # worshipers, the spell should be weak. # # More importantly, it provides for unlimited bonuses to attack percentage, # given enough available MPs. I don't care how rare the cult is, or # how "appropriate" the spell is; the spell is flawed. Flawed only in the sense of game balance. I have gone on record here before in favoring flavor over game balance. I'm sure you've heard the phrase: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Well, change that last word to something more appropriate, like "wronged" perhaps, and you have the conceptual basis for the entire Babeester Gor cult. I don't care how high some furious woman can pump up her attack. I like the idea of an Avenger cleaving dozens of guys before she herself is killed. (BTW, I can't say I agree on the Babeester Gor=Defender, Gorgorma=Avenger thing. I can't quote sources right now, but this doesn't feel right). To consider game play: there are still only 10 SRs in a melee round. The woman is still susceptible to missles and spells. She can only kill perhaps 3-4 guys per round. They can still try to run away. The spell is only flawed from the perspective of "all cults should have equal 'power'." This is an idea I just don't agree with. It's not like you would ever have a tabletop minis battle, with one guy bringing his 100 Orlanthi thanes, and the other bringing his 50 Babeester Gor warrior women. If you want, in your campaign you can say that a BG woman can only cast the spell while on an "avenging quest." * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28233; Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:42:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24813; Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:42:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:42:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:42:25 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "Soiling" the earth. Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:42:09 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2F94EAA3585@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Uh, people are stating that one reason they could not see "bladesharp" as being applicable to plowing is that a cult that would teach the agricultural application might see using the spell in combat as "defiling" the spell or "soiling" the earth with blood. This is all well and good PROVIDED that Theyalan/Orlanthi culture, Carmanian culture, and ALL other cultures that use spirit magic and farm take the same approach to blood and combat as do modern Christianity, Shinto, etc. I see no evidence for this. In fact, I could see a great case to be made in FAVOR of using "plowsharp" to enhance combat--"By my God's magic, I take the strength of your blood and water the soil of my crops with it, thus do you strengthen my people in death." Now, I could see an interesting situation wherein the Orlanthi farmer, who learned "bladesharp" via an agricultural route would REFUSE to cast it when fighting Chaos monsters. Why? The blood of THESE creatures would be pollution. (I can just see the humor: The macho Humakti notices that the Orlanthi amateur will not cast blade-enhancing magic when combatting chaos monsters. Not to be out-done, he also no longer uses them. The Pious Humakti, on the other hand, asks the Orlanthi amateur why he does not use the magic, and is told that to do so would be to expose the life-bringing gift of the God to Chaos defilement. The Humakti and the Orlanthi then get into a theological argument in which the Humakti steadfastly maintains that it is the purpose of a weapon to be used and it is the duty of the warrior to use a weapon to the best of his ability--swords can be cleaned afterwards. The Orlanthi stubbornly states that he "wouldn't eat off a knife that had been covered in shit, no matter how much it was washed.") But I'm a culture-fiend, so what do I know?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29841; Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:55:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25824; Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:55:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:55:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:54:29 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Babeestor Gor Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:47:43 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2F982200315@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This is Newton. In regard to people who think Babeestor Gor's spells are too powerful: remember the Iliad? Every time someone inspired by Mars meets someone inspired by Athena, Athena's guy is the winner. I think Babeestor Gor was fully intended to be powerful.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03603; Sun, 13 Feb 94 18:37:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17265; Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:37:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:37:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:37:23 EST From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 11:34:37 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EA38CB4440@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg writes > BTW: Could we introduce a weaker 2 point divine spell Heroism which > only allows to ignore non-crippling wounds and blood loss until > collapsing, no skill doubling, for Humakti and similar warrior cults? > The ability to parry makes up for no skill increase, IMHO. I think the Yelmalio cult should get the same spell, especially now we know that Yelmalio's big ability is immortality: as the God of Last Light, he can't be destroyed. There was a discussion about such a spell on the RQ Daily back in October. I went for the name "Battle Trance" for the Humakti, and had the requirement that they had to have a specific aim ("Take that hill", "Hold this bridge") when the spell was cast so that while under the effects of the spell all the target's actions had to be directed towards this aim. David Cheng also suggested a 3 point non-reusable Death Trance spell for Humakti only. It doubled _all_ combat spells, and I think you could cast spells under its effect, but at the end of it you died. Used to ensure an heroic death. I though most Swords would use DI to get the same effect. > Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04057; Sun, 13 Feb 94 18:47:15 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17553; Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:47:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:47:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:46:48 EST From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 11:44:23 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2EA60F4213F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> An error in my last message: Death Trance doubled all combat skills, not spells. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07538; Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:23:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04917; Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:51:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:01:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:39:43 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:15 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2FB43334CE9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave Cheng says, regarding babeester Gor: >The spell is only flawed from the perspective of "all cults should >have equal 'power'." This is an idea I just don't agree with. >It's not like you would ever have a tabletop minis battle, with one >guy bringing his 100 Orlanthi thanes, and the other bringing his 50 >Babeester Gor warrior women. Oh yeah? I'm writing minis rules for RQ (un-officially still...), such a match-up certainly *could* happen (Anyone want to take on Wintertop?). However, I'm with the people who like the spell as it is. A question, How many people have actually seen the spell used in a Game? How badly did the BG destroy her opponents? Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04797; Mon, 14 Feb 94 15:54:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04397; Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:40:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:50:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:39:01 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:38:51 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2FB404E629C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To assume that a cult with one of the best combat spells in the world would remain obscure, with only one temple at Wintertop, defies logic. How many illuminates who might like Axe Trance are there in the Empire, anyway? I can see a Storm Bull Hero making it his specific quest to steal Axe Trance and make it available to Storm Bulls for fighting chaos? How many Orlanthi are going to exploit their cult's association with Babeestor Gor {which is, after all, where Orlanth gets Great Parry}? Here again disdain for players who abuse the rules with intent to minimax causes us to neglect the fact that real combatants also do a certain amount of minimaxing. I think it is, within limits, in character for those of my characters who fight to think about how best to go about it. In short, my vote is that Axe Trance is too powerful, It is also inelegant, in that this mechanism of allowing MP expenditure to power a Divine Spell is rare, and both there and in Maran Gor lends itself to abuse. I note that the RQ III version at least has no upper limit on the MP you can put in. In principle, Juliette could join Babeestor Gor as an initiate, {after learning axe to 50%}, put all 59 of her stored MP into backing this one point axe trance spell, and come out about 640% to hit with an axe. Still not nearly enough against Jar-Eel, but she could embarass some Orlanthi with it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10488; Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:49:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05406; Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:04:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:13:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:43:12 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Cultural Initiation Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:43:05 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2FB520D2B09@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Maurer's campaign has a "Lightbringers" cult which worships the Lightbringers collectively much as Seven Mothers worships the Mothers collectively. It seems to exist mostly in the Lunar Empire, but could theoretically exist elsewhere. It has common spells, plus spells offered by association to the other Lightbringers. It's not common, but I have a fairly weak character in it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.25/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26907; Thu, 24 Mar 94 16:05:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11473; Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:05:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:05:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:48:24 EST From: "Loren Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Combat Options Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 13:48:21 EDT Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2FC68454F29@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren here, I prefer Mike Dawson's original idea on how to deal with Special Combat Options over the current rules, which I believe are unwieldy and seem to be designed specifically so that players will not want to use them. I'd simplify things a little, though. I think that people ought to be able to choose different special results from their attacks. They would have to declare the special result before swinging, so it wouldn't make combat take any longer, and it wouldn't require any calculating either, unlike the -10%/+-1 schemes. My scheme follows... * * * OPTIONAL SPECIAL COMBAT TACTICS By default, a special success on the attack or parry will double weapon damage or parrying AP. If you want to allow additional results from combat which will make combat more interesting to play, then include special combat tactics as alternate results for special successes. To use a special combat tactic, declare that you are attempting the special tactic by name. If you get a special success (Skill/5 or less) then apply the special combat tactic you chose rather than the default special result, which is double weapon damage. Some of the special combat tactics are below. Aim (All melee and missile weapons) hit desired hit location. head hits allow for knockouts (Damage vs Head HP to KO defender) Crushing Blow (All Crushing weapons and swung impaling weapons) minimum half damage, ignores armor Disarm (All melee and missile weapons) hit desired weapon or item, ignore half item AP Entangle (All entangling weapons, including flails) hit location is immobilized, defender rolls STR vs STR to escape Find Weakness (All melee and missile weapons) halve armor and structural AP (i.e. Plate armor reduced to 3AP for this attack only) Flurry (All melee weapons except SR0 ones, plus self-bows) extra attack after attack (in case of arrows, you are holding several arrows ready in your arrow hand and may fire them more quickly than usual) Impale (All impaling weapons) double weapon damage; weapon stuck; continues doing damage until removed Knockback (All non-impaling weapons) Damage vs SIZ to knockback 1m per 10HP Damage, defender gets DEXx5 roll to stay on feet Knockdown (All swung weapons) Damage vs SIZ to knockdown Riposte (All melee weapons except SR0 ones) extra attack after parry Strong Hit (All melee and missile weapons) double weapon damage (standard result of special attack) Strong Parry (All melee weapons) double weapon AP (standard result of special parry) Trip (All hafted weapons of SR0 and SR1) hit legs, Damage vs DEX to knockdown defender Your GM may want to expand this list to cover other tactical situations. GMs, if you expand this list, make sure that the tactics you add are about as effective as those in the list above. They should not wholly replace the above tactics, but rather allow for more choice. * * * One thing I'd like to add would be some way of learning weapons mysteries from the masters, much like the Ki abilities in Land of Ninja. I don't have any idea what the mystery abilities would be, though. Perhaps blind fighting would be one of them. Anyway, they are definitely not necessary for the core rules. They could easily be added later. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu Into the flood again, same old trip it was back when  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12041; Mon, 14 Feb 94 17:05:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05637; Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:13:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:22:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:56:04 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Babeestor Gor Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:55:55 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2FB89013FBD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In response to Newton's invocation of Athena, it should be noted that Babeestor Gor is a very different goddess from Athena {who if she existed would be to Orlanth as the Conquering Daughter is to the Red Goddess}. Also, the closest parallel to Mars is ZZ, not Humakht or Orlanth. Orlanth corresponds most closely to Zeus, indeed this correspondence between Greek Myth and Glorontha is the only one I would consider defending. If one is to argue from analogy, the similarites should be strong enough to be useful. Athena vs Zeus is as I recall a far more even match than Athena vs Mars; the advantage I think actually going to Zeus.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.25/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26923; Thu, 24 Mar 94 16:05:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11509; Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:05:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:05:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 14:18:36 EST From: "D.Schubert" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Babeestor Gor Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:10:07 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <2FCE9404F65@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Mon, 14 Feb 1994, Newton Hughes wrote: > This is Newton. In regard to people who think Babeestor Gor's spells are > too powerful: remember the Iliad? Every time someone inspired by Mars > meets someone inspired by Athena, Athena's guy is the winner. I think > Babeestor Gor was fully intended to be powerful. > If folks believe the Babeester Gor spell Axe Trance is too powerful, why not change it from being reusable to one-use? This may encourage casting of the spell only in emergency situations. bye David Schubert  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03370; Tue, 15 Feb 94 03:24:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27001; Tue, 15 Feb 94 04:24:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 4:24:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 4:24:02 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 21:08:50 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30B00EB76E1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg jumps on Earth Goddesses and such which aren't: > Steven Barnes replies to me: >> David Cheng Writes: >>>I agree with Mike. Please remember that there are very few Babeester >>>Gors anywhere. There are a few attached to some other Earth temples; >>>I might even posit that the only established BG temple is affiliated >>>with the Maran Gor temple at Wintertop. Babeester Gor, Warrior and Protevtress goddess of the Paps and of Esrolia? >>>BGs should be exceptional; even rarer than Storm Bulls. Storm Bulls, who make up half the professional warriors at clannish Orlanthi courts (the other half being Humakti)? Ok, that works out. >> These are not valid reasons why BG has one of the most powerful combat >> spells in the rules. If anything, given the alleged scarcity of GB >> worshipers, the spell should be weak. With all those peaceful earth-worshipers gifting magic to her temple protectress, I'd say the amount of worship directed to Babeester equals that of Barntar or other common deities. Associates only, but still worshipers. > I'm sure you've heard the phrase: "Hell hath no fury like a woman > scorned." Well, change that last word to something more appropriate, > like "wronged" perhaps, and you have the conceptual basis for the > entire Babeester Gor cult. Half of it. "Avenging Daughter and Sacred Guardian." Noone loves an avenger or bounty huntress, but everyone acknowledges a guardian. > I don't care how high some furious woman can pump up her attack. I > like the idea of an Avenger cleaving dozens of guys before she herself > is killed. (BTW, I can't say I agree on the Babeester Gor=Defender, > Gorgorma=Avenger thing. I can't quote sources right now, but this > doesn't feel right). There is one very important reason: Babeester Gor is an Earth deity of the Theyalan pantheon, Gorgorma is a women's, but not an Earth goddess, and belongs to the Pent, Dara Happan and Praxian pantheons (Prosopaedia names Eastern and Yelm pantheons). The Praxian and Lunar connection was revealed in the recent Yara Aranis discussion. These Goddesses are Avengers, but for different wrongs. Babeester avenges crimes against earth and fertility, Gorgorma crimes against the helpless. The victims may coincide where Yelmic and Theyalan cultures overlap, elsewhere people know either Babeester or Gorgorma. Sorry, no rules or playtest, but a point I find important to make. BTW: No Monday's daily? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08387; Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:35:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22080; Mon, 14 Feb 94 17:35:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 17:35:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 17:34:44 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Plural of Shamans; Axe Trance Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:34:37 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3002E2C5EF6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Bryan Maloney said: >As for citing Frazier--I turn a jaundiced eye to anything to be found in >Frazier But Frazer (in a thread devoted to spelling, I have to point out you got his name wrong), at least in the index, which is the only place I could quickly find the index, correctly says "shamans." Ray Turney said >To assume that a cult with one of the best combat spells in the world >would remain obscure, with only one temple at Wintertop, defies logic. Cults are more than a collection of rune spells. Given that Babeester Gor is probably a cult that cuts you off from normal stuff like raising a family and possibly even sex, by its place in the culture, it's not surprising there's a compensation. >How many Orlanthi >are going to exploit their cult's association with Babeestor Gor {which is, >after all, where Orlanth gets Great Parry}? They're not literally associated cults, however. >In principle, Juliette could join Babeestor Gor as an >initiate, {after learning axe to 50%}, put all 59 of her stored MP into >backing this one point axe trance spell, and come out about 640% to hit with >an axe. Anyone with 59 stored MP is no feeble character in any campaign I've been in. However, note that Dispel Magic 2 will get rid of that 59 point spell -- Axe Trance is only a 1-point rune spell for purposes of dispelling. Someone earlier claimed that Babeester Gor was not the Avenging Daughter. Whoever claimed that needs to look at Gods of Glorantha again, where she's given the title Holy Avenger. Not Defender, but Avenger.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17025; Mon, 14 Feb 94 17:49:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26799; Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:49:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:49:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:48:55 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Recent comments Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 18:47:40 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3016ABF69D3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To address recent comments (and again, I'd like to thanks everyone for their feedback): First of all, we are looki  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17147; Mon, 14 Feb 94 17:52:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27029; Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:51:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:52:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 18:51:45 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Recent comments Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 18:50:27 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30176CA770F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To address recent comments (and again, I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback): First of all, we are looking at everyone's feedback, and will continue to do so until the last possible moment. Please do not think that it is too late to comment. We set aside all of February for gathering and sifting through comments, and will continue to do so past that point as well. Obviously, we don't want to make changes willy-nilly at this point, but one of the reasons we went to the time, effort and expense of getting this playtest draft out was to see where and what kind of changes need to be made. We're particularly interested in getting feedback from people actually running the rules, but theoretical comments or opinions are very helpful as well (particularly when accompanied by a well reasoned explanation, as most have been so far). The comments on spirit combat have been quite helpful - that section will change to address some of the issues brought up. As for fatigue, we will probably send out a survey of some sort to get a better idea as to people's feelings on the current fatigue rules. To address a few of the comments that came up on fatigue - our main goal here was to come up with a simple and playable set of rules. We want to be able to quickly explain it to a new player, and make them easy to use. We also want them to function at any skill level, (or at least with skills ranging from 30% to 200%), since we feel that the mechanics shouldn't function at only a very narrow range of skills. The problem with the subtraction systems (ie -10%, 0-20%, etc.) is that they have far too marked an effect on those with lesser skills, and far too little effect on those with high skills. A warrior with 120% skill can basically ignore subtraction penalties (-20%) that reduce a 40% warrior to half their skill level, which we feel is unrealistic. The add to the die roll affects those with both high and low skills, which in our experience with martial arts (aikido, karate, kendo, fencing and SCA) and speaking to even more skilled practitioners (3rd dan and up, for what its worth) is fairly accurate. Skilled sparrers or martial artists are very careful to not let themselves get run down, fighting defensively or cautiously when they feel they need to regain their wind. Again, in our experience, the effect of decreased criticals and specials, and increased fumbles is very much the feeling you get when sparring exhausted (or driving without sleep, for that matter). The multiplication system (x.75, x.5, x.25) has two flaws from our point of view. The first is that it only slightly increases the odds of fumbling when very fatigued, which, based on our experience, should be more affected. The second is that it is not simple. I can tell a new player (who I have already told - OK, when rolling percentile dice, you want to roll low, the lower the better) running a character with Broadsword Attack 62% - OK, you're now tired. Add 3 to all your percentile rolls. You rolled a 61? That becomes a 64 - a miss. On the other hand, telling him (or her) to multiply their skills by .75 now that they are tired, refiguring specials and criticals accordingly, is not simple, nor is it something most players will be able to figure out quickly without a calculator, something we'd much prefer to avoid. This is a similar problem with subtraction systems, which also require refiguring specials and criticals, despite the apparantly simple mechanic. In any case, whatever system we end up using needs to strike a good balance between realism and playability, and we'd like to keep it on the simple side if at all possible, as we really don't think fatigue is worth that much detail. As I said, we'll probably send out an email survey, and keep an eye out on feedback, both positive and negative, not to mention keep an eye out for other suggestions - maybe there's a better approach lurking out there somewhere. With regards to the plural of shaman - the final draft will end up using the correct plural, which (at least based on the feedback ) appears to be shamans. We will instead use duck as the plural of duck . Also, thanks for the comments on organization, etc. - those of you that have a copy of the draft should feel free to show it to friends that play other games and get their impressions - we would very much like to end up with a product that will attract new players and gamemasters, as well as satisfy current ones, as we think that's by far the best way to make RuneQuest and Glorantha grow and prosper. Thanks again, Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26405; Mon, 14 Feb 94 20:25:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB05336; Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:24:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:25:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:24:44 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Babeestor Gor Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:19:25 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30403A23CC1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mr. Newton states that Babeester Gor was intended to be powerful. I agree. However, this doesn't justify the existance of a one-point divine spell that could easily add 2000% to someone's attack percentage. It is a poorly defined spell. Now, if Axe Trance were defined as a stackable spell that adds 20% per point, then it would be in line with other divine magic, and Babeester Gor would *still* have the best selection of divine magic for combat of *any* cult, Humakt included (Axe Trance, Slash, Shield, Great Parry, Heal Wound, Heal Body, Invigorate, Berserk... need I go on?). As to those who feel that Babeester Gor is Avenging Goddess of the Earth...what role does that leave Gorgorma? If there is a goddess who pro- vides a divine spell that allows a rape victim to *automatically* become an intiate of that goddess, gain the spell, and cast it depriving her aggressor of his manly member, well, then only that goddess is deserving of the title Avenging Goddess of the Earth. Babeester Gor still has the Chthon rune (a much better name than "Malign Earth," in my mind), and is a nasty cult, but vengeance is not her primary mission, and she is not the primary vengeance goddess of the earth pantheon. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16751; Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:57:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10082; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:57:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:57:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:56:55 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The Plural of Duck Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:56:47 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3058D006E37@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Grrrrrr.. Everybody knows that the proper plural of "duck" is "pantheon".  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17007; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:02:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10244; Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:02:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:02:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:02:32 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Babeester Going to the daily Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:01:47 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <305A4FD2E98@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Dawson (not Kirsten Niemann) here. My goodness, I really didn't expect this to be wo heavily commented on. The spell is open to abuse, if the ref thinks of his cults as nothing more than a collection of rune spells, as well put by another contributor. I think most people think very hard before they even talk to a BG. They are scarier than Humakti, even if you don't know what their rune magic does. I believe that David Dunham said: Given that Babeester Gor is probably a cult that cuts you off from normal stuff like raising a family and possibly even sex, The first part of this is true--BG initiation does set you apart from normal society. Those ritual scars and male genetalia on your belt make you less than popular at Gimpy's. BUT, I recall (don't recall the source, but it is a published one) that BG "had many lovers, becasue her acts were to terrible to do alone." Just this past week in my game, I explained to the player of a BG that it is a "cult secret" that there are men who LIKE their women with ritual scarification and tattoos of skulls on their stomach.... As pointed out by the fellow who noticed that 2 points of Dispel Magic knocks down your MP investment in Axe Trance, there are better things, and more pressing things, to do with all the temple's stored MP than raise one warrior's Slash and Crit chances beyond the point of diminishing returns. This debate has moved well beyond matters of balance into a discussion of the nature and interpretation of Glorantha. I think it belongs on the Daily Digest, not the RAG digest. Mike Dawson -------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com to find out about my magazine "Codex" "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" . --------------------------------------------------- /_\  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18743; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:41:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11882; Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:41:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:41:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:41:40 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Thief cults and sneaking around, or Truth Uber Alles Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:41:31 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3064BF96BE7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Does anyone share my belief that the RQ II rules were heavily weighted in favor of truth? Consider the poor Krarsht initiate {who most GM's have more sympathy for than the average player}. He can be hauled before a Humakthi or Yanafali Rune Lord of even hero, and asked a simple question: Are you now or have you ever been an initiate of Krarsht? A yes answer is a death sentence, even in the Lunar Empire. A no answer is also a death sentence, even in the Empire, once it is revealed as a lie. The Krarshti position is hardly improved by arming Danfive Xaron and the Imperial Political Police with this spell. I suggest two specific responses. One, the creation of a spell, presumably brought into the world by the Trickster, and now known to most thief cults, Krarsht, etc by association or theft: Hide Cult Affiliation 1pt, Instant, Nonstackable, NonReusable This spell conceals initiation and status in a cult by allowing the recipient to like about his status, and blocking spells such as Soul Sight which might reveal it. Thus, a Trickster or Krarshti could hide his affiliation with these persecuted cults. Note that it also hides this affiliation from your friends ... you cannot use truth magic for confirmation purposes, either. Note that this can be cast on others: A Storm Bull wishing to infiltrate the Empire could have this spell cast upon him by a Trickster friend. Of course, proving you were in Storm Bull when encountering strange Storm Bulls could be a little difficult. I would say that Humakht, Yanafal, Irripi On-Tor, Lankhor Mhy, Elmal, Yelmalio and Yelm specifically prohibit their initiates and higher from having this spell cast upon them. The other is either the creation of a skill of Self Delusion, that allows the successful roller to persuade himself that the lie he is uttering is really the truth, for the moment; and thus to deceive questioners. This skill might be labeled Resist Interrogation instead. As an alternative, create an invisible to Magesight 1-5 spell: Block Truth ranged, temporal, nonstackable, reusable This one point spell is a specific counter to Detect Truth, intended to be cast while under interrogation. It blocks Detect Truth allowing one to lie freely. It has no other effect. Hide Cult Affiliation could do much to spice up scenarios, since it could do much to allow enemies of the Empire to sneak in; Lunar spies, saboteurs, etc, to sneak out. It also makes the existence of say, a arge Krarsht temple in Bikhy much more plausible. Finally it would create a little paranoia among players, who could no longer rely on their character's Detect Truth to work. The same applies, though less strongly to Self Delusion and Block Truth.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20043; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:57:40 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12560; Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:57:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:57:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:57:15 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: BB, Axe Trance, plus a Random Thought Date: 14 Feb 94 23:53:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3068E79040A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dennis Hoover 1) ON BABEESTER GOR & AXE TRANCE I'd like to add my 2 cents to the "Axe Trance is too powerful" camp. I [used to] play in a party that had a BB priestess, and our most effective battle formation was a wedge behind the priestess. My Wood Lord's best use was to stand ready to cast Heal Body. This campaign had gone on for a while, progressing nicesy, until the BB made priestess. Now it has been retired. After this, the players (mostly the same people) in the campaign I run all wanted to play a Babeester Gor. As a GM, I have always seen this behavior on the part of the players as a red flag that something was wrong. I understand the impulse to put the integrity of Glorantha ahead of game balance, but RQ is a game and must be playable to be successful. I also think BB would be VERY rude, even with a toned down Axe Trance. I see a couple of ways to deal with the problem. The GM could forbid PCs to play BBs or make it such a pain that no one would want to play one, or the spell could be changed. I prefer the latter. I think there are few enough playable cults as it is (at least in a campaign with a lot of combat) without removing an interesting cult. I would go for either making the spell stackable or making it one use, with a preference for stackable. As for Babeester Gor vs Gorgorma (sounds like a Japanese horror flic) as the true avenger cult, I find BB in three pantheons (Elf, Storm, and Pamalt) and Gorgorma in one (Solar). Who is the true earth mother, Ernalda or Dendara? Who is the true trickster, Bolongo or Eurmal? 2) ANOTHER RULE IDEA I dont propose this seriously as a change to RQ:AiG, or maybe in the appendix at best, but I have a long ride home from work and it sets me to thinking... What if a giant, strengh bonus 20, hits me over the head with a rotten tree branch with 4 AP that does damage of, say, 1d3? According to the rules I would take 21-23 pts plus knockback. In reality, I dont think I would be hurt that much. I figure Id take about 8 pts of damage, and the rest would go towards damaging the stick, which would snap like, well, a rotten tree branch. What I am thinking is that when crushing weapons (maybe slashing weapon, as well) do damage in excess of double their armor pts, the excess damage should be applied to the weapon. Metal weapons should probably take triple AP. Any specials and all natural weapons would be exempt. This is why really big creatures dont use flimsy little weapons. They kick or stamp or bite. Does anybody see anything wrong with this, other than the obvious problem of added complexity that could slow combat? Dennis.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21004; Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:24:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13819; Tue, 15 Feb 94 00:24:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 0:24:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 0:24:19 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Babeester Going to the daily Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 21:24:06 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3070214478A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> One Parthian shot at Axe Trance Juliette {who has 59 stored MP personally, not as the temple's stockpile} knows a female Issaries priest. We talk to the head of the Ernalda temple associated with the Babeestor Gor temple, and offer them two points of Sunripen if they will give Juliette a shot of Axe Trance and 3 shots of Slash for a projected attack on the Lunar policitcal prison camp at X. {Why Juliette wants to attack a lunar political prison camp is a long stroy, too long to get into here}. After acceptance, Juliette Mind Links to the Issaries, and she casts spell Trading so we can swap {fear not, Juliette can afford to hire the Issaries. Thus Juliette ends up 1 point of Axe Trance, and three points of Slash, to put on a poleaxe, which admittedly she has never swung before. But 30 MP into Axe Trance; followed by a pile of shield and Countermagic to protect the Axe can solve this problem. Oops, she cannot parry. Slight change of plan. We go to the Orlanthi for Great Parry, use Juliette's existing shield, and buy a battleaxe {slightly less damage, but all that Slash and some Bladesharp will make up for it}. In short, Juliette is now 300% with a weapon she has never picked up before. It does pretty decent damage, especially you add all that Slash and Bladesharp 8. They're not going to knock it down cheaply, not with a pile of Shield {love that spell trading, and we can get a lot of help freeing prisoners} and Countermagic on the Axe. I haven't asked a male character to trust a Babeestor Gor, joined the cult itself, or even put much real effort into skill with the axe. I am better with the Axe than our Humakhti hero, Rolf, is with his greatsword. Why is this culturally inappropriate? The Ernaldans could as hell use the Sunripen, and they are the ones asking the Babeestor Gor for her cooperation. We've got a Babeestor Gor doing a favor for her Ernaldan friends and helping to fight the Lunars; Ernaldans getting two points of Sunripen for helping to free members of their husband-protector cults among others, an Issaries making a nice profit; and a very experienced rune lady-minor hero figuring out a better way to fight? Rest assured that while Juliette is considered gross; her stock of stored MP is not the reason. She ranks about 5th in stored MP in our crowd, having a little less than the normal for her rank, which is about eighty to a hundred. Rolf has two hundred and fifty. Fifty nine stored MP is hardly unusual in a campaign that has been running for 4 years. Go to +20% for Axe Trance. It's safer. Point made?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29305; Tue, 15 Feb 94 01:39:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23807; Tue, 15 Feb 94 02:39:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 2:39:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 2:39:21 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Reorganizing/Promoting RQ:AiG Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:39:38 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <309423663E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy writes about sections of the draft.. >CULTS and PANTHEON DESCRIPTIONS. > >The descriptions on Cults and pantheons might be better gathered >with the cultural information included for character generation. > >you really have to make choices at the point of character >genateration which cult you wish your character to join. I just picked up a copy of RQ3 GoG and was _very_ disappointed at the lack of character and detail included for each Cult in this Supplement. It's spare listing of power and restrictions reminded me of nothing more than D&D character classes. It was totally lacking in the rich mythic background which this revision is attempting to promote. Avalon Hill had better make plans to publish "meaty" cult descriptions _quickly_ if this product is expected to live up to expectations. Perhaps a quick series of Pantheon Suppements to match the format of Troll Gods would do the trick, although Troll Gods could even have used some more mythic background. Perhaps Chaosium has plans to fill this gap with more fiction? If so, plans should be made now to coordinate release dates. Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02830; Tue, 15 Feb 94 03:01:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26620; Tue, 15 Feb 94 04:01:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 4:01:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 4:01:36 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Reorganizing/Promoting RQ:AiG Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 01:00:55 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30AA13165CE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson replting to John DeGon: >I just picked up a copy of RQ3 GoG and was _very_ disappointed at the lack >of character and detail included for each Cult in this Supplement. It's >spare listing of power and restrictions reminded me of nothing more than >D&D character classes. It was totally lacking in the rich mythic >background which this revision is attempting to promote. Avalon Hill had >better make plans to publish "meaty" cult descriptions _quickly_ if this >product is expected to live up to expectations. When I spread the word about for players one of my cronies made available to me his extensive RuneQuest library, which included GoG. The irony was that he had never played RuneQuest because he was too unconfident of his ability to run Glorantha properly. I suspose that the rules did not inspire him with enough confidence that he could write his own material. Reading GoG in some places reminded me of reading Dieties and Demi-Gods. Rather than just providing enough information to fight Gods as the AD&D Dieties and Demi-Gods provided, GoG provides just enough material for the benefits of Cult membership. The lack of meat for me was the scarcity of roleplaying information about some of the cults. RQ:AiG has an even tighter format for describing cults and you have to look at small print to find out some details, such as Babeestor Gor accept only women as cult members. This unfortunately could turn new players perceptions of cults into a list of available Battle and Divine Magic spells. >Perhaps a quick series of Pantheon Suppements to match the format of Troll >Gods would do the trick, although Troll Gods could even have used some >more mythic background. Perhaps Chaosium has plans to fill this gap with >more fiction? If so, plans should be made now to coordinate release dates. For the classic material on Trolls look for the lengendary TrollPak, it is very rare but has a phenomenal reputation. The best mythic material I have seen, so far, is Cults of Terror. I have only actually had a copy to read since Friday but it is well written. Although it would require a fair degree of work to integrate it with RQ:AiG. For example only that Severed Chaos God dude (memory failure) has an Acoltyte equivalent and this status is described as a totally unique concept. RQ:AiG itself tell a lot of background incidentally but this incidental method of supplying background is less successfull than RQ3 because no opportunity develops to explain guilds and non-magic aspects of the four supported cultures. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05074; Tue, 15 Feb 94 04:18:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27896; Tue, 15 Feb 94 05:18:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 5:18:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 5:17:55 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Divine and Spirit Magic chapters Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 02:17:18 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30BE6F03C7D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson reviewing the Divine and Spirit magic chapters. Divine Magic is well written and covers the practical issus of cult membership at the various levels very well. One observation is that Power minimum requirements for Priest, Acolyte and Rune Lord are absent. I do noy know whether this in intentional. Divine Intervention looks OK considering the restrictions: Divine Magic from DI fades after problem resolved, no direct attacks on mortals. This does mean that if you corner a Rune Lord and press him or her too hard then the Rune Lord will either escape or become extremely dangerous. About the only subject not covered is how a Rune Lord only cult survives without Priests and practical details on Cults whose Priest also function as Shamans (grammar?) are a bit scant. I can see strategic implications of the recovery of Divine Magic rules as small forces may be sent to cover shrines to prevent commanders of Armies recovering critical re-usable Divine Magic. The information on cults is severely challenged and is in a pretty tight format. Although you have most common Devine Magic within this chapter you really need Gods of Glorantha for a number or reasons. A key issue is roleplaying information. Humakt is generously given half a column, but although good point are covered with this format, I imagine that a new referee would have many, many questions to resolve before the Cult could be played. Spirit Magic: The Shamantic Abilities being tied to the Power of the fetch and organised by levels is a bit of a strange mechanic for Basic Roleplaying. I appreciate the social implications of the new Shamantic rules where people have to learn Shamatic abilities while possessed by the spirit of someone/something qualified to teach. This makes Shamantic practises possible to start from no mortal source, as all you need is a spirit who can teach shamantic practicises to possess a student. The Magic and Spirit Rune Sprirt affinities are a bit unclear. One paragraph to explain a new concept, Magic Rune Spirit Affinity, and to summarise Horned Man Spirit Cults is a bit ambitious. Also a novice shaman taking a whole season to ressurrect himself is bit bizarre. After a season, unless there are intended to be implicit safeguards, the Shaman is probably going to be attempting to ressurrect himself into body best suited for Gardening compost! I suggest changing Level 1 Self Ressurrection to 1 week and shifting the whole table down by 1 one. I was stunned by the capacity for remembering Battle magic that Mind Expansion provided (INTX2 at 1st Level!). I hope to be able to playtest this to some degree. The Finding Spirits section looks pretty good and linked with the Spirit Affinity Rules, which incidentally classify Battle Magic by Runes, looks like something very workable. In the Ritual Spirit magic I do think Bless and Curse are just too vague to be spells and these should be relegated to the status of magical terms as World of Magic suggests. One thing I would like to see is information about the accesability of the newly dead for a Shaman or caster of Battle Magic. Could a Shaman kill a hated foes and capture it's spirit to keep as a slave while it lingered around the body? After all the spirit of the freshly slain provides the only source of locatable spirits for someone armed with just the Battle Magic Command spell. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23525; Tue, 15 Feb 94 10:06:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16260; Tue, 15 Feb 94 11:06:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 11:06:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 11:06:22 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 02:30:07 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <311B5983DB3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng writes: > # > # These are not valid reasons why BG has one of the most powerful combat > # spells in the rules. If anything, given the alleged scarcity of GB > # worshipers, the spell should be weak. > # > # More importantly, it provides for unlimited bonuses to attack percentage, > # given enough available MPs. I don't care how rare the cult is, or > # how "appropriate" the spell is; the spell is flawed. > > Flawed only in the sense of game balance. I have gone on record here > before in favoring flavor over game balance. > There has to be a limit to that sort of thing, however, or the whole point in the game system being coherent goes out the window. I'd say the person is right; an attack spell that effective has exceeded the acceptable level of fuzziness to be expected in a spell system with only, basically, three cases. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09139; Tue, 15 Feb 94 06:44:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03710; Tue, 15 Feb 94 07:44:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 7:44:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 7:44:18 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Reorganizing/Promoting RQ:AiG Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 12:45:32 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30E57922612@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Guy Robinson replying to John DeGon: > When I spread the word about for players one of my cronies made available > to me his extensive RuneQuest library, which included GoG. The irony was > that he had never played RuneQuest because he was too unconfident of his > ability to run Glorantha properly. I suspose that the rules did not > inspire him with enough confidence that he could write his own material. My problem with Glorantha, too, even though I know almost all game supplements published about the world. I valued the supplement because it suggested how divine magic worked. It helped me design cults for my own game world - something about half of all RuneQuest-players do, I'd guess. See the great demand for RuneQuest-Tekumel rules... > Reading GoG in some places reminded me of reading Dieties and Demi-Gods. Yes, in that it gave an overview over possible cults. Which is a very valuable thing, for those who have no prior knowledge of Glorantha, the natural state for people who came to RuneQuest after 1985. > Rather than just providing enough information to fight Gods as the > AD&D Dieties and Demi-Gods provided, GoG provides just enough material > for the benefits of Cult membership. The lack of meat for me was the > scarcity of roleplaying information about some of the cults. Right. E.g. Orlanth, a deity I still have no information about except outside of his primary influence. I do own Cults of Prax, and since I won't play in Prax except for maybe a few visits, the Cult material in there doesn't help me a lot. There is no Barntar, Ernalda, Babeester Gor, or Orlanth (sic!) for Heortlings or Sartarites. What good is presenting the major deity for half the known world, as shown in the rules (RQ2), as an outsider deity? Where are Orlanth Rex, Orlanth Thunderous, and the minor aspects? Where is information about Orlanth's relation to Barntar, and his importance in agriculture? Rather than having pork on cattle bones, give me the bones. I'll take the (excellent) Praxian background as an extra, but I don't need it. > RQ:AiG has an even tighter format for describing cults and you have to > look at small print to find out some details, such as Babeestor Gor > accept only women as cult members. This unfortunately could turn > new players perceptions of cults into a list of available Battle and > Divine Magic spells. The rules book shows the rules aspect of the cults. (GoG was a rules supplement, in that respect.) The cults and cultures need to be handled in separate supplements, and this allows for regional variance too. >>Perhaps a quick series of Pantheon Suppements to match the format of Troll >>Gods would do the trick, although Troll Gods could even have used some >>more mythic background. Perhaps Chaosium has plans to fill this gap with >>more fiction? If so, plans should be made now to coordinate release dates. > For the classic material on Trolls look for the lengendary TrollPak, it > is very rare but has a phenomenal reputation. How does this differ from RQ3 Troll Pack cum Troll Gods? But I agree, RQ3 Troll Pack's Uz Lore has the only comprehensive history and overview of Glorantha, and is invaluable for any campaign which is historically oriented. > The best mythic material I have seen, so far, is Cults of Terror. 15 pages of it, yes. And a God Learner document. An introduction. > I have only actually had a copy to read since Friday but it is well > written. Although it would require a fair degree of work to integrate > it with RQ:AiG. For example only that Severed Chaos God dude (memory > failure) has an Acoltyte equivalent and this status is described as a > totally unique concept. Just hold your breath for Cults of Dorastor, which will detail most of its content in RQ3 (RQ3.5, if we want to dub renaissance products thus). That ought to be easier to integrate. And I think that the Thanatar Cult is where the Acolyte was invented. > RQ:AiG itself tell a lot of background incidentally but this incidental > method of supplying background is less successfull than RQ3 because no > opportunity develops to explain guilds and non-magic aspects of the four > supported cultures. Guilds? what guilds? Ok, joke mode off: guilds are a very rare phenomenon, compared to the majority of the populace. They are a D&Dism from the beginning time of roleplaying and RQ, and were not again mentioned in a major way in any Glorantha supplement I know, not even the Pavis Box. Guilds fit into cities only, and large cities at that. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08814; Tue, 15 Feb 94 06:32:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03425; Tue, 15 Feb 94 07:31:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 7:31:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 7:31:35 EST From: Groove Requiem.. To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: trolls, trolls, everywhere Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:57:23 MET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30E2155237E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson says: >For the classic material on Trolls look for the lengendary TrollPak, it >is very rare but has a phenomenal reputation. You have some catching up to do I think ;-) Heres the currently **IN PRINT** troll material for RQ3. TROLLPAK - A cut down version of the RQ2 trollpak INTO THE TROLL REALMS - adventures, mainly from rq2 trollpak TROLL RUINS - adventures, expanded Sazdorf clan from RQ2 trollpack TROLL GODS - Loads of troll gods. Full writeups of all the ones in RQ2 trollpak, plus many others. Plus 'scholarly documents'. ELDER SECRETS - Has condensed info on trolls. 15 pages or so. nigel  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14203; Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:43:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09502; Tue, 15 Feb 94 09:39:00 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 9:39:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 9:38:57 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ4: Frequency of Spell Use (Optional Rule) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:37:28 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <310409E5321@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I have a problem with this optional rule as written (player can declare some number of their spirit spells as "common", getting POW*6% chance on them, provided they declare the same number as "uncommon", getting POW*4%). The problem is simply that with only one spell known (e.g. Bladesharp 2) the character is stuck with it at POW*5%; but as soon as they learn another spell that can have it at POW*6%. Why does learning another spell make you better at the one you know and love? No amount of practice or use in one's favourite spell can improve its casting chance (qua POW gain rolls). And in the more usual case (character knows several spells) the more piddling inconsequential ones he learns the better he gets at the ones he really wants! Some suggested alternatives (I assume that one is still limited to one's INT in points worth of spirit magic?): (1) spells of points up to INT/2 can be POW*6%, remaining spells are POW*4%. (2) spells of points up to INT/3 can be POW*5%, another INT/3 can be POW*4%, any more must be POW*3% [cf Nick Brooke's suggestion] (3) same as (2), but all spells when initially learnt *start* at POW*3%, and per season [High Holy Day?] one spell can be improved one "level", possibly dropping another spell back a level if necessary to stay within the INT/3 bands. (4) [this one to avoid counting spells in points] version a (like no. 1) - INT/5 spells at POW*6%, rest at POW*4% version b (like no. 2) - INT/6 spells at POW*5%, ditto at POW*4%, rest at POW*3%. Actually, if there are only going to be 2 bands then I second Nick's suggestion that the lower band be POW*3%. (5) Just make spells which are at POW*6% take up 2 points/MP of INT, and let spells at POW*3% take only 0.5 points/MP of INT. A character can alter the classification of the spell himself, taking one week to do so. Perhaps there should also be some maintenance overhead - e.g. the number of points of spell in hours each week or it decays back to POW*5%. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Summary-line: 15-Feb MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu #Combat Options, 2nd try Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03133; Tue, 15 Feb 94 10:54:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20201; Tue, 15 Feb 94 11:53:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 11:54:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 11:53:22 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Combat Options, 2nd try Date: 15 Feb 1994 11:51:48 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3127E3F2999@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren here, I tried to send this from my other account yesterday but it doesn't appear to have made it. I prefer Mike Dawson's original idea on how to deal with Special Combat Options over the current rules, which I believe are unwieldy and seem to be designed specifically so that players will not want to use them. I'd simplify things a little from Mike's proposal, though. I think that people ought to be able to choose different special results from their attacks. They would have to declare the special result before swinging, so it wouldn't make combat take any longer, and it wouldn't require any calculating either, unlike the -10%/+-1 schemes. The only problem is that these options do not address the issue of what to do to make people with 100%+ skills really awesome. First, I'm not sure that is a problem. Second, allowing them to split attacks is a pretty nice bonus already. My scheme follows... * * * OPTIONAL SPECIAL COMBAT TACTICS By default, a special success on the attack or parry will double weapon damage or parrying AP. If you want to allow additional results from combat which will make combat more interesting to play, then include special combat tactics as alternate results for special successes. To use a special combat tactic, declare that you are attempting the special tactic by name. If you get a special success (Skill/5 or less) then apply the special combat tactic you chose rather than the default special result, which is double weapon damage. Some of the special combat tactics are below. Aim (All melee and missile weapons) hit desired hit location. head hits allow for knockouts (Damage vs Head HP to KO defender) Crushing Blow (All Crushing weapons and swung impaling weapons) minimum half damage, ignores armor Disarm (All melee and missile weapons) hit desired weapon or item, ignore half item AP Entangle (All entangling weapons, including flails) hit location is immobilized, defender rolls STR vs STR to escape Find Weakness (All melee and missile weapons) halve armor and structural AP (i.e. Plate armor reduced to 3AP for this attack only) Flurry (All melee weapons except SR0 ones, plus self-bows) extra attack after attack (in case of arrows, you are holding several arrows ready in your arrow hand and may fire them more quickly than usual) Impale (All impaling weapons) double weapon damage; weapon stuck; continues doing damage until removed Knockback (All non-impaling weapons) Damage vs SIZ to knockback 1m per 10HP Damage, defender gets DEXx5 roll to stay on feet Knockdown (All swung weapons) Damage vs SIZ to knockdown Riposte (All melee weapons except SR0 ones) extra attack after parry Strong Hit (All melee and missile weapons) double weapon damage (standard result of special attack) Strong Parry (All melee weapons) double weapon AP (standard result of special parry) Trip (All hafted weapons of SR0 and SR1) hit legs, Damage vs DEX to knockdown defender Your GM may want to expand this list to cover other tactical situations. GMs, if you expand this list, make sure that the tactics you add are about as effective as those in the list above. They should not wholly replace the above tactics, but rather allow for more choice. * * * One thing I'd like to add would be some way of learning weapons mysteries from the masters, much like the Ki abilities in Land of Ninja. I don't have any idea what the mystery abilities would be, though. Perhaps blind fighting would be one of them. Anyway, they are definitely not necessary for the core rules. They could easily be added later. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09606; Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:03:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26217; Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:02:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:02:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:02:26 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:02:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <313A4F8216F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> We used : death at -HP combined with: It's harder to heal a person at death's door, thus negative HP cost double to heal, for a while. Another scheme was "Instant death at -HP, death at end of next round if just negative" On the whole I prefer the former -0 Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11049; Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:22:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27963; Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:21:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:22:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:21:25 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:21:06 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <313F5F84891@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Ray Turney to Jeorg Baumgartner >I like your proposed heroism spell substituting the ability to parry for >skill doubling as Berserker. >Could we come with another name for it I like it also. How about Hero's Stand? Basically gives you automatic success on your Heroic Effort, so the name fits in with other things in the rules. Also describes what the spell might most often be used for. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11864; Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:34:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28862; Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:33:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:34:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:33:20 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Lvl Skills & combat options Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:33:03 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31428D83DD2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here, replying to Mike Dawson. I did like the Optional Combat rules better in the previous draft (2.0), apparently this draft was closer to Mike's original intent. The current rules are a bit complex, considering that the simulation is not that fine-grained anyway. >My experience in >SCA combat is that almost every serious fighter picks up some single >technique that he becomes much better at than the rest of his >repitiore of fighting techniques. Agree (16 years fighting here.) I am very good at Flurry, and also at poking at range with a pole arm while running backwards (Evade?). I am less good at other things. >Anyway, I read someone's suggestion that skill over 100% might go >directly to raising impale & crit chances, so that a 110% weapon >skill means a 30% special, not a 22% impale. Maybe just for specials, Probably destabilizing - the 180% fighter now always specials? This is doable, we had a character get to 180% combat skills in a LONG campaign, but even a 90% Master can go to 180% attack when Berserk. The 'subtract from parry' rule is a bit off in my opinion, because it leads to short fights between very skilled opponents. (Not to mention RQ3 problems of imbalance between Attack and Parry). A 130% fighter (both attack and parry) vs. a 160% fighter should almost always lose, but often will take a while to do so - the subtraction rule from RQ2 dictates the 130% fighter's parry will drop to 70%, and thus the fight will last about three round until the first telling blow. Too short. Second, the subtraction rule lead to too much advantage for the more skilled fighter - the fight is determined by who misses a parry first, usually. Consider a 200% fighter vs a 185% fighter - fairly evenly matched. Should go the 200% fighter's way often, but not always. In the RQ2 system, the 185% fighter's parry drops to 85% - he will miss his parry three times as often as the 200%. It's ok, but feels a bit wrong, in my opinion. MOre another time, Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12409; Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:39:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29241; Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:39:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:39:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:38:58 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:38:42 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31440DB3753@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly replying to Mike Dawson: >David Cake says he thinks Babeester Gor's Axe Trance spell is too >overpowered. (Mike disagrees) Have to agree with Dave Cake here. If the BG priestess has a fair amount of available MP's and can dump them into the spell, she could easily get to 500% or more with Axe skill, still be able to parry, etc. I do like Mike's example of the woman wronged, though. Have had a scenario much like it in our campaign. One of our solutions was to say that the skill was coming from a portion of the spirit of Babeester Gor. If you did too big an Axe Trance (e.g., bigger than your own MPs) you'd be possessed by the spirit of Babeester and no longer in control of your actions, which could lead to a pile of slaughtered enemies, friends, and probably character death. Remember the story of Happy Valley (or Healing Valley?) where BG slaughtered all the peaceful inhabitants until the blood was up to her breasts. (Eurmal turned the blood to beer, which made her drunk and sleepy and saved the day.) - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12671; Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:42:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29409; Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:41:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:41:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:40:59 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:40:52 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31449664134@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here, more on Axe Trance Another solution we tried was restricting it to the Chief Defenders of Earth Temples, and then only in defense of the Temple. This can be combined with my previous suggested approach - it's unsafe to use Axe Trance except for things that Babeester herself would want to do, like defending her mother's temple.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13368; Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:48:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29942; Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:48:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:48:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:48:04 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: High Level Playing Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:48:02 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31467B85BC1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Also, to Joerg, the term for rapid cooling is "dousing" I believe. Quenching, I believe.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14015; Tue, 15 Feb 94 12:51:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00338; Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:51:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:51:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:50:54 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: magic Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 10:50:43 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31473C1123D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Guy Robinson reviewed magic: >One observation is >that Power minimum requirements for Priest, Acolyte and Rune Lord >are absent. I do noy know whether this in intentional. There are no such minimums in RQ3. >About the only subject not covered is how a Rune Lord only cult >survives without Priests Said Rune Lords have reusable rune magic and thus function as priests. Gods of Glorantha has (a little) more detail. (One thing from RQ3 that did appear left out was DEX-based skill limits... Given that these _are_ mentioned in GoG, their lack should be explicitly mentioned in RQ:AiG, if that's what's intended.) >I was stunned by the capacity for remembering Battle magic >that Mind Expansion provided (INTX2 at 1st Level!). I >hope to be able to playtest this to some degree. My shaman player took this one. Of course, fetches have always given extra memorization. Malcolm Cohen complained about the favorite spell rules: >The problem is simply that with only one spell known (e.g. Bladesharp 2) the >character is stuck with it at POW*5%; but as soon as they learn another spell >that can have it at POW*6%. Why does learning another spell make you better at >the one you know and love? No amount of practice or use in one's favourite >spell can improve its casting chance (qua POW gain rolls). This is an abstraction, and is a darned sight better than having new rules for tracking spell practice. In any case, while it's certainly conceivable that someone has only one spell, it's not possible with a character created with RQ:AiG.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05327; Mon, 14 Feb 94 21:15:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08180; Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:14:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:14:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 14 Feb 94 22:14:41 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Babeestor Gor Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 14:10:06 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <304D8D35C65@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme here replying to George Harris > Mr. Newton states that Babeester Gor was intended to be powerful. > I agree. However, this doesn't justify the existance of a one-point divine > spell that could easily add 2000% to someone's attack percentage. It is a Add Great Parry and Counterchaos and say good riddance to the Crimson Bat. I'm sure even a small cult like BG could muster 200 points of stored MP for important tasks. Counterxhaos is harder, but I think the occansional Issaries could have traded for one casting, and that's all you need. > poorly defined spell. Now, if Axe Trance were defined as a stackable spell > that adds 20% per point, then it would be in line with other divine magic, > and Babeester Gor would *still* have the best selection of divine magic for > combat of *any* cult, Humakt included (Axe Trance, Slash, Shield, Great > Parry, Heal Wound, Heal Body, Invigorate, Berserk... need I go on?). Just want to put in my vote of support for George here; even without Axe Trance of any sort, that spell list is unequalled. While the idea of a ferocious female combat cult is a good one, there is no reason to break the game to provide it with good spells. The +20%/point rune spell would still be better than most other other rune enhancing spells, though I'd tend to go for a spell more like ZZ's Crush: +10%, +1d4/point. The general rule seems to be 1 point of rune magic can provide the equivalent of 2-4 points of spirit magic (Shield is the best example). > -- > George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00757; Tue, 15 Feb 94 15:41:42 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13872; Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:41:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:41:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:41:08 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Ease of Spells Date: 15 Feb 94 16:31:25 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3174A3C05C6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke here, Brad. Malcom Cohen sensibly suggested: > Just make spells which are at POW*6% take up 2 points/MP of INT, and let > spells at POW*3% take only 0.5 points/MP of INT. A character can alter > the classification of the spell himself, taking one week to do so. I enjoyed this. A self-regulating mechanism. The spells you cast most easily are those you think about most often. Nice one, Malcolm! The additional complication of "devoting hours to thinking about spells" is unnecessary and unattractive. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21661; Mon, 14 Feb 94 23:43:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14670; Tue, 15 Feb 94 00:43:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 0:43:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 0:43:28 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: BB, Axe Trance, plus a Random Thought Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:43:19 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <30753C44DB5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here with my $0.02 Dennis Hoover writes: > > Dennis Hoover > > 1) ON BABEESTER GOR & AXE TRANCE > > I'd like to add my 2 cents to the "Axe Trance is too powerful" > camp. I [used to] play in a party that had a BB priestess, and our > most effective battle formation was a wedge behind the priestess. > My Wood Lord's best use was to stand ready to cast Heal Body. > This campaign had gone on for a while, progressing nicesy, until > the BB made priestess. Now it has been retired. After this, the > players (mostly the same people) in the campaign I run all wanted > to play a Babeester Gor. As a GM, I have always seen this behavior > on the part of the players as a red flag that something was wrong. > > I understand the impulse to put the integrity of Glorantha ahead of > game balance, but RQ is a game and must be playable to be > successful. I also think BB would be VERY rude, even with a toned > down Axe Trance. I see a couple of ways to deal with the problem. The GM > could forbid PCs to play BBs or make it such a pain that no one would > want to play one, or the spell could be changed. I prefer the latter. I > think there are few enough playable cults as it is (at least in a campaign with > a lot of combat) without removing an interesting cult. I would go for either > making the spell stackable or making it one use, with a preference for > stackable. I agree with Dennis - but would "fix" the spell by just placing a limit on how much a skill can be raised. I would suggest that Axe Trance should only be allowed to raise a skill to at most double its original level. It's still better than berserk because you can still parry. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13020; Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:53:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21426; Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:53:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:53:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:53:10 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:52:13 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3197DAD7146@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg's post is an excellent discussion. I'm now convinced that both goddesses deserve potent vengeance magic. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17347; Tue, 15 Feb 94 19:11:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24230; Tue, 15 Feb 94 20:11:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 20:11:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 20:11:28 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character Sheet Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 17:11:18 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31ACBCF7AD7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Joerg had some feedback on my RQ:AiG character sheet. I don't completely agree with it, so I'd like some feedback. Currently, I list all skills alphabetically (with the exception of splitting Combat skills into their own group, so you don't have to go hunting Dodge, and Magic skills in their own group). Bonuses are listed at the top, then a skill such as Act (05 C) M _____ [] This indicates it's a Communications skill with a base chance of 5%, and it's of Medium difficulty. (Not shown is the fact that the character sheet uses the superscript S to indicate the possibility of subskills; I don't leave space for them since they're optional and it makes the sheet look weird.) Joerg suggested C Act (05) ______ [] M which I don't like because it's got letters in front which will make it harder to use the alphabetic listing. Also, the fact that it's Medium difficulty applies to the skill itself, not just the check box. But there are other ways to present things. Perhaps Act (05+C) M _____ [] Act (C 05) M _____ [] Act (5%+C) M _____ []  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21407; Tue, 15 Feb 94 20:19:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26220; Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:19:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:19:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:19:24 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Character Sheet Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:14:00 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31BEDAA2F43@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hmmm. Well, I'd have to say that I'm against the idea of arranging the skills alphabeticly in the first place. If you group the skills under their category title & modifier, you no longer have to have the letters marking what categories the skills belong to, and it makes it easier to apply the modifier when you have to (whenever using the skill if you don't add the modifier to the skill, whever making a skill roll if you do; also changing all the skills in a category when a stat changes, which isn't *that* infrequent). That way, the skill line can look like this: Skill (BBd) ____[] where BB is the base skill level and d is its difficulty (eg Climb (30e) _47_ [] All the information is right where you need it, since the skill is in a defined box with AGILITY (+7) or whatever at the top. Oh, also, you've got the formula for MV (SIZ+DEX)/5 in the slot for HPs.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14035; Tue, 15 Feb 94 22:23:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00160; Tue, 15 Feb 94 23:22:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 15 Feb 94 23:23:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 15 Feb 94 23:22:44 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Character Sheet Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:22:36 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <31DFBF057A1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David responding to George: >Well, I'd have to say that I'm against the idea of arranging >the skills alphabeticly in the first place. My character sheets are alphabetic because there are a lot of skills, and it's far from obvious where to look when the GM says, "Roll your First Aid." Quick, is that Knowledge, Reasoning, Manipulation? This is especially important for new players. Yes, it slows down applying a changed bonus, but that tends to be infrequent (I don't think it matters one way or the other if you cast Coordination, you'll note it either way). I don't know if this organization will be adopted. I know there are games like Star Wars that have grouped skills (e.g. DEX skills), but I don't see base chance modifiers as a compelling organization. >Climb (30e) _47_ [] I've thought about putting the difficulty in lower case, must to distinguish Medium from Manipulation. > Oh, also, you've got the formula for MV (SIZ+DEX)/5 in the slot for >HPs. You have an old draft of my character sheet; I've corrected the hit point formula. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28455; Wed, 16 Feb 94 03:15:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04765; Wed, 16 Feb 94 01:30:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 1:32:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 1:30:18 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Splitting Attacks Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 22:30:09 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3201C627AED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren wrote >The only problem is that these options do not address the issue of >what to do to make people with 100%+ skills really awesome. First, I'm >not sure that is a problem. Second, allowing them to split attacks is >a pretty nice bonus already. Is attack splitting in RQ:AiG? What page is that rule on -- I missed it.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27226; Wed, 16 Feb 94 02:46:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13455; Wed, 16 Feb 94 03:46:00 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 3:46:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 3:45:58 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 09:45:56 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3225F3E372E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner): >> I don't care how high some furious woman can pump up her attack. I >> like the idea of an Avenger cleaving dozens of guys before she herself >> is killed. (BTW, I can't say I agree on the Babeester Gor=Defender, >> Gorgorma=Avenger thing. I can't quote sources right now, but this >> doesn't feel right). >There is one very important reason: Babeester Gor is an Earth deity of >the Theyalan pantheon, Gorgorma is a women's, but not an Earth goddess, >and belongs to the Pent, Dara Happan and Praxian pantheons (Prosopaedia >names Eastern and Yelm pantheons). The Praxian and Lunar connection was >revealed in the recent Yara Aranis discussion. >These Goddesses are Avengers, but for different wrongs. Babeester avenges >crimes against earth and fertility, Gorgorma crimes against the helpless. >The victims may coincide where Yelmic and Theyalan cultures overlap, >elsewhere people know either Babeester or Gorgorma. >Sorry, no rules or playtest, but a point I find important to make. >BTW: No Monday's daily? It ended up as one of tuesday's 'Part One's. >-- >Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28550; Wed, 16 Feb 94 03:19:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14036; Wed, 16 Feb 94 04:19:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 4:19:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 4:19:06 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RQ:AIG for Generating Sorcereous Characters Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 01:18:24 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <322ECAC698B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Yesterday I attempted to generate 2 Expert Sorcerer characters from RQ:AiG alone, although I had Gods of Glorantha and Elder Secrets to hand if we had to look outside the RQ:AiG rules. Of my two players one had been exposed to both RQ2 and RQ3 and the other had heard of RuneQuest only by reputation. We had not a single dice between us. The them for the character generation was Sorcerers from Arkati, which we pronouced Ahh-Cart-ee, connected with a trade caravan which was venturing into Prax. We used the generic sorcerer proffession and agreed on the use of the Lunar culture for all other matters of character culture. The plan was to use the Deliberate method of Character Generation at which point I grew glad that there were boundaries to which an attribute could be bought in print. One of the players was keen to optimise his character totaly away from combat. The character familiar with RQ set about coming up with a set of figures while the other looked bemused, uncertain as how to split his points. I refered to a description of an Characteristic but was stopped in my flow by it's Thesaurus like introduction. We moved on to discussing Expert level and then the pages really started to fly. We settled on the proffesions, using the Lunar culture and started to write down the basic skills of the Generic Sorcerer and noted the levels of Wealth, Magic and Renown. Note: Before we started character generation I was sure that the character generation's sorcery table was flawed, as it suggested ony two low magic spells or one high magic spell. Fortunately the Sorcerer profession contained both high and low magic spells as skills which could be bought with background points. It might be wise to mention this by the Sorcery table. The I discussed the way in which you can spend Wealth points and the whole range of variations just exploded. Then I introduced the players to Wealth, Magic and Renown. Refering to Income Wealth and Social Class, which I refered players to one of players declared he would buy Wealth down to 0 for 3 extra background points. Shock of the evening. He explained that he would use the point + 1 extra background choice to buy himself up to High Magus. A roleplaying explanation was presented but I still shuddered. Note: High Magus has a spell skill of 110% but I can not find any reason or explaination why a High Magus can raise his skills over 100%. Lets face it that this player will probably buy down Renown as well yielding 3 more background points. Note: When the RQ-familar player saw Renown he commented that he felt that White Wolf might sue as he felt it was a very similiar mechanic. When then got into Sorcery itself. Explaining Intensity, Duration and Range was quite a task as I had to look for Ceremony Table: I tried World of Magic before I tracked in down in Skills. I read the table, explained the how it related to Spell Skills and Intensity and then explained how Duration and Range could be included into the picture. I avoided further complication by not mentioning Summon/Sorcery. I explained the task of picking an Arkati school of Sorcery and discussed the restrictions they imposed. The two schools appeared to suit each players character conceptions. Note: The extensive use of POW was observed by the players which beeged the question what happens when some casts all his POW. I suggested that expendature of POW to low levels was unadvisable and on casting the last point of POW a sorcerer had consumed his very being in the persuit of magic. I was not refering to RQ:AiG to make this judgement. Note: We discovered the Low Magic Ritual Spell Solace, which appears to be the sole method of reaching Solace, was not refered to in Death and the Paths of the Dead as I feel it should have been. Although I was able to point out the basics there was no way we could have generated characters with the two hour window we sought to use. I was however able to point out the basics and I am confident that these players can now finish the generation themselves with some time alone with the draft. Enchantment POW for Sorcerers was not easy to explain and I am rather concerned that my Wealth 0 Sorcerer will seek to enchant items that he could not afford to start out with at his chosen Wealth level. Alternatively there could be an attempt to have have long duration spells cast which start from day 1 of the campaign. The third possibility is that spending 5, let alone 15, points of Enchantment POW could be a little difficult but I will see what the players come up with. Note: Tap rang warning bells when I read it. This spells could be used as death spell by an attempt to reduce either STR or CON to 0. To speed the next group up I will use Skilled characters with the Combined method for creating Attributes, forbiding Sorcerers and reading up thoroughly on the RQ:AiG material before I start. This was not possible with the Sorcerous characters as I was not able to fully think through the implications of the Sorcery rules. Besides I am used to the player of the Wealth 0 Sorcerer constantly suprising me. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01250; Wed, 16 Feb 94 04:35:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15197; Wed, 16 Feb 94 05:35:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 5:35:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 5:35:05 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic and Trolls Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 02:34:22 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32430F575A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson responding to David Dunham and Nigel David Dunham writes in response to my observation of the lack of POW requirements for Priests, Acolytes and Rune Lords: >There are no such minimums in RQ3. I feel that reintroducing these requirements could be advisable. I remember that in RQ2 Rune Lords had to maintain 15 POW and Rune Priests had to maintain 18 POW. This was because they had to be spiritualy significant to function properly in their respective Cult roles. As they more prone to sacrifice Power than other characters in RuneQuest2 I felt this encouraged sensible investment and made Divine Magic more rare and relatively potent. I will investigate GoG for how it handles Rune Lord only cults. >>I was stunned by the capacity for remembering Battle magic >>that Mind Expansion provided (INTX2 at 1st Level!). I >>hope to be able to playtest this to some degree. >My shaman player took this one. Of course, fetches have always given extra >memorization. I think this is a flaw, after all the table goes up to INT X 6! Imagine trying to fill a capacity for Battle Magic with from 60 to 116 points! I think is a little over powered ... despite the time it would take to track down all those Spell spirits. Nigel writes when I recommended TrollPak, remarking on it's rarity: >You have some catching up to do I think ;-) >Heres the currently **IN PRINT** troll material for RQ3. In your book list it is interesting that TrollPak was cut down and essentially divided into smaller books. There was scant material on trolls, except for Elder Secrets, in my friend's RuneQuest collection. Please bear in mind that I have been abstaining from purchasing RuneQuest products for approx. ten years. I may get a chance to visit a UK role playing shop this Saturday to see what they are curently stocking. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12961; Wed, 16 Feb 94 09:08:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28507; Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:08:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:08:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:07:33 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Loren's Combat options Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:06:47 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <328BB7D259C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> MIke Dawson here, not Kirsten Niemann. Glad you liked my ideas on combat options. Your suggestions made all kind os sense, and even better, I could follow them all on the first read-through. This is always a good sign for a rule. I had to read over the combat option stuff in RAG about 4 times before it made sense. (Not that that is the only section with this problem.) To Those in Control of the Manuscript: PLEASE reconsider this section. I believe that the Combat Options as currently in the rules are FAR too complicated. Loren's suggestions offer what you originally said you wanted--the ability for all characters to have the chance to do any sort of speial action. If you want to make it something better for defining types of characters, you could still retain some sort of stat minimums to do something (like DEX >12 to do a Flurry, for example). You might also metion that GMs have the option of restricting certain types of special options to certain fighting schools or cultures. What does your system provide for Options that this one doesn't, aside from extra complication? Mike >|< -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information aboout Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" ----------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14712; Wed, 16 Feb 94 09:26:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29978; Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:26:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:26:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:26:33 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Magic and Trolls Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:24:13 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3290C867F39@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> # Guy Robinson responding to David Dunham and Nigel # # David Dunham writes in response to my observation of the lack of # POW requirements for Priests, Acolytes and Rune Lords: # # I feel that reintroducing these requirements could be advisable. # # I remember that in RQ2 Rune Lords had to maintain 15 POW and Rune # Priests had to maintain 18 POW. This was because they had to be # spiritualy significant to function properly in their respective # Cult roles. I am stongly opposed to reintroducing these limits. This is like equating piety to POW. I can't say I complained back with RQ2, but having seen the limits taken away with RQ3, I feel that was really the way to go. Having a low POW as a Priest is its own punishment. You are still more magically "active" than 97% of the population. You still have a responsibility to do Enchantments, and even a Summoning or two once in a while. Having a low POW will hinder your success with these efforts. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20727; Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:36:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05734; Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:35:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:36:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:35:31 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Character Sheet Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 08:11 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32A32D160F3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dave, Could you send me a copy of the Sheet? Now that I've got a copy of AiG, I'd like to take a look at it. May address is: Roderick Robertson 434 N. Abbott Ave Milpitas, Ca. 95035 Thanks, Roderick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19325; Wed, 16 Feb 94 10:20:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04386; Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:20:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:20:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:19:59 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Character Sheet Date: 16 Feb 1994 11:18:18 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <329F0910454@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren here, replying to David Dunham. I rather liked your character sheet, though the MV calc in the HP spot was kind of a surprise. Of the alternate schemes you have for skill listings, the only one that I like is this one: > Act (5%+C) M _____ [] BTW, the difficulty letter should be in some distinct font, perhaps italics. As for the rest of the sheet, the only spot where I had problems was the spell skills. I'm running in Carmania so most of the players are choosing Sorcery as their magic. (BTW, it would be nice if the rules didn't declare that "Civilized" people prefer to use "Sorcery") It's nice to have some manipulations on the sheet, but the sorceror character had a few more manipulations, including Maintain, that weren't included on the sheet. Adding them left very little space for spells. It is also confusing to mix the manipulations with the ritual-magic skills. I hate to recommend a special sheet for adept sorcerors, but I'm afraid that I have to. The sorceror's sheet should include all the manipulations, and they should be in their own spot. Those who are not adept-sorcerors don't need any of them. And finally, am I the only person who *likes* a spot for a character sketch or symbol? 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25306; Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:21:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09865; Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:21:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:21:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:20:53 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AIG for Generating Sorcereous Characters Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:20:39 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32AF4661038@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To Guy Robinson, you have a point that there ought to be limits as to how far wealth and renown can be traded off for combat power. Also, maybe the gamemastering chapter should contain a few hints on how to explain the rules. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26356; Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:29:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10474; Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:29:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:29:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:29:20 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Generating Sorcereous (sic) Characters Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:29:08 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32B18764616@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Guy Robinson supervised character creation: >Refering to Income Wealth and Social Class, which I refered players >to one of players declared he would buy Wealth down to 0 for 3 >extra background points. Shock of the evening. He explained that >he would use the point + 1 extra background choice to buy himself >up to High Magus. "A single additional background choice may be purchased by decreasing an adventurer's starting level of Wealth by one." It looks to me like you can only vary Wealth (or any of the others) by one, probably precisely to avoid such abuses. >Note: High Magus has a spell skill of 110% but I can not find any >reason or explaination why a High Magus can raise his skills >over 100%. Why not? 100% is not a magic limit as in RQ2. >Note: When the RQ-familar player saw Renown he commented that he >felt that White Wolf might sue as he felt it was a very similiar >mechanic. Then he doesn't understand American intellectual property law. >Note: The extensive use of POW was observed by the players which >beeged the question what happens when some casts all his POW. I >suggested that expendature of POW to low levels was unadvisable >and on casting the last point of POW a sorcerer had consumed his >very being in the persuit of magic. Reducing POW is self-limiting, in that it makes you vulnerable to spells. >Although I was able to point out the basics there was no way we >could have generated characters with the two hour window we >sought to use. I think you were brave to create Expert characters as your player's introduction. >Tap rang warning bells when I read it. This >spells could be used as death spell by an attempt to reduce >either STR or CON to 0. Sounds reasonable to me. You have to touch the victim, and spend 11 MP. Compare to Sever Spirit, ranged and only 3 rune points. >Imagine trying to fill a capacity for Battle Magic with from 60 >to 116 points! I think is a little over powered ... despite the >time it would take to track down all those Spell spirits. To get INT*6 you need a massive fetch. If you spent the same POW making Spirit Traps and filling them with Intellect spirits, you'd probably have just as large a spell limit. >In your book list it is interesting that TrollPak was cut down >and essentially divided into smaller books. Yeah, it was sad what happened to Trollpak.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27327; Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:34:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10777; Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:33:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:33:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:32:49 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Loren's Combat options Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:32:32 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32B27510DA9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In analyzing the RQIV AiG combat options I was struck by the fact that somewhere between 50 and 75% it might make sense to forget about going up in one's primary weapon skill and develop a special combat option instead, along with a tough spell to enable your weapon to do damage through armor. Reason: High level fights are often decided by who misses his parry first. Feint {which I much prefer to Flurry} really helps you against anyone who is 80% - 90% at parrying. Since it is easier to get from 0 to 50 than from 50 to 80, especially since for a single weapon special options are easy, if you're expecting mostly to fight people who are very good combat options are the way to go {especially if using Greatsword, 2H Axe, or Fireblade}. Or at least they look that way to me now. Otherwise, 80-90% of your hits will tink anyway. Thus one major use for special options could be as a form of torpedo, improving the chances of a weak but lucky character. Also, I'm not sure I like the possibility of people effectively substituting going up in special options for improving their basic weapon skill. {though I suppose I could make a case for it} Is this intentional?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28607; Wed, 16 Feb 94 11:45:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11762; Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:44:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:45:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:44:43 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Informal techniques for speeding up combat, for GMing chapter. Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:44:28 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32B5A094101@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Since many people complain that RQ combat takes too long, one useful thing we might do is report all of the informal conventions we use in our own campaigns to streamline combat. These could then be put in the GMing chapter, so new GM's who are not in touch with us do not have to reinvent the wheel. Locally, in Andy's and Steve's games we: a) do combat fight by fight, worrying about strike rank only when it matters. b) in massed archery against well armored PC's, roll only the first D10, and if the result is a 0 see if it is a crit. Then we only resolve crits. c) Roll dice before arguing. This avoids twenty minute arguments only to watch an 01 or 96 make the argument irrelevant. d) rarely keep track of spell duration in detail, but instead have the GM rule on how much dead time is involved between segments of a large fight.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10038; Wed, 16 Feb 94 13:46:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21725; Wed, 16 Feb 94 14:45:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 14:45:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 14:45:14 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: POW minima; combat options; speed; char sheet Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:45:03 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32D5C6C3B41@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. I agree with David Cheng; no need to reintroduce POW requirements for rune levels. Mike Dawson said >If you want to make it something better for defining types of >characters, you could still retain some sort of stat minimums to do >something (like DEX >12 to do a Flurry, for example). You might also >metion that GMs have the option of restricting certain types of >special options to certain fighting schools or cultures. Yuck to the first part. But the 2nd is excellent. The exact combat options don't matter so much, but the current means of learning them is way too messy. The simple "declare, apply if you special your roll" should be fine. Plus, it's extensible to other skills (and could probably be used for Feats, as in the new Pendragon supplement Pagan Shore). Ray Turney suggested >Since many people complain that RQ combat takes too long, one useful >thing we might do is report all of the informal conventions we use in our >own campaigns to streamline combat. Yes! I do most of what you suggest. I also try to get my players to tell me hit locations, not hit number, if they hit an NPC. Loren, commenting on my character sheet, asked >am I the only person who *likes* a spot for a character >sketch or symbol? What are you, some kind of artist? I can't draw, but thought about that, and am still pondering how to make space. And I'm surprised that sorcerers had so many spells that there wasn't space for their "manipulation" skills.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18045; Wed, 16 Feb 94 14:58:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27329; Wed, 16 Feb 94 15:57:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 15:58:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 15:57:38 EST From: bradfurst@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: ENC, Fatigue, skills>100% Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:02:28 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32E916B633C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brad Furst here. (Thank you, Nick) Does RAG offer the opportunity to employ the two actions per round as "weapon attack, then cast spell" or "cast spell, then weapon attack"? I wish to offer the alternate name "Rhinohide" for the Protection spell, in memory of SCA fighters (especially Atenveldt). Regarding the POWx6 common battle magic business: another alternate may be to require two uncommon spells designated for each common spell. I prefer that the POWx6 common battle magic business be dropped out of the book entirely (if nothing else, to save space); I expect my own campaign will not use it, and it calls into question the entire arbitrary custom of rolling dice to cast battle magic. Why choose POWx5 as default? Why not POWx7 (a lucky number)? Why not POW+INT+DEX on d100? Why not 100% as divine? Why not individualized probabilities as skills? [I just saw another post. I like the idea of the POWx6 spells as requiring 2INT each to store.] Regarding Encumberance and Fatigue: I will go on the record as appreciating the idea of adding to die rolls when fatigued; my players liked this rule immediately. More important to me however is the idea of requiring delay of Strike Ranks for characters who are Fatigued. I could accept simple subtractions from skills instead of adds to die rolls, but I would prefer fraction multipliers rather than subtractions. Isn't it true that most campaigns treat Encumbrance and Fatigue as optional parameters (either deliberately or inadvertantly)? My campaign does indeed enforce, as often as we remember, the RQ:AiG fatigue rules (and before that the RQ3 rules); the key here is that we don't always remember nor do we fret about it. The best aspect of the RAG Fatigue is freedom from RQ3 bookkeeping. Surely there remains contraversy over how to implement and impose the consequences of Fatigue. Rather than the current scaling of ENC by STR, and then dicing against CON, consider the alternative which is consistent with Basic Role Playing RQ system: let us make a Resistance Roll of the sum (of STR plus SIZ) versus ENC. Failure then imposes the Fatigue consequences. (The key here is the Resistance Roll, not which parameters to compare). What if the RAG rules presented the Fatigue consequences as a menu of options from which the referee can consistently choose?: 1. Additions to the die roll (the author may list this a Default) 2. Additions to delay the Strike Rank 3. Fractional multipliers to skills 4. arithmetic Subtractions from skills 5. loss of one of the two actions per round 6. Roll twice, accepting the poorer result The key here is the Option can customized to each referee's campaign. Regarding the combat advantages of skills greater than 100%: Our RQ3 campaign regularly use those attackers to Aim Blows, waiting until the end of the round, attacking at half normal skill with success allowing choice of hit location (usually Head). That procedure did not follow into RAG. I suggest instead that skills over 100% be resolved by the choice of multple rolls: An attacker at 115% would roll once at 100%, noting the result, and once again at 15%, noting the result; choose the favored result. (Note: power gamers can, in house rules, choose to ignore the choice and apply both results.) I understand in advance that it is annoying to roll extra. I further understand that, as mentioned by Ray Turney and me, such high level one-on-one contests should be rarely encountered without additional party members interfering/ helping; with extra bodies ("Figures") the more likely use of skills rated 100+% will be to split among multiple foes. [David: gosh, I hope RAG includes splitting -- I just assumed so. Meanwhile, I also prefer alphabetic skill list on the character sheet for the exact same reason as you state.]   0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20536; Thu, 17 Feb 94 03:06:47 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03648; Thu, 17 Feb 94 04:04:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 4:06:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 4:04:38 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW minima; combat options; speed; char sheet Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 22:29:50 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <33AAFC848E4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to David Dunham: > I agree with David Cheng; no need to reintroduce POW requirements for rune > levels. Seconded. Anyway, RQ3 knows 5 or 6 point divine spells (Waha Call Founder, Thed Rebirth of Chaos), and races with POW greater than 3d6 (for instance Wind Children) are all Rune Priests, and those with less than 3d6 can't have any. > Mike Dawson said the options one can exchange for double damage on a special: Seems rather useless to me. If I have the chance to take out an opponent with a single stroke, why on Earth/Glorantha would I attack again for single damage, or simply trip? These maneuvres don't make sense if they lessen my effectivity. Combat-oriented cults wouldn't teach these... >>If you want to make it something better for defining types of >>characters, you could still retain some sort of stat minimums to do >>something (like DEX >12 to do a Flurry, for example). You might also >>metion that GMs have the option of restricting certain types of >>special options to certain fighting schools or cultures. > Yuck to the first part. But the 2nd is excellent. The exact combat options > don't matter so much, but the current means of learning them is way too > messy. The simple "declare, apply if you special your roll" should be fine. > Plus, it's extensible to other skills (and could probably be used for > Feats, as in the new Pendragon supplement Pagan Shore). What's wrong with learning them as single skill, rolling once? RQ3 had this for Martial Arts, which worked (except being flavourless). The Ki skill mechanism of learning the skill at the cost of the mother skill (primary weapon attack in this case) seemed to work, too, and made these special maneuvres even harder to learn than labeling them Very Hard, because the chance to succeed is small, but that to increase is so as well. There ought to be some kind of threshold skill percentage, but it need not be mastery. > Loren, commenting on my character sheet, asked >>am I the only person who *likes* a spot for a character >>sketch or symbol? No, count me in. > What are you, some kind of artist? I can't draw, but thought about that, > and am still pondering how to make space. Neither can I, but I like to visualize my characters. BTW, I'd prefer another order of the Runes than alphabetical order. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23404; Wed, 16 Feb 94 15:52:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01410; Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:52:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:52:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 16:52:05 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Fatigue as resistance; char sheet Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 13:51:53 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <32F79B3543B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here (for all you AOL folks). Brad Furst suggested >Rather than the current scaling of ENC by STR, and >then dicing against CON, consider the alternative which is consistent with >Basic Role Playing RQ system: let us make a Resistance Roll of the sum (of >STR plus SIZ) versus ENC. Failure then imposes the Fatigue consequences. >(The key here is the Resistance Roll, not which parameters to compare). I like the concept (but might choose to oppose ENC against STR+CON). Might be nice to include SIZ too. Problem will be tuning this. Someone in Cuirbouilli (ENC 8) with a medium shield (ENC 4) and a sword (ENC 1.5) would be rolling against 14. With average STR+CON, there'd be only a 15% chance of getting fatigued (if you use STR+SIZ, the chance of fatigue drops to 5%). Someone in Bronze Ringmail (ENC 16) would have a 55% chance of getting fatigued (or 45% with STR+SIZ). Bronze Plate (ENC 24) bumps that chance to 95% (or 85% with STR+SIZ). So it's elegant, but I don't like the numbers. If we take excess over (STR+SIZ)/2, against CON, we'll get smaller numbers, which works better on the resistance table. Chances now are 10%, 50%, 90%, which still seems an awfully wide range. Maybe the roll should be CON against STR multiple? Cuir [ENC 14=STR*1] = 5% chance of fatigue Ring [ENC 22=STR*2] = 10% chance of fatigue (but metal armor is an extra roll) Plate [ENC 30=STR*3] = 15% chance of fatigue (but metal armor is an extra roll) >I also prefer alphabetic skill list on the character sheet for the >exact same reason as you state. It's surprising how controversial this is.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08118; Wed, 16 Feb 94 18:59:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12003; Wed, 16 Feb 94 19:56:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 19:59:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 19:56:44 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 8:55:57 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3328DA7427B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > > We used : death at -HP combined with: It's harder to heal a person at death's > door, thus negative HP cost double to heal, for a while. > I actually think that single savage wounds whould be no to hard to heal, even if they drive you close to death, if got to promptly - partly because it seems consistent with magic that can reattach limbs without too much trouble, and partly because I prefer to give my players a chance at healing in situations where they were taken out by a single lucky shot. I do, however, find that when people are seriously injured, they have frequently lain around bleeding for a round or two, which gives them some general Hit point loss. In fact, I like the current system because it is the opposite to what Paul suggests - it is easy to heal a person away from death, but difficult to heal them back to full health, except from minor wounds. I don not really like that much player attrition. > > -0 Paul Reilly > Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09743; Wed, 16 Feb 94 19:31:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13390; Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:26:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:30:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:26:14 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Combat Options, 2nd try Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:31:08 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3330B9865A3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here. Loren writes: ) Second, allowing them to split attacks is a pretty nice bonus ) already. Only if you are fighting multiple opponents without shimmer spells or large dodge skills. Also, I agree with Ray Turney, in RQ3 at least, it is not unheard of for an initiate to have between 50-100 stored MP after a long campaign. Therefore, MP dependent Divine Magic needs to be considered closely for play balance (this is, after all, a game). devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10126; Wed, 16 Feb 94 19:39:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13838; Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:37:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:39:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:37:29 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Detect Enemy, Detect Truth, MindRead and TruthSpeak Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:37:15 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3333B8737E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Collectively these spells give an awesome advantage to the authorities. As it stands, a poor Krarsht initiate for example can be hailed before the authorities and asked "Are you now or have you been an initiate of Krarsht?" and or "How, if at all, were you involved in the assasination of X?". This is real awkward when compelled to speak the truth. I suggest as a partial solution: Hide Cult Affiliations 1 pt ranged, instant, nonstackable, nonreusable This spell hides the recipient's association with a particular cult, allowing him to lie at will about it. It does nothing else. Thus, it allows the recipient to lie about his membership in a banned cult and attendance at its ceremonies, but not his participation in any of the kinds of actions that caused it to be banned. TruthChange 1 pt ranged, temporal, stackable, reusable This is a specializes spell that allows a character to believe whatever he says in response to a question while under the influence of the spell, and thus to defeat truth magic aimed at him. Useful to salesmen as well as thieves, if I were the Trickster I would suspect such a spell of really catching on. Detect Enemy, Find Enemy, Show Enmity Should be changed so that they always have to overcome POW as attack spells, if the enemy wants to conceal either his presence or his enmity. My reasoning here is that sometimes an enemy would actually rather be befuddled than have his enmity revealed; so he should resist spells aimed at revealing enmity {which is after all a state of mind} as if resisting befuddle. These spells are intended to make the survival of Krarsht temples etc in cities believable; allow Tricksters to conceal their outlawed cult affiliation etc. As a player of course, I have little sympathy with these types but as a GM I think they could use some help. My suggested cults to get these: Trickster, Lanbril, Black Fang, Krarsht, Danfive Xaron. These changes could also help brave Orlanthi PC's trying to sneak into the Empire, Danfive Xaron and Jakaleel spies on the borders, etc. Anyone else agree with me? If you got my earlier post on this, don't worry about it. The mail was bounced to me and I decided to take no chances by sending it again.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10244; Wed, 16 Feb 94 19:41:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13918; Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:39:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:41:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:38:28 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:38:18 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3333FD50DA5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. I'll make my last comment on the Axe Trance controversy. It seems like half of the proponents of the current rule are basically saying "it doesn't matter how gross the spell is, Barbeestor Gor is supposed to be gross." Obviously, there is an upper bound on how gross BG should be. A rune spell that allowed automatic victory in battle, for example, is out of line. Basically, the issue comes down to whether the spell is too powerful, not whether BG worshipers should be powerful. Likewise, imposing restrictions about who can use the spell, or how it must be used fail to address the question whether the spell is too gross. Finally, I don't buy the idea that because this cult is sometimes used to either: a) defend earth temples, or b) avenge an abused woman, it follows that this particular cult deserves such an awesome array of combat magic. Certainly, all the other war gods have their own extraordinary tales of bravery or vengence. A Humakti defending his honor, a Storm Kahn fighting a hopeless battle against chaos... Why should BG's particular brand of psychotic mayhem be far better than any war god? -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12162; Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:10:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15850; Wed, 16 Feb 94 21:07:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 21:09:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 21:07:40 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue as resistance; char sheet Date: 16 Feb 1994 21:05:35 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <333BC601681@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren replying to David etc etc etc First, Brad Furst suggested > >Rather than the current scaling of ENC by STR, and > >then dicing against CON, consider the alternative which is consistent with > >Basic Role Playing RQ system: let us make a Resistance Roll of the sum (of > >STR plus SIZ) versus ENC. Failure then imposes the Fatigue consequences. > >(The key here is the Resistance Roll, not which parameters to compare). I love this idea! This scales ENC commensurately with SIZ, which is something we wanted to do with the ENC and fatigue system elsewhere. Remember that RAG now defines STR as a relative amount of muscle mass, and not as an absolute (I cite the STR/CON/SIZ stat maxima as proof), so this makes total sense. It is also consistent with the rest of the game system and doesn't add any more tables. I love it! I looked at David's numerical analysis of what would happen and it doesn't bother me. I think that someone who wears light armor should have a damn good chance of avoiding fatigue, isn't that why he wore it in the first place? Conversely, someone who wears heavy armor is begging for fatigue, and damn well better get tired if the battle goes on a long time. > >I also prefer alphabetic skill list on the character sheet for the > >exact same reason as you state. > > It's surprising how controversial this is. I prefer the alphabetic list too. The people who want to group the skills by bonus are conservative grognards. Don't worry about them. Re: the sorcery skills on the sheet. Actually, the problem wasn't that there were too many spells to fit the skills, it was that they were all jumbled together so it was hard to find what we were looking for. And as for a sketch... Yes, I am an artist and I like having a little spot to draw the character on the character sheet. I even do it for other players if inspiration strikes. But even if you don't sketch your character, you can use the spot to sketch the coat of arms or something of the sort. Finally, I *hope* there is attack splitting in RAG. I think we all agree that's one of the core rules in earlier versions of RQ, and it should remain. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13119; Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:23:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16989; Wed, 16 Feb 94 21:21:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 21:23:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 21:20:43 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:19:54 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <333F4033888@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OOh! A thread named after me! Net fame at last ! Too bad I missed most of it. :-) Here are my thoughts in more detail about why I dislike Axe trance. I am not talking it to the daily, because as far as I am concerned most of the cultural etc. validations are spurious. I chose to reply to David Chengs post because it seemed to express the pro-Axe Trance spirit most clearly. Basically, whether the spells is culturally appropriate is pretty much irrelevent - The spells for the other cults are culturally relevent too, that is no reason for BG to get the best combat spell in the book for 1 point. I agree with the evaluation of how dangerous the BGs killing rage should be - but personally I find that Berserk is quite terrifying enough - with the added advantage (to both the role-players and the game balance people) that it actually enforces a particular kind of behaviour, rather than just give you immense skill bonuses with no disadvantage at all. I like the BG cult, and have used it several times in play - but I have taken to simply disallowing this spell, after one or two ridiculous uses. > > I don't care how high some furious woman can pump up her attack. I > like the idea of an Avenger cleaving dozens of guys before she herself > is killed. (BTW, I can't say I agree on the Babeester Gor=Defender, > Gorgorma=Avenger thing. I can't quote sources right now, but this > doesn't feel right). > And I like the idea of Storm Bulls killing dozens of chaos beasties and eventually going down - but I do not think that there Berserk should be supplemented by a super-duper 'Chaos-killing trance' spell to make it even more lethal - especially a spell that does not actually have any suggestion of a particular use or emotional state or whatever in the spell description - part of the problem with it, all other spells that ramp attack levels up really super-high have emotional side effects (Arrow trance, Berserk) (Crush is much more limited). > To consider game play: there are still only 10 SRs in a melee round. > The woman is still susceptible to missles and spells. She can only > kill perhaps 3-4 guys per round. They can still try to run away. > Sure, it is only overpowered one way, not every way at once. This is like saying a spell that gives you as many hit points as you want is not unbalanced because you can still easily be taken down with magic. > The spell is only flawed from the perspective of "all cults should > have equal 'power'." This is an idea I just don't agree with. > It's not like you would ever have a tabletop minis battle, with one > guy bringing his 100 Orlanthi thanes, and the other bringing his 50 > Babeester Gor warrior women. > No, roughly equal power. If two cults have the secret of the Berserk rage, it should be much the same power unless there is a good reason. All the death cults but Humakt cast the same Sever Spirit. Why should the BGs have better weapon enhancing magic than any body else? > If you want, in your campaign you can say that a BG woman can only > cast the spell while on an "avenging quest." > > * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com > Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight] >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05854; Wed, 16 Feb 94 22:42:52 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24120; Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:39:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:42:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:39:02 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Bladesharp for Yelmalio Date: 16 Feb 94 23:24:23 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <336425B7CCA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dennis Hoover I am bugged by the spirit spell distributions in the literature to date, and I would like to see some of these things addressed in RQ:AiG. For example, Aldrya, Yelmalio, Waha, and Storm Bull get no melee-weapon-enhancing magic at all, and Yelm gets only Fireblade (OK for low-damage weapons, but no pluses to hit), despite there being seven rune lords in the five cults (I count Gardeners because of the d10 DI). (Yea, I know, Storm Bull gets BS by association, but he should get it in his own right.) On the other hand, the single most kick-ass cult for offensive spirit magic in GoG is clearly Dendara, who gets Bladesharp, Bludgeon, Ironhand, Fireblade, Speedart, Multimissile, and Firearrow, not to mention Disrupt, Befuddle, and Demoralize! (All by association, of course.) I played a priestess of Dendara at the Con, and little did I know that instead of mucking around in politics, I should have been commanding the Dendaran Heavy Infantry, the core of the solar army. Vying for second are Ernalda et al, because of their multiple associations with the Gor sisters. They get the same spells as Dendara, lacking only the missile-affecting spells. Something is clearly amiss here. I believe this is a problem with the rules. This is not the way cults in Glorantha are supposed to work, as someone wrote last week. I don't think my players really want to play Earth cultists, but they are driven that way to get the spells they need to survive. Then they quit the cult. This is not a problem with divine magic; when you quit the cult you lose access to the spells. Not so spirit magic. I don't believe all cults should be evenly balanced. B.Gor, M.Gor, and Gorgorma (how about Gormalio?) SHOULD get tough spells. They are restrictive, specialized cults with a rationale for being tough. But Asrelia, Ernalda, and Dendara? I suggest the following: 1) Get rid of spirit spells by association, except in specific cases (the way divine magic is currently done). 2) Give spirit spells to the cults that should have them (i.e. bladesharp to Storm Bull and Yelmalio), appropriately limited in strength. 3) Ex-initiates lose access to spirit spells they gained from a cult when they quit the cult. P.S. I know some have said that Yelmalio shouldn't get bladesharp at all. I disagree. He is not forbidden bladesharp, as he is fireblade. Also, EVERY Yelmalion written up in Sun County (except for a brand new initiate in one of the scenarios) has the spell. Count Solanthos got a BS 10 and a permanent Truespear from Yelmalio himself. The typical Templar has a BS 2. Even the sleaze-bag militia gets a point of BS. I think it was a typo in Sun County that BS is not in Yelmalio's list of spells . Dennis.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07244; Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:01:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24775; Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:59:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 0:01:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:59:42 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: More nits in RQ:AiG (magic) Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 20:59:29 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3369A7E3876@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> 123 Silence affects the Sneak skill; unfortunately, Sneak is an optional skill. It should affect Stealth skill. I think you're going to have to include a complete cult. From this book alone, it's impossible to tell what's meant by a cult. I suggest using Seven Mothers (it's fairly straightforward, and fairly short since most of the detail is in each of the Mothers, and you don't need to include that) or Orlanth (illustrates subcults, and is popular with PCs; disadvantage is that the writeup is longer, and it's available in River of Cradles). But you mention holy days elsewhere, without any indication of how often they occur. From one sample cult, energetic GMs could extrapolate. As I've mentioned before, no cult is playable from this book. All mention spells that aren't available. Seven Mothers would be the easiest one to make complete (only Chaos Gift is missing, and that's an associated spell anyway). 132/133 You use the term "recover" and "regain use of" and "renew" with relation to divine spells. I suggest standardizing on the latter. (And fixing other occurrences, as under Extension). 134 Typo "Sub-Cults" for "Associated Cults" 135 Should Orlanth's associated cult be Urox, not Storm Bull? (This may also require changes in the Praxian section.) This seems to be the correct Sartar usage. 137 7Mothers, Dan5 Xaron, and Jakaleel should all have Stealth, not Sneak. Sneak is an optional skill. Jakaleel should not have Hide, it's an optional skill. Is Jakaleel, rather than Annilla, the Lunar goddess of assassins? 139 In the first sentence, remove "at the Dawning" to make it readable. 141 Oslir is a goddess, not a god. 144 In the summary, Command should have angle brackets. Shouldn't Command Cult Spirit be on the list of common spells? Conceal is out of alphabetic order. Darkwalk has no space in the summary, but is Dark Walk on 145. Madness is 2 points in the summary, 1 point on 148. 145 Can Command Cult Spirit be cast on any cult spirit, or only those of your own cult? If the latter, when would a cult spirit be unwilling? 150 Does Cult Magic Spell Enchantment work on only your own cult's spells? Battle magic which is cult magic for some cult? All battle magic? 151 I like the use of "privately" instead of "secretly," it reflects the fact that GMs and players aren't rivals. 151 Remove the time for Excommunication. The standard length is 1 hour. 152 "Ceremonies can be performed within a Sanctified area that normally can be performed only in a temple." Does this include praying for renewal of rune magic? If so, what spells (since it's dependent on temple size)? (The temple size section talks about maintaining an active holy site, not making a temporary site.) 156 One year after becoming a shaman, the new shaman has no restrictions or requirements. I think this is inappropriate. I saw nothing wrong with the old DEX limits, and feel there should be societal duties. I'm very pleased by the fact that fetches are no longer this weird sort of spirit. They're not spirits at all, but just shamanic abilities. 158/121/172 Can you Glue or Bind things to a discorporate shaman? 159 It's probably better to say "trapped by his fetch" instead of "bound into his or her fetch." 161 "in the style of the Horned Man cult?" What's that? It's not described anywhere. 162 I'm not really sure I want to complicate Finding Spirits, but shouldn't Spirit Mastery be included in the shaman's MP when determining whether or not to roll? And what do you mean by MP? Does this include the fetch? Does it include the MP that had to be cast to become discorporate? 162 I like the abstraction for capturing sentient spirits. I'm not sure exactly what a sentient spirit is, however. [Oh, you finally describe it on p. 182. Do we really need two terms, "sentient" and "normal INT" to mean the same thing? I'd drop "sentient," despite it being less game-speak, because "normal INT" contrasts better with "Fixed INT." Unless you want to switch to Sentient/Non-sentient. 162 You refer to Jumping and River Eyes. These spells are nowhere described. 163 You use Ceremony/Spirit to marry someone? I think this is another reason to not have split Ceremony. 163 The "Ritual Spirit Magic" section says you can use Ceremony to improve Ceremony. This may make sense, but it seems a bit odd, and might need clarification. 163 No need to repeat that Summon takes 1 hour per MP spent. 164 You mention "axis mundi," which is nowhere described. 165 The first sentence under "who uses sorcery" is incorrect. Primitive hunter-gatherer societies tend to have far more leisure time than civilized (agricultural) societies. It may be that civilized societies have a leisure class (i.e. nobles). And I think you risk confusing Sorcerer=God Learner. Sorcerers get a bad rep from Tap as much as anything. 167 Duration and Range are quite wimpy. It's almost pointless using either (beyond maybe a couple points for convenience) without POW. I suggest using the RQ3 tables, with the current limits. This means someone with Duration 100% could cast a week-long spell, and if she had Range 100%, she could teleport 10 km. This doesn't seem outrageous. If POW made things 100 times as long, it would still be only around 2 years or 1000 km, both of which are well within the RQ3 table for sorcerers with high Free INT. Note also that creatures over SIZ 30 should never bother with Sorcery, since they'll find it difficult to cast many spells on themselves. Note for example it's virtually impossible to Teleport a horse (perhaps a poor example since it never was possible). 167 What happens when you spend POW but fail a spell roll? 169 Are the God Forgot and Third Eye Blue sorcerers atheists? The latter is described as a cult... 169 It's probably worth mentioning that Gods of Glorantha has more information on the Malkioni sects. 171 Why does the Dark (Dying) Moon school have its least effectiveness on the Dark (Dying) Moon day? So on its day of greatest effectiveness, a 100% spell can be cast at Intensity 10, Duration 1, Range 1? Or do you mean Intensity 9, Duration 2, Range 2? 175 Conceal Self and Conceal Sound should add to the standard Stealth skill, not the optional Hide and Sneak skills. 177 Regenerate is practically worthless now without spending POW -- you'd need to cast Regenerate with Duration 10 more than twice a day, and that means you probably can't use any Intensity at all. I think this is another argument for the RQ3 Duration chart. 177 While you've made it possible to Shapechange a human with a 5 Intensity spell, you've made it much harder to actually succeed with any Shapechange, since the largest practical spell is Intensity 11, which has to overcome POW. 177 I suspect you're trying to tone down Smother, but the fact that it can't be extended with Duration or Maintain makes it an unfortunate exception to the normal run of things. 178 When you Tap 1 someone, can you Tap 1 them again after the spell wears off? (You say to use normal stacking rules, so the answer has to be yes.) 178 Since there are no exceptions, remove "unless otherwise stated" in its two occurrences. 178 Summon is not listed on the table of common rituals. 179 I like the new familiar rules in general. But... "A sorcerer may normally have only one familiar at a time." So what abnormal processes can be used to have more than one? Either explain, or strike "normally." 180 You probably don't have to list quite as many forms of divination. 180 I like the new Form/Set spell much better. 183 You suggest not playing Ruler dragonewts. That's easily followed through upon, since Ruler dragonewts aren't described in this work... 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16765; Thu, 17 Feb 94 01:38:53 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01700; Thu, 17 Feb 94 02:36:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 2:38:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 2:36:35 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character Sheets Date: 17 Feb 94 02:33:52 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <339380B2890@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. David, I like the character sheets a lot. A bit crowded, but then RuneQuest is a fairly complex game. I'm impressed you've been able to fit so much on one page without compromising on the layout. I'm not sure the Spirit lines or the proposed new Horse ("Mount"?) section are necessary. It's a long time since I owned a bound Spirit, and my horses keep dying or getting the mange... Disagree with Loren re: Sorcery skills. Not about problems fitting them on, which I'm sure are real if he says so, but about the need to list uncommon, not generally available Manipulations (like Maintain, the one he mentioned) on the character sheet. This will be of no use both to non-Sorcerers and to Sorcerers from different traditions: like listing "Sense Chaos", "Sense Assassin" or "Charismatic Wisdom" on the character sheet. If you're a big magic-using type, you need extra paper. No need to compromise the universal utility of the character sheet for a few players' special needs. (That said, I am a fan of culturally-specific, profession-specific, etc. character sheets, though if the first release for RQ4 is a box of these I will go berserk). I preferred the more traditional weapon layout (two columns not one), and (to save space) I'm not sure it's worth listing Fumble chance now it's either 99 or 00. I like having an alphabetical skill list: as you pointed out, with the new split into Knowledge and Reasoning categories a listing by category would confuse and hinder new and old players alike. On skill difficulty: first, list Hard and Easy skills in lower case (as you suggested yesterday). Then, don't annotate Medium skills: that's the default value ("If it's not listed as 'h' or 'e', it's a Medium skill"). I don't know what the proposed plus-signs floating around would add to the sheet, apart from a load of confusing symbols. Generally, I think the sheet should cover "universal" basics: things almost everyone has. I'd oppose listing any skills with a base chance of 0%: that's what the blank lines on the character sheet are for. (It always annoyed me in RQ3 that every player had a "Martial Arts" skill stuck under his or her nose, *encouraging* them to ask about its availability). A reminder to European readers: I am happy to send out sheets without any charge to any *contributor* to this list who emails me privately to ask. No lurkers, please: this is a playtest line, not a freebie superstore! On Axe Trance: can't check right now, but is it in the rules? (A mention is, I know). If not, it's not urgent. This spell has always felt "broken" to me, and I side with the suggestions to make it into a Slash/Crush clone of some kind, *or* to have a very nasty Berserking side-effect (as Paul suggested). If Mike's theory about this cult's role is right ("I Spit on Your Grave", "Dirty Weekend", etc.) (and I hope it isn't), the existing version of the spell should certainly have been one-use. Babeester Gor cultists on the rampage can use Divine Intervention to get buckets of stacked rune spell points, just like anyone else. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20193; Thu, 17 Feb 94 02:54:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03416; Thu, 17 Feb 94 03:52:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 3:54:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 3:52:14 EST From: guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: UNARMED C Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 02:14:30 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <33A7ADD616C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Are there any provisions in RQ:AiG for extended martial arts? I'm talking anything from boxing to Greco-Roman style wrestling to kung fu and ninjatsu. Are these represented at all?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10301; Fri, 18 Feb 94 21:46:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25089; Fri, 18 Feb 94 22:45:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 22:45:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 22:45:45 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Pow Requirements; Skill Decay; Priest RuneLords; Skills > 100% Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 00:50:46 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <36560741FC2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here with a mail note with hopefully less typos Pow Requirements As someone who has often had to attempt to explain to a Storm Bringer character with an INT of less than 16 why he can not be Sorcerer I am willing to join the growing concensus here. I agree that the Priest or Rune Lord is only making a rod for his own back if he seeks those offices with a low POW or sacrifices too much POW for Divine Magic. Mind you though the RQ:AiG still equates very strongly POW with piety, the Test for Holiness is a POW roll in the Divine Magic chapter. My suggestion to reintroduce was not based on issues of equating piety with POW. It more on the basis that just as you need a certain STR and DEX to wield a certain weapon a character might need a certain POW and INT to function in a certain role with a Cult, for example. Fixed, absolute limits are generaly a Bad Thing this is something I fully accept. I also missed the limits to which priest skills fell back to within RQ2 but I thought they might be dealt with in the section entitled Skill Decay so I will move on ... Skill Decay, reference page 55 This section mentions the right kind of thing that could cause skill decay: imprisonment, restrictve duties, constant training in other skills, etc, but the advise is simply for the GM to improvise. Prehaps reference to former RQ2 rules as examples might be beneficial with a cross-references back to here from the Divine Magic chapter. Priest RuneLords, reference pages 127-128 I read GoG last night and found it's explaination of this role within a Cult to be reasonable. The probably reason for sacrity of Storm Bull is that these Rune Lords may not be too dilligent in the Priestly role. If something like this is be covered then into the section on Rune Lords it should go. Presumably Priest Rune Loards can teach cult spells as well. I imagine getting a Rune Lord of Humakt to teach you a cult spell would be challenging for all but the most devote initiate. Skills > 100%, reference page 69 In the section Mechanism of Experience Gain it does indeed state that skills can go over 100% and that the chance of that increase is equal to the skill category modifier. If the skill category modifier is negative then automatic success is the only mechanism for advance over 100%. On a related issue I feel that restricting the number of skill checks for a character to roll is not good but the RQ:AiG rules promote the right kind of flexibility. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20466; Thu, 17 Feb 94 03:04:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03609; Thu, 17 Feb 94 04:02:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 4:04:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 4:02:19 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Splitting, Bladesharp for Yelmalio, character sheet Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 01:02:12 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <33AA5D82E40@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Loren Miller hoped: >Finally, I *hope* there is attack splitting in RAG. I think we all >agree that's one of the core rules in earlier versions of RQ, and it >should remain. I haven't seen it. And it would violate the 2-actions-per-round dictum. Dennis Hoover complained: >I am bugged by the spirit spell distributions in the literature to date... >I believe this is a problem with the rules. It's hardly a problem with the rules. If it is a problem, it's a problem with the background material. >I suggest the following: >1) Get rid of spirit spells by association, except in specific cases (the way >divine magic is currently done). This would require much larger spell lists. >2) Give spirit spells to the cults that should have them (i.e. bladesharp to >Storm Bull and Yelmalio), appropriately limited in strength. "Should?" Who's to say should? I consider Gods of Glorantha an attempt by Greg and Sandy to sit down and consider all Genertelan cults. There may be the occasional error (or Elmal-ic revision), but it's a unified work that assesses all cults together. It is the correct and true gospel. :-) >3) Ex-initiates lose access to spirit spells they gained from a cult when they >quit the cult. Lose access to? As in, they forget them? I don't think that's appropriate. >I think it was a typo in Sun County that BS is not in Yelmalio's list of spells Yelmalio doesn't have Bladesharp in Gods of Glorantha either. Simpler than your suggestions would be for the Yelmalio cultist who lusts after Bladesharp to simply find a shaman, or join a different cult as a lay member. In summary, I don't see the distribution of magic as a rules issue, and therefore not something that should be addressed in RQ:AiG -- and it doesn't need addressing anyway. Nick Brooke said good things about my character sheet but also said: >I preferred the more traditional weapon layout (two columns not one), and >(to save space) I'm not sure it's worth listing Fumble chance now it's >either 99 or 00. That's my preference too. I almost deleted the fumble chance, but it doesn't gain any usable space (no new rows or columns). I may still delete it to get more white space. (For what it's worth, one long-time RQ2 player filled it in incorrectly, so not everyone knows the 99 or 00 rule.) >On skill difficulty: first, list Hard and Easy skills in lower case (as you >suggested yesterday). Then, don't annotate Medium skills: that's the >default value ("If it's not listed as 'h' or 'e', it's a Medium skill"). I >don't know what the proposed plus-signs floating around would add to the >sheet, apart from a load of confusing symbols. Unfortunately, I need to include "m" because I don't want to imply that all Play skills are Medium. I thought about dropping it, but at present, lack of a difficulty means you have to look it up. I just did a sheet with Dodge (15%+A) h -ENC ____ [] and it looks OK. I also added space for one Mount. Horses were fairly common in my RQ2 days, and with my Grazeland campaign, it's a very popular request.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06974; Fri, 18 Feb 94 16:26:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12551; Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:25:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:26:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 17:25:37 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Handling of Spell and Allied Spirits by Cults Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 01:35:29 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3600A8B7103@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson writing with observations and suggestions Allied Spirits, page 128 After reading the excellent Familiar Sorcery spell I found the section on Allied Spirits within Divine Magic usefull but lacking in concrete gaming information. For information on embodied spirits and spirits you are refered to the Creatures chapter. Within that chapter there is scant support for someone directed there. Within spirit there is no standard, or sample, wander of the Spirit or God plane nor any reference of allied spirits. There is no information on Awakening within the Creatures Section, except note that some animals are Awakened by certain races for various purposes. The rules are covered in the Familiar Sorcery spell but prehaps this warrants inclusion the Magical World as it would make sense for all Awakenings to follow the same, core rules. With each type of magic providing variations in the options it provides of course. Spell Spirits, page 194 First off I must commend the authors for the idea that a Spell spirit is a fixed INT spirit. This works very well, along with the ambiguity of what happend to a Spell Spirit once it is defeated. Whatever happens the disappearance of a Spell spirit after its defeat is conducive to keeping Shamans from fear of unemployment :-) It cross references Spellteaching in Divine Magic although prehaps this should be a reference to Learning Spells instead. Learning Spells, page 131 I have explored this area and have come up with two conclusions. First off the Ceremony/Divine skill is unclear and the rules for Ritual Divine magic are missing, presumed omitted. Secondly in the Learning Spells section reference to commanding a Spell Spirit not to defend itself in the POW vs. POW struggle. What is unclear is whether the battle magic spell Command Spell Spirit is required for whether Spellteaching includes this capability. Actually I'm suprised that Cults have not further domesticated Spell Spirits so a protracted POW vs. POW struggles is not needed. Some kind of fixed POW treatment where a single victory by the cult student secures victory for him or her. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21172; Thu, 17 Feb 94 03:38:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04353; Thu, 17 Feb 94 04:36:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 4:38:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 4:36:18 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: TruthChange... Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:37:20 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <33B36DF06A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> rturney@well.sf.ca.us (Raymond D Turney): >TruthChange 1 pt >ranged, temporal, stackable, reusable > This is a specializes spell that allows a character to believe >whatever he says in response to a question while under the influence of the >spell, and thus to defeat truth magic aimed at him. Useful to salesmen as >well as thieves, if I were the Trickster I would suspect such a spell of >really catching on. And if they fumble their dice, they forget they made it up... -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24510; Thu, 17 Feb 94 04:57:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05963; Thu, 17 Feb 94 05:55:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 5:57:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 5:55:15 EST From: Malcolm Cohen To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More nits in RQ:AiG (magic) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:54:03 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <33C87C70F5F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham said: > 162 I like the abstraction for capturing sentient spirits. I'm not sure > exactly what a sentient spirit is, however. [Oh, you finally describe it on > p. 182. Do we really need two terms, "sentient" and "normal INT" to mean > the same thing? I'd drop "sentient," despite it being less game-speak, > because "normal INT" contrasts better with "Fixed INT." Unless you want to > switch to Sentient/Non-sentient. This is a plea to the editors NOT to misuse "sentient" as meaning "intelligent" or "self-aware". Sentient means "having the power of sense-perception" (COED); it is from the Latin meaning "feel". Thus cats and dogs are sentient (even though they have fixed INT) and an AI program (without special hardware) is arguably not (even though it is intelligent). So a "sentient spirit" would be one which can sense the real world by some (possibly strange) form of sight, hearing, etc. Indeed, it is not that uncommon for sentient to be used to EXCLUDE intelligence (i.e. something is ONLY sentient and not also intelligent), giving the range non-sentient (no INT at all) e.g. rocks (and plants according to most) sentient (fixed INT) e.g. animals (and plants according to some people) intelligent (normal INT) e.g. humans. -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24674; Thu, 17 Feb 94 05:07:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06101; Thu, 17 Feb 94 06:05:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 6:07:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 6:05:10 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW minima; combat options; speed; char sheet Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 03:05:53 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <33CB20F0CC7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes to Joerg: >Joerg to David Dunham: > >> I agree with David Cheng; no need to reintroduce POW requirements for rune >> levels. > >Seconded. Anyway, RQ3 knows 5 or 6 point divine spells (Waha Call Founder, >Thed Rebirth of Chaos), and races with POW greater than 3d6 (for instance >Wind Children) are all Rune Priests, and those with less than 3d6 can't >have any. Objection. The rules lawyers will quickly notice that they will succeed in more checks (and thus get more spells/enchantments) by keeping their power low. In any case, some guidelines need to be in the rules, about why a priest can't just sacrifice as many points as he wants, and then hang out for a couple seasons, earning free POW checks. >> Loren, commenting on my character sheet, asked >>>am I the only person who *likes* a spot for a character >>>sketch or symbol? > >No, count me in. Count me out. Tiny boxes are inadequate for real drawings, and for the non-artists, it is wasted space. Use a separate piece of paper for the sketch. By keeping the art separate, you can replace old sheets with no concern about losing precious artwork. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20429; Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:46:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03222; Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:43:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:45:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:43:39 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: First enthusiasm and gripes Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 15:31:22 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <34356550887@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This morning I found my copy in the mail... Layout: Overall fine, but: in some places spacing is too broad for my taste (for instance p.13, paragraph about dice). Reading from the beginning, I found some spelling peculiarities in Gloranthan names: (trying to index Glorantha shows its effects) p.11: "Belnitar" is a typo, but what about "Notchet"? (I like it...) Also p.11: City of Lead: is this part of the former castle of Black Glass? Yet p.11, but again p.12: Heartland Corp. Another case of missing "s"s? At least according to Webster's p.12: "Carmanian School of Malkionism": sect of Malkionism, or school of sorcery/magic. Also p.12: Char-un are presented as Pentan tribe. So far so good, but if I didn't know better, I'd assume they still live in Pent. p.13: Terasarin is consistently spelled "Terasin". Greymane has become Graymane. p.13: "1610: Prax - The unar army reenters" ... Sor-eel's previous venture isn't mentioned. Why not? Also 1610: Tarsh: Moirades' death... Is this the official date? KoS gives it in the Tarsh chapter of CHDP, but states twice that he lived until shortly before the siege of Furthest (pp.28, 155), and at least he seems to have opposed Argrath in person. Genertela Book too states that he is alive around 1621 (p.56f), so please check this with Greg. Background Material: Why the split between GoG+KoS and the rest? G:CotHW is a must for anything outside of Zola Fel Valley. Why are the Collected Griselda stories not listed? If Pavis is as prominent as pictured, this is a _must_ backgrund reference. _If_ Reaching Moon Megacorp manages to bring out Wyrm's Footprints by the time RQ:AiG comes out, that would deserve mention, too. p.17: Creating an Adventurer: SIZ Table: I hate it. According to this table I (2m tall, weighing a little over 90 kg with a fair bit of excess pounds) I'd be SIZ 14 or 15, and my really long legs wouldn't help for my stride length (well over 1m). My advantage of reach (even in mock-fights with martial artists) has gone, too. I feel like a dwarf ;-/ Free INT! We'll keep the name of the magazine, and apply it to campaign for the trainability of the characteristic. Appeal: Good! p.18: Determine Characteristics: Combined Method: In RQ3 I always used this variant, also because it cut characteristics sum at 91. In my campaign three players had to reduce their characteristics, and still ended up with superior characters. I can see that the new method (doubled prices for INT and SIZ>13, halved prices for APP) makes a threshold difficult, but I'd welcome one. I'll ttry to figure one out. Characteristic Maxima: Cut the SIZ example, or replace it by INT, and make INT trainable. Cut the "(though SIZ cannot be trained)" remark anyway. Damage Bonus: Conservatism: I like the rolled one. Missile Weapons: Show me a STR 17 archer shooting with as weak a bow as a STR 7 archer. Ok for slings, but... Got to go, more tomorrow... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12462; Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:31:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26471; Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:29:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:31:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:29:06 EST From: mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com (boris) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatigue as resistance; char sheet Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:33:10 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <342183E4A30@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Loren replying to David etc etc etc > >First, Brad Furst suggested >>>Rather than the current scaling of ENC by STR, and >>>then dicing against CON, consider the alternative which is consistent with >>>Basic Role Playing RQ system: let us make a Resistance Roll of the sum (of >>>STR plus SIZ) versus ENC. Failure then imposes the Fatigue consequences. >>>(The key here is the Resistance Roll, not which parameters to compare). > >I love this idea! This scales ENC commensurately with SIZ, which is >something we wanted to do with the ENC and fatigue system elsewhere. I like the concept a lot; I think we need to work on the exact mechainic to get it right! I don't much care for the current mechanic for checking for fatigue; I would like a finer granularity than STR ENC; I would also like to raise the odds for making the roll for average folk, and lower it for the "Arnold the Issurian" types. The resistance table wil do this, I just think CON should enter the picture somewhere, and the granularity is too fine; someone of any STR can carry 10 kg less than their 50% point with a 95% chance of making the roll; at STR and SIZ 16, that's 22 kg. > I prefer the alphabetic list too. The people who want to group the > skills by bonus are conservative grognards. Don't worry about them. As a libertarian grognard (whatever that is) I take offense at that! Blltttt! Ya Mama wears army boots! > Finally, I *hope* there is attack splitting in RAG. I think we all > agree that's one of the core rules in earlier versions of RQ, and it > should remain. I believe it's omission was an oversight; I would like to, if work ever permits, to go through the RQ3 and RQAG books side by side and note everything that was excluded. Some of the stuff is intentional, I know, but it should *all* be deliberate, not accidental. -- Boris Mikey, aka |"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to Maurice Beyke | strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then mabeyke@batman.b11.ingr.com| believe; if you wish to be a devotee of Intergraph doesn't want | truth, then inquire." my opinions. Nietzsche  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23824; Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:20:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06137; Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:18:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:20:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:18:27 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: TruthChange..., temple size Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:18:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <343EAD13D01@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. Ray Turney suggests the spell of Truthchange. In our campaign including a Krarshti assasin/spy we had the skill of self-delusion: believing your cover story, for example. Henk suggests: >And if they fumble their dice, they forget they made it up... This could apply to the skill also. You might have a small fumble table, including this, forgetting your cover story (getting it confused with you last assumed identity), etc. I will try to get in a couple of longish posts this weekend, and mail to OJ. At this point, let me say I am very pleased with the new temple minimum size rules; a devoted fanatic should be able to maintain a shrine by herself. Should these rules be given a little more prominence in the manuscript? Note that I am of the 'don't change it if it's not a clear improvement in either modeling Glorantha or playability' school, but that these rules qualify under both criteria.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27505; Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:00:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09492; Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:58:42 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 14:00:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:58:30 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:58:17 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <34495D5789F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. Dave Cake writes: > In fact, I like the current system because it is the opposite to what >Paul suggests - it is easy to heal a person away from death, but difficult to >heal them back to full health, except from minor wounds. I don not really >like that much player attrition. One thing we did in some campaigns was to make a clear distinction between blood loss and other wounds; the blood is the magical life-essence and its loss couldn't be healed (general HP damage). This worked nicely - promptly healing wounds fixed you up totally, but blood loss was more serious. Fire also did general HP damage, hard to heal. More later, paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06840; Thu, 17 Feb 94 14:43:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16368; Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:31:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:33:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:31:21 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: encumbrance Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:31:18 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <34622000A0D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I thought RQ2 was better on encumbrance than RQ3; the vague 'things' was fine by me and fit well with the level of exactness of people's conceptions. It seems fine to me to say STR tells you something about strength to weight ratio, and that large people have large equipment. A SIZ 18 , STR 10 person is therefore stronger than a SIZ 9, STR 10 person -- he is exactly enough stronger so that carrying his SIZ 18 boots is exactly as fatiguing to him as carrying SIZ 9 boots is to the SIZ 9 person. This is better than fooling around with Armor weights for different size people, IMO. - Paul Reilly  0, answered,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08701; Thu, 17 Feb 94 14:56:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17019; Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:40:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:42:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:39:57 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More nits in RQ:AiG (magic) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:39:49 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <34646B817A4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >skill. Is Jakaleel, rather than Annilla, the Lunar goddess of assassins? Jakaleel is goddess of Witches already. I feel extending her into assasins is tolerable - if you are talking about magical assasinations. Assassination is, as you point out, properly the province of Annilla. Spying, I think, should go more to Danfive Xaron than Jakaleel, with Irrippi Ontor perhaps providing intelligence analysis. I think that they saw the name "Keeper of Vile Secrets" as one of Jakaleel's titles, and decided that she must be involved in spying. IMO, Witches may have secrets viler than those of spies and it is not necessary to multiply her functions. If anyone wants to see a fairly long set of Jakaleel notes (unofficial) on the list, let me know. - Paul Reilly  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06894; Wed, 16 Feb 94 22:53:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24549; Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:51:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:53:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 16 Feb 94 23:51:06 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Detect Enemy, Detect Truth, MindRead and TruthSpeak Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:50:43 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <33675D27ED4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here Raymond D Turney writes about Detect Truth et al.: > > > Collectively these spells give an awesome advantage to the > authorities. As it stands, a poor Krarsht initiate for example can be > hailed before the authorities and asked "Are you now or have you been an > initiate of Krarsht?" and or "How, if at all, were you involved in the > assasination of X?". This is real awkward when compelled to speak the > truth. I suggest as a partial solution: You are never going to protect against this sort of inquisition. Simply whack a slave bracelet on the suspect and ask away he can't do anything about it. The detection blank spirit magic spell could be re-introduced but that's as far as I would go. If you join an outlawed cult such as Krasht you should not have access to an instant get out of jail free card. If you are a Krashti the simple message is don't even be suspected let alone caught or make sure those in charge can't act against you for some compelling reason (e.g. Blackmail, threat of assassination etc). Risk of exposure is the down side of joining such a cult - spells such as you describe would make life far too easy for these cults. > > These spells are intended to make the survival of Krarsht temples > etc in cities believable; allow Tricksters to conceal their outlawed cult > affiliation etc. As a player of course, I have little sympathy with these > types but as a GM I think they could use some help. I think that it is already quite reasonable for Krasht temples to exist in cities. Krasht works behind the scenes - most thugs working for Krasht wouldn't even be members or even be aware of who was pulling the strings. Small worship ceremonies would take place at mobile shrines a large ceremony would only be held in an underground complex where the bulk of the worshippers would be krastkid. Information and communication of the cult would be strictly on a need to know basis. Cheers, Tim Leask ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19668; Thu, 17 Feb 94 16:50:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25135; Thu, 17 Feb 94 17:47:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 17:49:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 17:47:28 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: Unarmed Combat, Prevarication, ENC Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:47:20 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <34866CC2FED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Guy Hoyle asked: >Are there any provisions in RQ:AiG for extended martial arts? I'm talking >anything from boxing to Greco-Roman style wrestling to kung fu and ninjatsu. >Are these represented at all? No. And thankfully so (say I who want a minimal set of core rules). None of the cultures (except the Morokanth) explained in AiG practice martial arts. Ray Turney's been agitating for anti-Truth spells. Fine, but they too shouldn't be in AiG, but in individual cult writeups. Paul Reilly said >A SIZ 18 , STR 10 person >is therefore stronger than a SIZ 9, STR 10 person -- he is exactly enough >stronger so that carrying his SIZ 18 boots is exactly as fatiguing to him >as carrying SIZ 9 boots is to the SIZ 9 person. > > This is better than fooling around with Armor weights for different size >people, IMO. Hear, hear.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29417; Thu, 17 Feb 94 19:19:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02190; Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:17:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:19:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:17:31 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More nits in RQ:AiG (magic) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:17:22 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <34AE71D7D9F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To Paul Reilly. I'm interested in seeing your Jakaleel material, since I'm working on some Lunar cults myself. If you're interested I'll swap you my drafts of the Red Goddess, and Red Emperor, and a few notes on illumination. Ray Turney rturney@well.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00483; Thu, 17 Feb 94 19:33:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02779; Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:26:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:32:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:26:26 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Binders (again!) and other format issues Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:31:34 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <34B0D2D12C8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here: I know that I was already pretty much thrashed for suggesting that RQAiG be in binder format, but, well, here I am again. My main problem with the way RQ3 and the Renaissance products have been formatted is that one ends up having to look through many different sources to find what one wa nts. Now, currently, with the lack of supplements and materials, that's not yet a big problem, but if (and I hope it is so) RQAiG is supported as promised, then the dispersal of information is going to be a problem. Examples? Creature stats are, even now, scattered amongst: RQ3 rulebook Gloranthan Bestiary Troll Pak (RQ3 version) - insects and troll types River of Cradles (for info on Gorps) Dorastor Land of Doom Elder Secrets Cults threaten to do the same. Already a person considering joining a new cult as a new character must look through GoG, RoC, and Sun County. The flip side is that we also end up with duplication of material, such as the now infamous proliferation of Kyger Litor writeups (each one slightly different from the other, I might add). How many separate books am I going to have to bring with me to a session simply because the material I need (or might need on the spur of the moment) is scattered amongst a horde of supplements? It would seem to me that the only way to congeal information into single sources, while still retaining the flexibility to add new info (like new cults or new monsters) is to modularize it. The best way to modularize is via binders. I would frankly like to see a rules binder, a creatures binder, and a cults binder. The cults binder could be organized into pantheons, such that gods with different aspects worshipped by different pantheons could be properly categorized. Creatures could be organized by type (i.e. Chaos creatures, darkness creatures, etc.). In this way, new creatures could be added, one per page. Binders would also allow revisions and rules changes to be implemented painlessly. by simply producing and selling a package of new pages replacing old rules, etc. Also, since it seems to be the philosophy of the RQ Renaissance people to have each product be self-contained and ready to play (e.g. the Sun County has the Yelmalio cult in it so that people can play without reference to GoG), this material could be included as a separate binder page sold with the supplement, so that when people have purchased the cults binder or whatever, the page can then be added to the binder. Without this type of modularity, it in fact becomes impossible to continue with the philosophy of trying to have each supplement self-contained, unless this means that a cult writeup is going to be represented in every supplement in which the cult is prominent (i.e. are we going to see another writeup of Yelmalio in t he Lunar Pack, another in Elf pack, another in Sartar Pack [but that would be Elmal, wouldn' t it?]). Such repitition is to be avoided. Now, in my previous posting, people expressed criticisms regarding the flimsiness of binder pages and the incompatability of hole standards. 1) Take a look at ASL. The paper is tough and of high quality. ASL buffs leaf through the rules far more than any RQer is likely to do, yet my experience has been that these hold up excellently. Plastic reinforcements can be added during production to further reinforce. 2) If Europe uses a two hole standard and US 3 holes, then simply produce the pages with five holes! Not very difficult to do. Sell different binders for US and E uropean markets (it's not that hard to find a supplier in each region). On a different vein, I would prefer to see new RQ supplements without scenarios in them. Scenarios are basically one-shot items. You run them and, except for a recurring NPC or such, you are then finished with them. To weigh down excellent source material like Sun County and RoC with what becomes useless material is burdensome. I like scenarios that are sold alone and packaged like Apple Lane and Snake Pipe Hollow. That way, one can buy the source material without the scenario, in case one wants to run scenarios of his own, or in case the scenario does not fit into his campaign. I am not saying that the scenarios are bad. I think they h ave been great. It's just that they would be better presented as "modules" (oops, did I use an AD&D term here?). For instance, Sun County and River of Cradles could have been combined sans scenarios into a single comprehensive guide of the Zola Fel area. The scenarios could have then been presented separately, as a Zola Fel scenario pack. At the very least, perhaps, scenarios could be detachable or wrapped together but in different booklets. Now is the time to plan ahead. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14375; Fri, 18 Feb 94 18:04:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17840; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:03:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:03:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:03:32 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Binders (again!) and other format issues Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:44:08 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <361AC7F5A26@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg replying to Devin Cutler, who brings convincing arguments for binders: > My main problem with the way RQ3 and the Renaissance products have been > formatted is that one ends up having to look through many different sources > to find what one wa > nts. Now, currently, with the lack of supplements and materials, that's not > yet a big problem, but if (and I hope it is so) RQAiG is supported as > promised, then the dispersal of information is going to be a problem. > Examples? > Creature stats are, even now, scattered amongst: [...] A modular creatures companion would be a good idea. > Cults threaten to do the same. Already a person considering joining a new > cult as a new character must look through GoG, RoC, and Sun County. The flip > side is that we also end up with duplication of material, such as the now > infamous proliferation of Kyger Litor writeups (each one slightly different > from the other, I might add). Kyger Litor is a (the) negative example for multiple releases of mostly identical stuff. In other cases I disagree (see below). > How many separate books am I going to have to bring with me to a session > simply because the material I need (or might need on the spur of the moment) > is scattered amongst a horde of supplements? I don't see this as a serious problem. Once I'm in a campaign, I tend to use stuff I have prepared or ready. I mean, you don't need Rascullu in Prax, and a Thanatari is a major opponent one ought to prepare in advance, I don't need him on the lam. Material I found highly useful are the Vikings and Snake Pipe Hollow digests, but the GM ought to have a _self-made_ binder of prepared NPCs and standard monsters. > It would seem to me that the only way to congeal information into single > sources, while still retaining the flexibility to add new info (like new > cults or new monsters) is to modularize it. The best way to modularize is via > binders. I may be a freak, but I prefer electronical format. One reason why I work on a full text version of an index to Glorantha. > I would frankly like to see a rules binder, a creatures binder, and a cults > binder. The cults binder could be organized into pantheons, such that gods > with different aspects worshipped by different pantheons could be properly > categorized. Creatures could be organized by type (i.e. Chaos creatures, > darkness creatures, etc.). In this way, new creatures could be added, one per > page. I don't need a rules binder. Rules I'm going to use in a game I must have memorized. Spot rules ought to come on a reference sheet, one of the best and most used parts of the RQ3 DeLuxe Box. This _has_ to be included again! > Binders would also allow revisions and rules changes to be implemented > painlessly. by simply producing and selling a package of new pages replacing > old rules, etc. Won't work, unless you multiply page number by 1.5 for blank spaces on the pages. > Also, since it seems to be the philosophy of the RQ Renaissance people to > have each product be self-contained and ready to play (e.g. the Sun County > has the Yelmalio cult in it so that people can play without reference to > GoG), this material could be included as a separate binder page sold with the > supplement, so that when people have purchased the cults binder or whatever, > the page can then be added to the binder. > Without this type of modularity, it in fact becomes impossible to continue > with the philosophy of trying to have each supplement self-contained, unless > this means that a cult writeup is going to be represented in every supplement > in which the cult is prominent (i.e. are we going to see another writeup of > Yelmalio in t > he Lunar Pack, another in Elf pack, another in Sartar Pack [but that would be > Elmal, wouldn't it?]). Such repitition is to be avoided. I for one think that Yelmalio Cult Write-ups ought to differ for Sartar, Sun County and the Lunar Provinces. Regional differences, different local heroes (Kuschile is ancestor for three Colymar clans. Do you think he will be known in Dorastor, Ralios or Fronela?). So: I'd appreciate a modular system. Binders surely are one way to go. BUT: To conquer a market, binders cannot be put in the first line of fire. And I'd prefer an electronical database. That might even convince me to leave Atari ST as my primary system... > 2) If Europe uses a two hole standard and US 3 holes, then simply produce the > pages with five holes! Not very difficult to do. Sell different binders for > US and European markets (it's not that hard to find a supplier in each region). I prefer the four-hole European standard. The left side would have to be a cheese-like piece of plastic... > For instance, Sun County and River of Cradles could have been combined sans > scenarios into a single comprehensive guide of the Zola Fel area. The > scenarios could have then been presented separately, as a Zola Fel scenario > pack. At the very least, perhaps, scenarios could be detachable or wrapped > together but in different booklets. This I'll second. It makes life easier if a pack contains three different booklets, like RQ2 Pavis or RQ3 Vikings. You can just hand out the Common Knowledge to the players. Griffin Island did this admirably well, although on the whole I prefer Griffin Mountain. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14384; Fri, 18 Feb 94 18:04:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17842; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:03:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:04:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:03:54 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Fatal, but not immediately mortal wounds Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:48:56 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <361AE0400FF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Paul R.: > Dave Cake writes: > > In fact, I like the current system because it is the opposite to what > >Paul suggests - it is easy to heal a person away from death, but difficult to > >heal them back to full health, except from minor wounds. I don not really > >like that much player attrition. > One thing we did in some campaigns was to make a clear distinction between > blood loss and other wounds; the blood is the magical life-essence and its > loss couldn't be healed (general HP damage). This worked nicely - promptly > healing wounds fixed you up totally, but blood loss was more serious. > Fire also did general HP damage, hard to heal. Then cuts ought to cause some blood loss, too. You don't need to lose much blood to feel queasy, about 15 minutes of strong bleeding from the nose do the job. And those nice black eyes and other hit marks indicate a certain blood loss, too. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23733; Fri, 18 Feb 94 14:07:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00586; Fri, 18 Feb 94 15:01:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 15:06:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 15:00:29 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Herds & Economics Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 12:00:25 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <35D9F372B0A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. In Codex 1 (originally the Daily Digest), Sandy said that "a typical well-off nomad, with an average household consisting of a wife and 5 "others" [presumably children, elders, and maybe a relative] has around 50 cows." This doesn't include riding animals, so let's assume 6 male riding animals, for a total of 56 beasts for 7 people, or 8 per person. I haven't dug up my anthropological sources, but this sounds like a reasonable ballpark figure. If by "well-off" Sandy meant Wealth 3, 8L/day, then the herd has to earn 56L/week (or 7 times that -- it's not clear from RQ:AiG.100 if a worker's entire family is supported on their income; I'll assume they are). That's 448L/season. Assuming the well-off nomad tends his herd 5 days a week (if he doesn't, his family will), he's got to have a 1C herd to earn 480L/season. And let's assume he's in the Bison tribe. A herd bison costs 1A (half of a riding animal). But a 1C herd is only 16 such herd bison. The herd (50 cows) is probably a lot closer to 3C. Given the way the numbers work out, the obvious solution is to divide the yield by 3. This also means dividing business yield. Right now, a business investment worth 2A (150L) pays 75L per year. That's a 50% return on investment! Dividing by 3, the 150L investment still pays 25L, which is still far from shabby. I like the concept of owning a herd or a farm, and with a simple fix, the numbers will work.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14402; Fri, 18 Feb 94 18:04:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17861; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:04:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:04:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:04:05 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Joerg visits skills (and revisits fatigue) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 00:51:08 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <361AED67206@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm trying to catch up with the rules discussion. Optional rules: I'd prefer if these had a different layout from regular rules, other point size or italics (I know, used for examples). p.53 Botch result: Although presented as optional, I'd suggest this as the result for fatigue fumbles which are no natural fumbles (i.e. rolled 99 or 00). Combined with guaranteed half crit/special chance (like I proposed before) I could even live with the add to the die roll. Opinions? p.54: Example for combining old skills ino a new one Instead of Hong Kong kungfu like Sworddancing, how about a craft example? One might use Dormal's shipbuilder, who helped the hero to build ships which could brave the closing. Before Dormal, the only related crafts were carpentry, boat building and engineering. From these Shipbuilding was developed. p.56: Climb Increased speed: This is a bit unclear to me. "A typical climbing rate for humanoids is 1/10 their MV score. One can increase this rate by subtracting 10 percentiles from the adventurer's success chance for every extra 10% of speed desired, not to exceed 1/5 their MV." ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ Does this mean that for just -10% I double climbing speed (i.e. I climb with 2/10 MV)? That's 10% of MV. Or does this mean that for -10% I get not 10/100, but 11/100 MV climbing speed, and 12/100 for -20%? In this case I'd reach 1/5 (20/100) at -100%. Sounds half way reasonable, but honestly: Do you want to calculate this? Otherwise, this has potential of becoming a meta-rule, maybe also the other way round - by making it slowly, I can increase my chance of success. Not in straigth 10% steps, though, the returns ought to be diminishing. Anyway, this might move to p.53: Time Dependant Skills. p.56: Jump Stay serious, folks: an average human (MV 5) would do world record in vertical jumps. Make vertical jumps 1/4 MV, with option to increase by decerasing skill chance as per meta rule mentioned above, yielding 1.25m for average humans - cleared height, add height for reaching high objects. Still high, but at least reasonable. I'd appreciate a decrease for range or height rather than skill for encumbered jumps, which can be made up by voluntarily lowering one's skill by steps of 10%. This is more my experience from hking with 20kg backpack in Norway and jumping across streams. Also, Acrobatics would be effected by ENC... p.57: Ride "if a mount does something unexpected" - a statement when this occurs would help a newbie GM. A lot of GMs treat horses like motor bikes - you start it, sometimes refill the tank and sometimes polish it. Guidelines really help. Communication skills: should always be rolled by the GM. One might argue whether or not the player ought to know the chance off success at all... p.58: Orate I missed how Renown can be applied with this skill. This would be the most appropriate skill to include it into chance of success. Fast Talk: I agree with Nick Brooke that the name should be "Bluff". p.59: Special functions of languages, similar languages: Conversation or Eavesdropping (good description, by the way) often are impaired by dialects or regional or professional slang expressions (lately on the Daily: MOB quoting Men at Work's "Where women glow and men chunder", and the ensuing discussion, or try to listen into a conversation between chemistry or medicine students). Guidelines? (I might try to write some) Language Table: Should be set as a boxed article on a separate page, since spot reference to it is quite likely. I'd suggest that universal languages, cult languages and/or language families are discussed before going to the details of the countries. The reference to Earthtongue in Esrolite ("Esrolian") was irritating because I couldn't find it under languages spoken in Dragon Pass. An alphabetical list (at least within one country) would solve the problem, too. Specific comments to languages: - Narjabiin (Firespeech): Are these, as I guess, creatures from teh Nargan Desert, Pamaltela? If so, why are they mentioned in a list of Dragon Pass languages? - Grazelander: If Pol Joni is related to Pentan, Grazelander certainly is, and both are related, if not similar to each other. Also: are Grazelander or Beastspeech somehow related (given the rebirth rites carried out by Ironhoof)? - Aldryami: mention the Aldryami of Redwood in Dagori Inkarth, which are more dominant than those of Valley of Flowers and Stinkwood. BTW, do elf dialects vary strongly between different forests/regions/tree affiliations/seasons? - Hsunchen languages: I miss Telmori in Sartar, Basmoli in Prax. Are these in any way mutually intellegable? I thought they weren't. AN what is this about Beastspeech as animals' Tradetalk or worse? - Boatspeech/Riverspeech: If this is one universal language, it is worse than Tradetalk, because you can learn it without limit, and it is understood everywhere there are rivers (99% of human settling area). Make different rivers speak only similar or related versions, similar to Tradetalk. - Kralori: isn't this _very_ far fetched to mention for Pavis? Either cut it, or include Seshnegi Western which is official language in southern Heortland (Malkonwal), and thus spoken by more people in Dragon Pass than Kralori in Pavis. - Tusk Rider: isn't this related to Darktongue, and probably to Earthtongue as well? Knowledge Skills: I like the Music Lore among the physical lores, very mediaeval (should I say quadrivial?). Lores: Any Lore chane of success can be increased with the help of a library, however poorly equipped. I manage to translate French or Latin texts, given time and a reasonable dictionary, although I consider my skill at max 30% under the new language rules. But then I mastered (95% or higher) Read Latin Script at the age of six, applied to German language. Cult Lore: Lhankor Mhy is not a lucky choice for explaining Cult Lore. LM initiates are expected to excel in any lore. Use Issaries instead, and explain their relation to Etyries, the Issarian Arkati, and the numerous other deities Issaries served as merchant or messenger. Oly the example of an enemy cult's lore will be difficult, apart from Prince Snodal and Silence in Umathela I know of no specific antithesis to Issaries. R/W language: a reasoning skill. I learned to read Norwegian from experience only. (I mastered Read Latin Script and Read German and had expert knowledge in Read English, related languages, before, and I had working knowledge of Read Swedish, a similar language. I mastered, i.e. skill>95%, Read German before reaching the age of seven.) R/W script: maybe a knowledge skill, but I can read any alphabet or code given a key and time. And I learn doing this by experience. Is using a dictionary considered the equivalent of training? I'd use it as temporal increase of skill, like a sorcery spell matrix. The various scripts are excellent! The Mostali one settles the question about who invented the concept of zero. p.63f: Reasoning skills: Rename some of the crafts, most urgently Battle. Craft : Full alchemy rules would make the volume explode (pardon me pun), but give a few examples for potions of varying difficulties. And promise (and produce) an upcoming alchemy supplement. Yes, I (a chemist) volunteer to work on it, but not alone. Custom and other culture dependent skills (sing, dance): Make "Custom " default for insider knowledge of a culture, to allow for the "boorish peasant at court or in town" cliche. Crafts: the difficulties are somewhat at odds: Artificer appears in the list as Medium and Hard, is Hard in the list, Medium in the description. I didn't proof-read the rest. p.66: Drive Vehicle: The meta-rule for increased speed for reduced skill should apply here, too. p.67: Perception skills: Feel, Taste, Scent ought to have non-zero base chance for humans. People going blind develop these without Training or research... WRT availability of teachers Feel would be a minor Lanbril and Yinkin cult skill. Scent would be a Yinkin or Telmor cult skill. Taste would be a Geo and Minlister cult skill. I'll comment on magic and combat skills and Instruct later. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14471; Fri, 18 Feb 94 18:05:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17919; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:05:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:05:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:05:17 EST From: Scott Swanson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: unsubscribe rq-playtest Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 16:05:01 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <361B3DC606B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> unsubcribe Thanks Scott scotts@halcyon.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15378; Fri, 18 Feb 94 18:28:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18773; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:28:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:28:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:28:02 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: spirits, high-level combat, B. Gor Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 18:26:14 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <362150222D8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton back. These special combat option things look interesting, but I'm skeptical about using them to fix the dying-of-boredom-in-high-level-combat problem. Someone else already pointed out that it was extra work for the gamemaster, etc., also I prefer actually fixing the root problem to overlaying it with all sorts of fancy new optional rules. As I understand it the problem with high-level combat is that there's no way to get past a defender's parry except for a) battering your way through it with a big weapon, high STR, and lots of magic, or b) waiting for him to screw up his parry on a 96-00 roll. From what extremely little I know about SCA combat this doesn't sound right at all. I remember one maneuver where you try to hook onto your enemy's shield with your own and lever it open so you can get a clear shot, and I would expect there would be lots of other ways to get past a shield without bashing through it. Is that right? Why not make parrying work the way dodging worked in RQ3? When an attack scores a higher level of success than the parry it bypasses the parry. Elric! did something like this. Babeestor Gor-- My dragging Minerva and Mars into the discussion wasn't too helpful. The Axe Trance spell is definitely too much. Was it Ray Turney who said 600 percentiles of weapon skill wouldn't be enough to last in a fight with Jar-Eel? How many would it take? Re: Guy Robinson's comment on spirits How much information is in RQ4 on spirits, the spirit plane, how the spirit plane and mundane plane interact, how binding works, etc.? Considering that the role of the spirit world is one of the defining differences between RuneQuest and other games, and is apt to be a major source of confusion to newcomers (it was to me), there ought to be more detail of how these things work. An example of what not to do is the way binding is described in RQ3. Two types of spirit bindings are described, one binding a spirit into a delimited area and another trapping a spirit in an object with no ability to sense outside it. Then the example given, pitting Cormac vs. the disease spirit, describes a spirit bound into a skull but evi- dently floating around it in a way not covered by any of the rules. I thought that was really annoying.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18703; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:29:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20924; Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:24:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:29:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:24:28 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: spirits, high-level combat, B. Gor Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:25:01 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <36305925610@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Newton back. >Why not make parrying work the way dodging worked in RQ3? When an >attack scores a higher level of success than the parry it bypasses >the parry. Elric! did something like this. Steve Maurer does this in his games; works great. Actually, he has a table describing the effects of various weapon types, but he usually can't find it, or forgets... -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19100; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:40:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21394; Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:39:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:40:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:39:49 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: spirits, high-level combat, B. Gor Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:39:34 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <363470A20BD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney I said 600% wouldn't be enough against Jar-Eel because I tend to assume Jar-Eel pretty much does whatever she wants to do. I make it that she crits each round, or is 2000% or so. More to the point, unless the rest of your powers are also comparable to Beat-Pot or Argrath, Jar-Eel likes to win and would blow you away with magic. Jar-Eel is after all both an incarnation of the Red Goddess and the object of the Moonsword cult in her own right.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19200; Fri, 18 Feb 94 19:41:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21506; Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:41:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:41:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 18 Feb 94 20:41:39 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Herds & Economics Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:41:19 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3634EDA4BE6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes in part: D>Assuming the well-off nomad tends his herd 5 days a week (if he doesn't, >his family will), he's got to have a 1C herd to earn 480L/season. And >let's assume he's in the Bison tribe. A herd bison costs 1A (half of a >riding animal). But a 1C herd is only 16 such herd bison. The herd (50 >cows) is probably a lot closer to 3C. While I don't speak for Sandy, I'll point out that bison are much bigger than domestic cattle (Bos taurus). 16 bison cows are equivalent in mass to about 35 domestic ones.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20076; Sat, 19 Feb 94 00:48:42 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00229; Sat, 19 Feb 94 01:48:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 1:48:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 1:48:26 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "Checks"? Date: 19 Feb 94 01:46:09 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3686C02770B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here, quickly. (A pleasure, Brad). On POW minima, we had an > Objection. from Steve Barnes: > The rules lawyers will quickly notice that they will succeed in > more checks (and thus get more spells/enchantments) by keeping > their power low. What "checks" are these? RQ:AiG has at last abolished the deservedly-hated POW gain roll. Rules lawyers will quickly notice that their crap strategies are hurting bad. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20755; Sat, 19 Feb 94 00:55:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00399; Sat, 19 Feb 94 01:55:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 1:55:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 1:55:03 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Herds & Economics; Languages Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 22:54:59 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3688839104C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here, replying to Carl Fink. > >Assuming the well-off nomad tends his herd 5 days a week (if he doesn't, > >his family will), he's got to have a 1C herd to earn 480L/season. And > >let's assume he's in the Bison tribe. A herd bison costs 1A (half of a > >riding animal). But a 1C herd is only 16 such herd bison. The herd (50 > >cows) is probably a lot closer to 3C. > > While I don't speak for Sandy, I'll point out that bison are much >bigger than domestic cattle (Bos taurus). 16 bison cows are equivalent >in mass to about 35 domestic ones. OK, pretend I'm Wayne Shaw, running non-Gloranthan RQ. Say I've got a Karimojong in Africa herding cattle. A cow or bull actually costs MORE than a bison (it's not clear what a "riding" cow is, as implied on p.103). So a 1C herd represents only 12 cows. Remember, this is nothing like Euro/American dairy herding, this is nomadic pastoralism, where you try to maximize your herds. I don't think 12 cows is anywhere near enough to support a well-off nomad family. If you don't agree the business tables are crocked, I'll try to better explain why. Joerg asked >- Grazelander: If Pol Joni is related to Pentan, Grazelander certainly >is, and both are related, if not similar to each other. Also: are >Grazelander or Beastspeech somehow related (given the rebirth rites >carried out by Ironhoof)? I disbelieve that the Pol Joni speak anything related to Pentan. They come from Sartar and Tarsh, and have outcasts from the Praxians. In my campaign, Custom/Grazer is related to Custom/Pentan, and distantly related to Custom/Sartarite. I imagine the language is the same (many "vendref" words have crept in).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20966; Sat, 19 Feb 94 01:09:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00700; Sat, 19 Feb 94 02:08:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 2:09:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 2:08:45 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "Checks"? Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 23:09:28 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <368C2AD413F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Nick here, quickly. (A pleasure, Brad). > >On POW minima, we had an > >> Objection. > >from Steve Barnes: > >> The rules lawyers will quickly notice that they will succeed in >> more checks (and thus get more spells/enchantments) by keeping >> their power low. > >What "checks" are these? RQ:AiG has at last abolished the deservedly-hated >POW gain roll. Rules lawyers will quickly notice that their crap strategies >are hurting bad. Page 70: "For human adventurers, the POW gain roll can be summarized as: (21 - current POW) * 5%" Is this clear now? The rules eliminate the aquisition of checks by zapping people with spells in combat (a good change, IMHO), but I think you can see why there is some advantage to keeping your POW low. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24684; Sat, 19 Feb 94 03:17:03 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02828; Sat, 19 Feb 94 04:16:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 4:17:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 4:16:47 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: checks Date: 19 Feb 94 04:14:23 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <36AE517696C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. Steve said: > Is this clear now? The rules eliminate the aquisition of checks > by zapping people with spells in combat (a good change, IMHO), > but I think you can see why there is some advantage to keeping > your POW low. And a heck of a lot of disadvantages. Resisting magic with POW not MP makes lowering POW into a mug's game. Let's see your POW 8 priest going up against my POW 16 NPC: my guy doesn't *need* more than one cast of Mindblast (etc.) to incapacitate you, after which the extra runepower you've got stashed away is about as useful as your bank balance at the Temple. Battle magic spell casting chances plummet, for any insane shamans who never fight spirit combats that might be contemplating this. Stuff rules lawyers: they seldom see sense. Chemical castration is probably the kindest solution... I can see what David is getting at on herds, but would like to see the numbers set out in a table (not because I'm an accountant...). Agree completely about Pol-joni language: nothing to do with Pentan (except through tenuous Grazer connection). More likely a hybrid of Sartarite and Praxian. I'll post my commentary on languages here one of these weeks. I think the "root"/"magical"/"elemental" languages should be listed AFTER the proper ones. Agree with Joerg on the uselessness of RQ:AiG's coverage of Holy Country linguistics. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21375; Sat, 19 Feb 94 16:53:42 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24818; Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:53:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:53:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:53:32 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: checks Date: 19 Feb 94 04:14:23 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3788275040F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. Steve said: > Is this clear now? The rules eliminate the aquisition of checks > by zapping people with spells in combat (a good change, IMHO), > but I think you can see why there is some advantage to keeping > your POW low. And a heck of a lot of disadvantages. Resisting magic with POW not MP makes lowering POW into a mug's game. Let's see your POW 8 priest going up against my POW 16 NPC: my guy doesn't *need* more than one cast of Mindblast (etc.) to incapacitate you, after which the extra runepower you've got stashed away is about as useful as your bank balance at the Temple. Battle magic spell casting chances plummet, for any insane shamans who never fight spirit combats that might be contemplating this. Stuff rules lawyers: they seldom see sense. Chemical castration is probably the kindest solution... I can see what David is getting at on herds, but would like to see the numbers set out in a table (not because I'm an accountant...). Agree completely about Pol-joni language: nothing to do with Pentan (except through tenuous Grazer connection). More likely a hybrid of Sartarite and Praxian. I'll post my commentary on languages here one of these weeks. I think the "root"/"magical"/"elemental" languages should be listed AFTER the proper ones. Agree with Joerg on the uselessness of RQ:AiG's coverage of Holy Country linguistics. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08059; Sat, 19 Feb 94 11:31:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15201; Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:30:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:31:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:30:40 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: checks Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 09:31:21 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <37320940D95@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick said: > >Steve said: > >> Is this clear now? The rules eliminate the aquisition of checks >> by zapping people with spells in combat (a good change, IMHO), >> but I think you can see why there is some advantage to keeping >> your POW low. > >And a heck of a lot of disadvantages. Resisting magic with POW not MP makes >lowering POW into a mug's game. Let's see your POW 8 priest going up >against my POW 16 NPC: my guy doesn't *need* more than one cast of >Mindblast (etc.) to incapacitate you, after which the extra runepower >you've got stashed away is about as useful as your bank balance at the >Temple. If my priest is hanging around a temple, getting free POW checks, er, POW gain rolls, then this point becomes moot. Unless this priest is in a war zone, or does a lot of summoning, he/she won't be making very many POW vs POW rolls. If they won't bring back some kind of min. POW requirement, then I suggest some mention in the rules that this is a bad idea, along with reasons why (perhaps a worship ceremony requires a POWx5 roll, for example). -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10013; Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:19:57 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16413; Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:19:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:19:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:19:38 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: spirits, high-level combat, B. Gor Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:14:18 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <373F194500B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I dislike making specials and crits work the same for parries as they do for dodge. This makes a combat even more of a lottery, waiting to see who can manage a special attack. Since even for a difference between 100% and 150% attack, the difference is only manifest on average one round in ten, it's still pretty much a "who does it first" as it is with waiting for autfail. You just have less time to wait. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09983; Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:18:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16381; Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:18:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:18:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:18:37 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: More nits Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:16:29 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <373ED473391@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: David Dunham >> Subject: More nits in RQ:AiG (magic) >> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 20:59:29 PST >> >> I think you're going to have to include a complete cult. From this book >> alone, it's impossible to tell what's meant by a cult. I suggest using >> Seven Mothers (it's fairly straightforward, and fairly short since most of Seven Mothers is also the cult of the example character, Arlia. Makes more sense to use her cult than another. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10294; Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:31:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16876; Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:31:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:31:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:30:53 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "Checks"? Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:25:35 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <374219C7350@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke says that RQ:AiG has abolished the POW gain roll. Not so. RQ:AiG has merely changed the mechanism of awarding the POW gain roll. Previously, one got a POW gain roll whenever one magically or spiritually onvercame somthing in a non-trivial situation. Now, one is awarded a POW gain roll at random intervals depending on how magically active the GM thinks your character has been. Personally, I think this is a bad change. It is easy, whenever a character overcomes with spell or spirit combat, for the GM to determine if the situation was trivial or non-trivial. The decision is made, and the game moves on. Now, the GM is required to keep track of when the last time the character got a POW check was, and how much the character has done magically since then. This requires constant observation and monitoring on the GM's part. Lest you think I am underestimating the abilities of GMs everywhere, in our last session, using the playtest rules, our GM awarded a POW check to a character who had not even successfully cast a spell! I think the new rules are much too high-maintenance, as the proposed method of differentiating among the various difficulties of skills is. It is much simpler to give good guidelines for a GM to award POW checks, and likely for the GM to be able to follow them, than to require a GM to keep constant track of the magical activities of a large number of char- acters. I think the net result will be that either everyone will get POW chacks at the same frequency whatever their level of magical activity, or no one will ever get POW checks at all. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12047; Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:16:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18335; Sat, 19 Feb 94 14:16:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 14:16:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 14:15:55 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Special Combat Options, Fatigue Rules Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 14:10:31 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <374E1C63BEA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A few thoughts here on combat for highly-skilled characters, and the current proposed method of handling fatigue. These two subjects are very closely related, and it will all get tied up at the end. First, the current system of special tactics, which is not terribly different from the one in the 2.0 draft, is really not very useful at all. In the campaign in which I was invvolved which was playtesting those rules, we had characters that had many special options: Flurry, Aimed Blow, Feint, etc. (that is, we had many characters each of whom had a special option). Overall, most of these were completely useless, and were not employed to any positive effect. The main problem that most of these have is that the effect you achieve is *much* less desirable than the ordinary result from a special hit. Flurry isn't too useful; you special your attack, but only do normal damage, which can't get through your opponents parry; then you get *another* attack, which your opponent again parries (since it's coming from the same weapon), and you still don't do any damage. Ho hum. Similarly, it doesn't matter being able to specify what location you hit if you can't get through your opponent's shield, and being able to riposte is only useful if your parrying weapon is also your attacking weapon, in which case your opponent will be able to parry it anyway, since he probably parried it the first time you attacked. Feint was very useful in the 2.0 draft, which is probably why it was toned done in RQ:AiG, and Prepared Fire was also useful, and surprise, it was removed. For a special tactic to be useful, it must in some way improve the effectiveness of the user's attack (or parry), which almost none of these do. My proposal is that you have the option of reducing your attack percentage in return for in some other way increasing the effectiveness of your attack. You could have a large number of these, most corresponding to the existing special options. For a Feint, you could lower your opponent's Parry or Dodge chance by 1% for every 2% by which you reduce your attack. For Aimed Blow, you could gain the ability to change the rolled hit location by one for every 10 or 20% by which you reduce your attack. You could increase the damage you do 1 for every 10 or 20%, etc., etc. Similarly, you could have special tactics for Parry (say, increase the effective armor points of theparrying weapon by 1 for each 10% or 20%) and Missile (same as Aimed Blow, and also increase the range by some number of meters for each 10% reduction in skill). These special options would be useful, because they would make combat more interesting tactically (since it is sometimes actually *useful* to use a special tactic), and they would also give a reasonable advantage to characters with skills over 100%. Right now, in a combat between two characters, one with a 100% skill, and the other with a 150% skill, there is only ever a difference in the results about 13% or the time (for rolls of 6-8 and 21-30). Compare that to the difference betwwen 75% and 100%, which comes up 27% of the time (5, 16-20, 76-95, 00), more than twice as often! Is the difference betwwen 150% and 100% only half as important as the difference between 75% and 100%? Currently it is, and I think this is a bad thing. These special options would allow a character to put their extremely high skill levels to good use, rather than watching them lie around the house, watching TV and eating junk food. Let's talk a little bit about fatigue now. The proposed method enforcing fatigue penalties has drawn many objections, which I shall summarise here. First, it's a new mechanic. I find it surprising that a new mechanic would be proposed for fatigue, since elsewhere a unified approach to mechanics has been emphasized, as in a low roll is always better, etc. I think even those who proposed this fatigue mechanic would agree that sticking to the same mechanic would be desirable if it could achieve our goal. Secondly, it lessens further the already narrow gap between very highly skilled characters and everyone else. Suppose our three characters above, with skills of 75%, 100%, and 150% are all fatigued. Previously, the difference between the first two manifested 27% of the time, and between the second two 13% of the time. If they are all fatigued to the 10% level (not unlikely if they are wearing helmets and armor), then the first character would critical only on a roll of 01, special on a 02-05, succeed on a 06-65, and fumble on a 89-00. The second would crit, special, succeed and fumble on 01, 02-10, 11-85, and 90-00, and the third on 01, 02-20, 21-85, and 90-00. So now the difference between the first two is 26%, and between the second and third is 10%. So, not only does this reduce the difference between fighters based on skill, but it reduces it more for highly skilled fighters, where there is less difference in the first place! Now, what was the motivation for using a different mechanic for fatigue? Oliver mentioned just recently that it was that skill minuses had less effect on highly skilled fighters than on others. Now, let's examine exactly what this statement means. Suppose you had a -20% skill modifier due to fatigue. Oliver says this would hurt a 75% fighter more than it would hurt a 150% fighter. In other words, the difference between a 55% skill and a 75% skill is *greater* than the difference between a 130% skill and a 150% skill! So the problem here *isn't* that fatigue needs a new mechanic, but rather that the difference between skills at high level need to be made more meaningful. Let's say we are using the combat options listed above, and are using straight skill penalties for fatigue. Suppose our 150% fighter gets tired, and now has a 20% penalty to his skill. Previously, he may have been lowering his opponent's parry chance by 25%, and still attacking with a 100% attack. Now, since he only has an effective 130% attack, he can't do that any more, adn can only lower it be 15%, or add 1 (or 3) to the damage he does, or modify his hit location roll by 3 (or 1) instead of 5 (or 2). So, by instituting combat special actions which allow a character to trade off between skill percentage and other effects, not only do we make very highly skilled characters correspondingly more effective in combat, but we *also* make negative skill modifiers meaningful for highly skilled characters, so we can use the same mechanic for fatigue as we do for disadvantageous ground and darkness. So, two problems that on the surface don't seem that closely related (the meaninglessness of high skills and the kludginess of using a different mechanic for fatigue) not only spring from the same source, but both can be solved with the introduction of a single element, ie the special combat options I discussed above. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14680; Sat, 19 Feb 94 14:26:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20539; Sat, 19 Feb 94 15:26:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 15:26:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 15:26:08 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Jakaleel Notes Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 15:26:05 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3760D6C1CF2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. here. I will post the Jakaleel notes to the RQ Digest, along with some other things that I think are of general interest, rather than on this list. This will have to wait at least until tomorrow, as my files are resident on a computer undergoing a software upgrade today. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20187; Sat, 19 Feb 94 16:33:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24259; Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:33:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:33:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:33:15 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: POW checks; herds Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 14:33:06 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3782BCC43A1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Nick said: >What "checks" are these? RQ:AiG has at last abolished the deservedly-hated >POW gain roll. Rules lawyers will quickly notice that their crap strategies >are hurting bad. Actually, the POW gain roll is still there. What's lacking are POW checks. Now the GM has to fudge the whole thing, which I hate. The old system may have been prone to some abuse "Ooh, looks like we're winning, guess I'll try my Disrupt," but the new one puts the entire burden (not only to be subjective, but also to keep records of who's active and who's not!) on the GM and gives no real guidelines. (George put this well.) >I can see what David is getting at on herds, but would like to see the >numbers set out in a table (not because I'm an accountant...). Agree >completely about Pol-joni language: nothing to do with Pentan (except >through tenuous Grazer connection). More likely a hybrid of Sartarite and >Praxian. I'll post my commentary on languages here one of these weeks. What do you mean, in a table? It already is in a table. Dividing all yield/profit value in the existing table by 3 works out fairly nicely. Or do you mean numbers other than the existing ones?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09046; Sun, 20 Feb 94 07:28:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14130; Sun, 20 Feb 94 08:24:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 8:26:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 8:24:21 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Special Combat Options, Fatigue Rules Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 01:15:36 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <387064643B8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. > A few thoughts here on combat for highly-skilled > characters, and the current proposed method of handling fatigue. Bravo, George! > First, the current system of special tactics, which is > not terribly different from the one in the 2.0 draft, is really > not very useful at all. In the campaign in which I was invvolved > which was playtesting those rules, we had characters that had > many special options: Flurry, Aimed Blow, Feint, etc. (that is, > we had many characters each of whom had a special option). > Overall, most of these were completely useless, and were not > employed to any positive effect. My thoughts exactly. If they could be learned as a lore skill (like martial arts) or a ki skill, they'd make a lot more sense than in the current form. > The main problem that most of these have is that the > effect you achieve is *much* less desirable than the ordinary > result from a special hit. [Examples deleted] This is very true. > For a special tactic to be useful, it must in some way > improve the effectiveness of the user's attack (or parry), which > almost none of these do. My proposal is that you have the option > of reducing your attack percentage in return for in some other > way increasing the effectiveness of your attack. I don't think this is the general way to go. If the special options were learned as separate skills, the first thing a fatigued character (simple skill substraction as fatigue effect assumed) would lose would be his special options (skills a weapons master would have developed to maybe 50%), which need his full concentration. > Let's talk a little bit about fatigue now. The proposed > method enforcing fatigue penalties has drawn many objections, > which I shall summarise here. First, it's a new mechanic. I > find it surprising that a new mechanic would be proposed for > fatigue, since elsewhere a unified approach to mechanics has been > emphasized, as in a low roll is always better, etc. I think even > those who proposed this fatigue mechanic would agree that > sticking to the same mechanic would be desirable if it could > achieve our goal. Secondly, it lessens further the already > narrow gap between very highly skilled characters and everyone > else. > Now, what was the motivation for using a different > mechanic for fatigue? Oliver mentioned just recently that it was > that skill minuses had less effect on highly skilled fighters > than on others. [Example deleted] > So the problem here *isn't* that > fatigue needs a new mechanic, but rather that the difference > between skills at high level need to be made more meaningful. Too true. Why not use a straight negative modifier which does reduce attack skill and special combat skill simltaneously? Low skilled characters lose their attack chance; medium skilled characters lose their (low) special options almost at once, their attack skill still is significantly lowered; masters maybe lose some percentiles from their to hit, but their special options are significantly lowered. Truly heroic characters will have their special option success chance lowered from 100. Characters who exceed even this level are so heroic that fatigue won't harm them. > So, two problems that on the surface don't seem that > closely related (the meaninglessness of high skills and the > kludginess of using a different mechanic for fatigue) not only > spring from the same source, but both can be solved with the > introduction of a single element, ie the special combat options I > discussed above. With my proposal, the only question is when and to whom special combat options are taught, and by whom. Of course, any advanced combat would be dominated by special options. Would this be a bad thing? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01781; Sun, 20 Feb 94 03:13:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07683; Sun, 20 Feb 94 04:11:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 4:13:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 4:11:02 EST From: guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: "CHE Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 21:53:43 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <382CD447342@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Having used all three previous versions of RQ rules, it seems to me I like the proposed version not as much as any one of them, based on what little I've heard so far. (I didn't get to RQ-CON, so I don't have any real details. It seems to me that you're trying to put in WAY too much detail, at the cos of playability; I don't want RQ to become another version of C&S. I'd probably buy it for all the new Glorantha info, but would keep playing RQ3. RPGs are abstractions, anyway; why do we need the Hard/Soft skill thing? If you try to cram every little thing into the rules, you end up bogging down play. Glorantha needs more sourcebooks, not more rules. (There. Bet THAT ticks some people off). Still, I'm waiting anxiously to see it. --Guy Hoyle guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13404; Sun, 20 Feb 94 09:45:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16165; Sun, 20 Feb 94 10:42:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 10:44:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 10:41:58 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 07:41:47 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <389518321F0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> [discussion on POW checks: overcoming opponent's MP vs. GM's "discretion"] I agree that a POW gain system which relies on the GM's discretion exclusively is a Bad Thing. Imagine if the only stated mechanic for skill increase was "if the GM feels that the skill has been active, a check is given". While a GM can and should give out skill checks whenever she feels them warranted, having the mechanic of "success under stress allows a check" is *very* convenient for the GM. So, how about a POW check whenever the character crits a magic roll? And should this include critting MP vs MP resistance rolls? (I say, sure.) Dustin (dustin@ocf.berkeley.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17619; Sun, 20 Feb 94 11:31:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18483; Sun, 20 Feb 94 12:29:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 12:31:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 12:28:56 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 09:29:42 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <38B19FE4979@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. >Dustin (dustin@ocf.berkeley.edu) >[discussion on POW checks: overcoming opponent's MP vs. GM's "discretion"] > >I agree that a POW gain system which relies on the GM's discretion exclusively >is a Bad Thing. Imagine if the only stated mechanic for skill increase was >"if the GM feels that the skill has been active, a check is given". While >a GM can and should give out skill checks whenever she feels them warranted, >having the mechanic of "success under stress allows a check" is *very* >convenient for the GM. Again, I have to disagree. This is a Good Thing. In the old system, if my character ever wants to increase his POW, then I have to cast spells in combat (or engage in the less common spirit combat). This means that at some point in the battle, I *have* to cast a spell at someone. Often, this is some useless disruption spell cast at the start of the battle. This is blatent check-mongering, but the old rules require it. My interpretation of the new system is that the GM simply decides how magically active your character is. For example, if you are a priest or shaman, constantly casting magic, you will get 10 checks a year. Less active, maybe 8 or five. Characters that never cast spells might only get one a year, if they are initiates. This doesn't seem very work intensive to me, although I can see that this kind of arbitrary ruling does open the GM up to potential whining from the players for more checks. >So, how about a POW check whenever the character crits a magic roll? >And should this include critting MP vs MP resistance rolls? (I say, sure.) This also encourages characters to cast spells during games, just on the off chance that they can get a check. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21561; Sun, 20 Feb 94 12:43:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20926; Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:41:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:43:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:41:46 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 10:41:39 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <38C50E607BA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> [Steve Barnes wrote, defending the "GM arbitrarily gives POW checks" system, which, actually, barely seems formal enough to be called a "system", but...] The problem is, if a "magically active" character gets 10 POW checks a year, and someone who is "less active" gets, say, 4 POW checks, how does a GM decide? Like I said, if skill checks were left to this, there would be an uproar. I agree that POW check systems have seemed kludgy in the past, but I think that the main reason for this is that there has never been any CULTURAL reflection of the "POW ecology" inherent in past rules. If characters exist in a world where POW ("the strength of your soul",etc.) increases by overcoming opponents with magic, then that knowledge *will* be inherent in the way those people think about magic and the universe. Thus, in a world where this operates, it would make sense *to the character* to throw some offensive magic around sometimes, for this very purpose. "The way you make your soul stronger is by defeating your enemies magically." If we're going to move away from the "overcoming enemies makes you strong" mechanic of POW checks (which is actually fine by me), and towards a method which takes into account a character's "overall magical activity", I think we need a way to *quantify* this activity. Otherwise, how active is active? I suspect you'll start finding GMs who give POW checks at the end of every adventure to any character who cast a spell, and GMs who give 1 POW check/year to heavy spell-users, and none to everybody else. There are no guidelines. This is why I like the idea of giving POW checks when a magic roll is a crit. It provides a *measure* of magical activity. But I reiterate, ANY system of granting POW checks needs to be reflected in the culture, because it is important enough in the lives of the characters to be noticed and become part of common(?) knowledge about how the world works. Whew, Dustin (dustin@ocf.berkeley.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25234; Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:46:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23433; Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:45:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:46:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:45:45 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: "CHE Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 11:39:35 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <38D61D6754C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Sat, 19 Feb 1994 guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org wrote: > Having used all three previous versions of RQ rules, it seems to me I like the > proposed version not as much as any one of them, based on what little I've > heard so far. (I didn't get to RQ-CON, so I don't have any real details. Really, I think that the areas of general agreement far outweigh the subset of issues debated. The RQ engine needs tuning if the market is to support it ... > play. Glorantha needs more sourcebooks, not more rules. > (There. Bet THAT ticks some people off). > I absolutely agree that Glorantha needs sourcebooks, not rules. But there's no Glorantha sourcebooks unless there's an RQ market. RQ:AIG is, to at least this reader of the product, a huge step in the right direction so that there will be a market to support Sartar packs, Lunar campaigns, etc. Judging RQ:AIG without reading it and based solely on this forum is not fair to the product. If I had only learned about Yale from a group of committed alumni talking about its problems and how to address them, I would never have gone there. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26445; Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:56:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23814; Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:56:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:56:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:55:50 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 11:48:49 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <38D8CE8009D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Sun, 20 Feb 1994, Steven E Barnes wrote: > Again, I have to disagree. This is a Good Thing. In the old system, > if my character ever wants to increase his POW, then I have to cast > spells in combat (or engage in the less common spirit combat). This > means that at some point in the battle, I *have* to cast a spell at > someone. Often, this is some useless disruption spell cast at the > start of the battle. This is blatent check-mongering, but the old > rules require it. > >So, how about a POW check whenever the character crits a magic roll? > >And should this include critting MP vs MP resistance rolls? (I say, sure.) > > This also encourages characters to cast spells during games, just > on the off chance that they can get a check. I'm completely with Steve on this one. I think the rules should be designed to avoid silly but obvious minimaxing strategies, such as weapon caddies and pointless spell casting for power gain. Magical actions should feel magical, not part of the numbers game. If people don't want the GM to have that much discretion, then they shouldn't be playing with that GM -- who has far more awesome life or death powers than the POW roll. Really, the GMing chapter should address this. I really have only two primary rules of GMing: (1) Find out what my players really want out of the campaign; and (2) set up a challenging, but fair, way for them to get it. I like the new POW rules because it causes players to think in long-term planning, rather than tactical choices dictated by character sheet advancement. --Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26193; Sun, 20 Feb 94 13:51:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23698; Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:51:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:51:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 20 Feb 94 14:51:42 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: POW checks Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 11:51:32 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <38D7B3D3CFB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Guy wrote: >It seems to me that you're trying to put in WAY too much detail, at the cos of >playability; I don't want RQ to become another version of C&S. > I'd probably buy it for all the new Glorantha info, but would keep playing >RQ3. RPGs are abstractions, anyway; why do we need the Hard/Soft skill thing? Well, RQ2 had them, only worse. >If you try to cram every little thing into the rules, you end up bogging down >play. Glorantha needs more sourcebooks, not more rules. > (There. Bet THAT ticks some people off). Not me -- I think the game should be simpler. RQ:AiG removed the POW check. The reasoning seemed to be two-fold: 1) POW improvement was too fast 2) It was open to abuse: "All the enemies are unconscious, now let's Disrupt them to death." The current approach is way too vague. As Dustin put it, >The problem is, if a "magically active" character gets 10 POW checks a year, >and someone who is "less active" gets, say, 4 POW checks, how does a GM >decide? Like I said, if skill checks were left to this, there would be >an uproar. Steven Barnes described the current draft: >My interpretation of the new system is that the GM simply decides >how magically active your character is. The difficulty here is the word "simply." It's obvious that a shaman or priest gets 10 POW gains a year. And obvious that someone who never casts spells gets only 1 POW gain roll a year. The problem is with people in between. "Adventurers that (sic) occasionally cast spells or engage in magical activities or struggles should be issued 5 POW gain rolls a year." How often is occasionally? If I cast a Light spell every night to read a scroll, does that get me 6 POW gain rolls a year? What if I start all my fires with Ignite, am I up to 7? My proposal is, like for skill checks, for the GM to award POW checks (I'd restore the check) when appropriate. (The GM could for instance decide that any critical MP vs POW roll is worth a check, and could hand out others.) Every 4 weeks, anyone who had a check would roll for it. This allows the GM some control over the abusive situations, but gives her a mechanical aid to figuring out who's active or not. And no matter what, nobody would get more than 10 POW gains/year.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18907; Sat, 19 Feb 94 22:22:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02233; Sat, 19 Feb 94 23:21:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 19 Feb 94 23:22:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 19 Feb 94 23:21:54 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Special Combat Options, Fatigue. Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 15:18:56 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <37DFB7F5FF0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell here, I'd just like to add my support to George Harris' ideas about Special Combat Options and Fatigue; I especially agree that the new combat options that only activate on specials don't really solve the problem of undervalued high value skills. Axe Trance: If we were to keep the spell the way it is, how about an emotional effect, like most of the other Trance/Beserk type spell. "The character becomes obsessed by the idea of destroying/killing with her axe: when a valid opponent (something they can kill with the axe) is seen she must match her Pow vs the number of MP stacked with the Axe trance or be compelled to try to kill it. There is no need to make a roll if the character would want to kill the opponent anyway. If the target is a Earth worshipper then you get +10 to your POW for the purposes of making the roll. The roll need only be made once per opponent during the duration of the spell." The effect of this is that Axe trances with 1-5 points are usually safe to cast around the typical party but a value higher than this (up to the the power of the BG) can only be safely used protecting an earth temple or in a party of earth worshippers. Spells stacked with more MP than the BG's power are dangerous to everyone. Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00598; Mon, 21 Feb 94 01:06:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17995; Mon, 21 Feb 94 02:05:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 2:06:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 2:05:37 EST From: "Andrew J. Weill" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 22:54:59 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <398B6DC50A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Sun, 20 Feb 1994, David Dunham wrote: > My proposal is, like for skill checks, for the GM to award POW checks (I'd > restore the check) when appropriate. (The GM could for instance decide that > any critical MP vs POW roll is worth a check, and could hand out others.) > Every 4 weeks, anyone who had a check would roll for it. This allows the GM > some control over the abusive situations, but gives her a mechanical aid to > figuring out who's active or not. And no matter what, nobody would get more > than 10 POW gains/year. > My problem with this is that it will distort game behavior. Players will go out of their way to do what gains them the POW gain roll -- not for any cultural reason or story reason, but simply to get the check. That's exactly what the new rule eliminates. I like it for a number of reasons, but mostly because it means that those for whom magic use is a common event, POW gain is more certain. Electing the priesthood at an early age will have some definite advantages (and disadvantages) compared to other professions... and that is as it should be, IMHO. But I think your idea is a great mechanic and should be in the GMing chapter as one way to tailor the rules to suit individual taste. I think it will create another style of game which is closer to the older versions of RQ. ---Andy Weill  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04357; Mon, 21 Feb 94 02:47:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19577; Mon, 21 Feb 94 03:47:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 3:47:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 3:46:49 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 00:46:37 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <39A66C67292@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Andy Weill responded to me: >> My proposal is, like for skill checks, for the GM to award POW checks (I'd >> restore the check) when appropriate. (The GM could for instance decide that >> any critical MP vs POW roll is worth a check, and could hand out others.) >> Every 4 weeks, anyone who had a check would roll for it. This allows the GM >> some control over the abusive situations, but gives her a mechanical aid to >> figuring out who's active or not. And no matter what, nobody would get more >> than 10 POW gains/year. >> >My problem with this is that it will distort game behavior. Players will >go out of their way to do what gains them the POW gain roll -- not for >any cultural reason or story reason, but simply to get the check. That's >exactly what the new rule eliminates. I like it for a number of reasons, >but mostly because it means that those for whom magic use is a common >event, POW gain is more certain. Electing the priesthood at an early age >will have some definite advantages (and disadvantages) compared to other >professions... and that is as it should be, IMHO. Any distortion would only happen twice every season. And since the GM hands out the check, much of the distortion is eliminated. >But I think your idea is a great mechanic and should be in the GMing >chapter as one way to tailor the rules to suit individual taste. I think it >will create another style of game which is closer to the older versions >of RQ. It's possible to fix the current problem another way: simply state that priests, shamans, and adepts get POW gain rolls 10 times per year, everyone else who casts spells gets them 5 times a year. Don't tantalize us with this possibility of getting them slightly more often -- there'd still be behavior distortion.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18254; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:14:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27403; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:14:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:14:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:14:26 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: How to portray cults in RQ:AiG Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 02:17:05 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A5DD152A94@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here: First off I'd like to lend my support for the Seven Mothers Cults to be covered in full, within the Divine Magic chapter. An example of a complete cult would be usefull along with it's reduced format version to show people how they can expand on or summarise any given cult. Referees should be encouraged to invent information about Glorantha for themselves and good examples should exist for people to base their extensions on. It might also be wise to assume that one path people will try to follow is to attempt not to buy Gods of Glorantha. Further more I feel that the thumbnail cult descriptions should be changed in both format and location. The format should be expanded to present the cult skills in the character generation format, so people can easily see the skills these cults will teach them on initiation. More roleplaying information detailing the cult's social role should be provided so choosing a cult is not an issue of seeking the best Battle Magic choices. For I am also suggesting that these thumbnails are moved to the character generation chapter so each culture section can be used as the focus for issues describing that culture. Cult thumbnails that do not fit into any given culture should remain in the Divine Magic chapter, but preferably with the same format as I'm proposing: more roleplaying info and cult skills in the character generation format. There should be information for each culture for the Zero option where a character does not join a cult. One of my players for the Sartar background choose this path and I finding a way to cover this was difficult. To support this option I would recommend that in some of the possessions tables, especially in cultures with easier access to shamans, there should be the opportunity to buy Battle Magic with Wealth options. Maybe the process could be helped by buying a shaman as a Contact, Friend or Ally. Prehaps buying the shaman at the level of Ally would allow the character to be considered as a member of the tribe for the purpose of paying for spells. If I was a herder I would seriously consider investing a cow or two in for some well choosen Life Magic (my pet alternative for Personal Magic) spells. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16356; Mon, 21 Feb 94 08:31:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01278; Mon, 21 Feb 94 09:31:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 9:31:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 9:31:02 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Dunham's Sorcerous Nits. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 9:30:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A023A97BB8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hmmm. The title to this message sound like some really dumb D&D spell. More useful than Bigby's Obscene Gesture, I guess. David Dunham wrote: 167 Duration and Range are quite wimpy. It's almost pointless using either (beyond maybe a couple points for convenience) without POW. I suggest using the RQ3 tables, with the current limits. This means someone with Duration 100% could cast a week-long spell, and if she had Range 100%, she could teleport 10 km. This doesn't seem outrageous. If POW made things 100 times as long, it would still be only around 2 years or 1000 km, both of which are well within the RQ3 table for sorcerers with high Free INT. I absolutely could not agree more. I also recall others who, within the past month, have pointed out that the POW costs for long duration really stuffs sorcery. The manuscript has a lot of confusion over proper use of "that" and "who/whom" also. "The adventurer *who*...." not "The adventurer *that*..." Oliver et. al: I am slowly carving my way through the ms. Who should I mail a marked-up copy to? Mike Dawson >|< -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information aboout Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" ----------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09663; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:09:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11541; Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:09:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:09:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:09:15 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Special Combat Options, Fatigue Rules Date: 21 Feb 1994 10:10:55 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A9C6D202B9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> George Harris makes a very good argument for his version of special combat options in combination with straight minuses for fatigue rolls. Previously, the dice adds seemed fine to me, but this is a persuasive argument and it brings up one more issue for me. For the GM it's very hard to keep track of things that happen every X number of rounds. The fatigue roll, if it is used, happens every X number of rounds. How about we change it, and combine it with another optional rule, the botch, to resolve both this problem and the problem we had with skilled characters getting fatigued as quickly as greenhorns. Every time you roll a botch in combat (or another physical action) you must check fatigue. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09648; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:09:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11554; Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:09:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:09:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:09:36 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: 21 Feb 1994 10:21:42 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A9C8544551@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The problem as I see it is that changing the mechanicism for POW gain won't stop minimaxing. Instead of forcing characters to learn disrupt or another offensive spell as with the old rules, and then forcing them to cast spells in combat, the new rule will force them to cast all of their MP every day so they are "highly" magically active. I applaud the idea behind this rules change but don't think that it actually works. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21770; Mon, 21 Feb 94 09:46:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07277; Mon, 21 Feb 94 10:46:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 10:46:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 10:46:04 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Dunham's Sorcerous nits Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 10:45:28 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A163D83A89@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Forwarded message: >From Mail_System@sa750.rl.ac.uk Mon Feb 21 10:11:38 1994 Via: uk.ac.rutherford.savax750; Mon, 21 Feb 1994 14:36:05 +0000 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:37 BST From: Mail_System@sa750.rl.ac.uk To: ECO0KKN Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %% Your mail was not delivered as follows: %MAIL-E-SENDERR, error sending to user MAB -MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output -RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed -SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, disk quota exceeded %MAIL-E-SENDERR, error sending to user MAB -MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output -RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed -SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, disk quota exceeded Your original mail header and message follow. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:36 BST Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP id ; Mon, 21 Feb 1994 14:35:22 +0000 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01278; Mon, 21 Feb 94 09:31:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 9:31:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 9:31:02 EST From: eco0kkn@edu.vcu.cabell (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: RQ4 Playtest Discussion Subject: Dunham's Sorcerous Nits. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 9:30:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@edu.upenn.wharton.marketing Original-Sender: Listserv@edu.upenn.wharton.marketing X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A023A97BB8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Sender: eco0kkn@edu.vcu.cabell Hmmm. The title to this message sound like some really dumb D&D spell. More useful than Bigby's Obscene Gesture, I guess. David Dunham wrote: 167 Duration and Range are quite wimpy. It's almost pointless using either (beyond maybe a couple points for convenience) without POW. I suggest using the RQ3 tables, with the current limits. This means someone with Duration 100% could cast a week-long spell, and if she had Range 100%, she could teleport 10 km. This doesn't seem outrageous. If POW made things 100 times as long, it would still be only around 2 years or 1000 km, both of which are well within the RQ3 table for sorcerers with high Free INT. I absolutely could not agree more. I also recall others who, within the past month, have pointed out that the POW costs for long duration really stuffs sorcery. The manuscript has a lot of confusion over proper use of "that" and "who/whom" also. "The adventurer *who*...." not "The adventurer *that*..." Oliver et. al: I am slowly carving my way through the ms. Who should I mail a marked-up copy to? Mike Dawson >|< -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information aboout Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" ---------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End of returned mail -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information about Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" . ------------------------------------------------------/_\  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06304; Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:12:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17697; Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:57:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:06:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:57:08 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Special Combat Tactics Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:51:37 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A3931F5A54@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> In response to an earlier message of mine advocating the mechanic of trading off one's weapon skill for some other factor (eg added damage) in the attack for special combat tactics, Jeorg Baumgartner (I hope I didn't mangle that too badly) suggested as an alternative having special tactics be reasoning skills, which one uses in conjunction with weapon skills to achieve increased efficacy in the same manner. While I think this is a laudable system, certainly superior to the one presented in the playtest draft, I have a major reservation. In the system I suggest, the ability of a combatant to employ a special tactic is directly related to his combat skill. Someone with a 180% attack and parry could use those percentages to fuel the special tactics and get added damage, greater control over where they hit their opponent, or lessen their opponent's chance to successfully defend against the attack. If, however, this combatant switched to a secondary weapon in which his skill was, say, no greater than 95%, then he could no longer use the special tactics without otherwise lessening his fighting ability. My method also maintains a hard distinction between fighters of varying ability at high skill levels, so if two combatants, one with skills of about 120% and another with skills of about 180% were to met, there would be no more doubt about the outcome than if they had respective skills of 40% and 80%. With Jeorg's method, however, presumably one could use a special tactic skill with any weapon one is trained in, so a fighter's ability to use these options would not vary if he switched from the 180% attack to the 95% attack. Moreover, if two fighters, one with skill 120% and the other 180% in their respective weapons, but both with, say, 50% in the special tactic skill, then the outcome would be no more clearcut than under the current system. So I feel that the system I propose is preferably because a) it gives more highly skilled fighters a significant advantage over those with skills <100%, b) it draws strong distinctions between fighters who both have very high skills. For those who object to the first point, I would say that ordinarily a fighter with skills ~100% can beat the living shit out of one with skills ~50%, so why is it a problem when a fighter with skills ~150% can do the same to a fighter wiht skills ~100%? To the second, well, I don't think that the idea that skills plateau at such a low level is valid, and the ordinarily non-random outcomes of professional boxing matches supports my conclusion. A fighter would not win 48 fights in a row if his opponents had essentially the same chance of winning the fight. So, distinctions of skill at high levels is desirable from the standpoint of believability. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16883; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:03:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26659; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:02:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:02:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:02:20 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: What my 15 year-old stepson though of RQ:AiG Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:02:29 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A5A970477D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I involved my 15 year old step-son in a session of character generation last Friday with two experienced gamers and when I woke up on Saturday I discovered that he had generated 3 more characters over night which included an Expert level Priest with the Divine Spell Worship ! Essentially the character generation is simple enough for a young adult providing someone explains the essentials to him. During the character generation session I made sure that I sat on the arm of his chair to talk him through issues and brought everyones attention to the trickier areas. He was able to extrapolate from what I had showed him, selecting Contact from the Possessions table, for example, but was unable to spot the way skill and spells are made more specific. For example Worship and Attack remained in that format but admittedly I did not cover that during the character generation session on Friday. He attempted to read the introduction but found that he could not understand a word! This does not bode well for the younger market with scant exposure to roleplaying and no exposure to Glorantha. He was unable to make use of cult skills although other than listing Cult Skills on his character sheet, despite being able to choose Cult and Divine Magic. This is one of the reasons why I recommend that the format of cults be changed. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07630; Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:30:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19888; Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:30:00 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:30:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:29:58 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Got my copy of RQ:AiG this week. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:29:44 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A41F3033D7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I got my copy, read it through, am composing adverts to attract a playtest group (Cornell gamers are a CONSERVATIVE, snobbish gaming crowd! If they haven't played it for 80zillion years, they don't think it's worth looking at, except for the Vampire weenies, and they would rather sneer than try something new.). Anyway, I'll post comments on my read-through today.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08413; Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:41:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20891; Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:41:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:41:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:41:00 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: even some more nitpicks Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:40:53 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A44E690E0C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> 89 What skill bonus category (if any) are combat tactics in? 89 A player who successfully used a Flurry thought he got an experience check and could go up. I don't see that as being the case, since you never roll for the tactic. [I dislike the current skill-based tactics, in part because of the two questions above. It's confusing to have skills you don't roll for (let's not get into Sorcery). It's also a pain to have two Special chances to compute -- only one of which is affected by weapon magic. So I propose that tactics simply be treated as Hard skills with 0% base for learning purposes -- 10 days of instruction, 40 days of practice, or 160 days of research. Once you've done this, all your specials are tactical.] 112 Curses "are typically the domain of exotic ritual magic." That's hardly the case. Exotic to a priest, perhaps, but not to a shaman ("a common ritual of cursing") or sorcerer. (So why don't priests get Bless or Curse?) 130 It's probably worth mentioning that many cults have spirits of reprisal. 131 If my cult limits initiates to Bladesharp 2, does anything prevent me from going to a shaman and learning Bladesharp 8? If I already knew Bladesharp 8, would I have to forget it before becoming an initiate? I think the answers are no, and the "Limits to Cult Magic" should add the words "from the cult" to clarify. 165 The culture types "primitive," "nomad," and "barbarian" are mentioned. They aren't described in this work. I sincerely hope they are, because a) Glorantha: Genertela depended heavily on them; b) they were one of the brilliant organizational successes of RQ3. 171 Paslac's Blessing doubles AP "when the item is touched by the devotee." This is unclear. Does the blessing begin when an item is touched, and the blessed item can be used by someone else? Or is the item only blessed while held by the Paslac devotee who called for the blessing? I decided that one character could use his Horse Lore to train his warhorse to fight [there are no horse training rules]. Successful Horse Lore means that Rear & Plunge increases at the rate of a practiced Hard skill. If he fails Horse Lore, the horse increases at the rate of a researched Hard skill. Now that he has a trained horse, he wants it to go up from experience. I'm not convinced that Fixed INT creatures learn skills from experience. Of course, no rule covers this. Mike Dawson said >The manuscript has a lot of confusion over proper use of "that" and >"who/whom" also. "The adventurer *who*...." not "The adventurer >*that*..." Ah, I'm not the only one who cringes while reading the MS. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17248; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:06:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26915; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:06:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:06:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:05:51 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 20:41:54 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A5B8631BDF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. Dustin writes: > [Steve Barnes wrote, defending the "GM arbitrarily gives POW checks" system, > which, actually, barely seems formal enough to be called a "system", but...] > The problem is, if a "magically active" character gets 10 POW checks a year, > and someone who is "less active" gets, say, 4 POW checks, how does a GM > decide? Like I said, if skill checks were left to this, there would be > an uproar. They are, in one of the two systems offered. This doesn't make sense in the usual meritocratic approach of frps, i.e. those who try hardest advance the fastest. I have seen skill chack frenzy in my days as GM, but before I have seen clunky experience point award systems, which I left for the experience point free RuneQuest. Awarding post-Adventure experience checks is a return to D&D. > I agree that POW check systems have seemed kludgy in the past, but I think > that the main reason for this is that there has never been any CULTURAL > reflection of the "POW ecology" inherent in past rules. > If characters exist in a world where POW ("the strength of your soul",etc.) > increases by overcoming opponents with magic, then that knowledge *will* > be inherent in the way those people think about magic and the universe. > Thus, in a world where this operates, it would make sense *to the character* > to throw some offensive magic around sometimes, for this very purpose. > "The way you make your soul stronger is by defeating your enemies magically." Good approach. If the cults didn't want their members to use magic, they wouldn't give it out. If using this magic (not necessarily offensive magic) strenthens the soul, some mechanic ought to detail how. > If we're going to move away from the "overcoming enemies makes you strong" > mechanic of POW checks (which is actually fine by me), and towards a method > which takes into account a character's "overall magical activity", I think > we need a way to *quantify* this activity. Otherwise, how active is active? > I suspect you'll start finding GMs who give POW checks at the end of every > adventure to any character who cast a spell, and GMs who give 1 POW check/year > to heavy spell-users, and none to everybody else. There are no guidelines. True. > This is why I like the idea of giving POW checks when a magic roll is a crit. > It provides a *measure* of magical activity. But I reiterate, ANY system > of granting POW checks needs to be reflected in the culture, because it > is important enough in the lives of the characters to be noticed and > become part of common(?) knowledge about how the world works. Checks for criticals aren't quite what I like, either. With the reusability of divine spells for initiates, too, one of the major POW burnoffs has been eliminated. The less I can understand why active sorcerers have to burn off five humans' souls per year, and gain POW in the order of four points per year (the optimistic yield of 10 POW gain rolls). Why not make the POW burnoffs sorcerers have to use Twin POW after Paul&Mike? A reusable reservoir of sacrificed POW, similar to the divine Extension spell. Not necessarily the parallel to a shaman's fetch, but something different from this crazy soul desintegration. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17225; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:05:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26868; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:05:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:05:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:05:39 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Special Combat Options, Fatigue Rules Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 20:55:14 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A5B7986F52@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. I wrote > My thoughts exactly. If they could be learned as a lore skill (like > martial arts) or a ki skill, they'd make a lot more sense than in > the current form. which shows my ignorance. With the special combat options as easy skills for specific weapons these can (and will) be increased beyond the weapon skill easily. They'll even be mastered before the weapon in question, if the player desires so. I would like a description how I can get a check for this manipulation skill. I wouldn't mind an extra roll to see whether a special option succeeds, as long as this is not simply a replacement for the regular special. Opinions? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18598; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:16:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB27485; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:16:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:16:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:15:47 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments on RQ:AiG Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:15:19 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A5E2D83512@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Sacred Cow Barbecue: My impressions of RQ:AiG thus far. So, what does a nerd do when he's laid up with food poisoning from drinking too-green homebrew stout? He reads the RQ:AiG manuscript he got through the mail. The following is a lengthy set of specific comments and general impressions derived from that manuscript. In the Beginning, the Introduction sent me straight to nappy-land. Zing that sucker up and SHORTEN it. It's too darn long and it all of what you present about Gloranthan mythology should go into the Glorantha chapter several hundred pages later. Make it a short, punchy intro that summarizes the world of Glorantha as it IS not as it WAS. Your covers have the job of grabbing attention, but the intro has the job of sucking the reader in. As it is, it kind of whimpered at me and was more work to wade through than I would, as a first-time reader, want. When I buy a new game, I don't want to be dicked around. All this stuff is interesting and necessary, but not so much at the very beginning. Furthermore, you put the wrong stuff at the very beginning. This is scholarly, not active, exciting stuff. Keep (a re- written) "The Lands of Genertela" in the front, this lets folks get their bearing. Also have a little recent history, but a CNN-type approach--just mention the juicy bits. Runes: PLEASE point out that these are the Dragon Pass Runes and that the set may differ to greater or lesser extents elsewhere in the world. Play Aids needs some work. The FIRST thing you need to do is point out that these supplements are for the THIRD edition of RQ and some adaptation may be necessary. Second, and extremely important, you MUST emphasize that these supplements may contradict each other and that these contradictions and inconsistencies are NOT accidents. If you do not emphasize the grand diversity of the Gloranthan experience, it will haunt you. People who are not intimately familiar with the Gloranthan IDIC principle will badmouth RQ and claim that the line suffers from "incompetent editing" and "bad continuity". I know that this will happen, because I had some players make this very complaint back in Indiana when confronted with the fact that the Orlanth cults differed so much between GoG and RoC. I calmly explained why this was actually the case, and they immediately saw this complexity and diversity as positive things--enhanced the realism of human societies for them. BUT, without this explanation of WHY the variation, they automatically considered it to be a flaw. We must take great pains to point out how important variance is to the complex tapestry of Glorantha and that the world is NOT meant to be homogeneous. Character Generation: There is an obvious error on page 18: You state that the "Random method" is Nd6+1 drop the lowest, but this is actually the SECOND method you present. Both this AND the previous method are random. They should BOTH be included as "random method". I would strongly urge that your writing favor the first method (3d6 for all but INT and SIZ, 2d6+6 for those). Why? RQ is not D&D, there is no need for munchkin stat inflation (unless you've got a munchkin GM, of course). I like the single-number DB, by the way. So did my players (except for the RQ grognard, but he was in a decided minority). Selecting Magic: You need to make it more explicit that the "level" of magic chosen is for the purposes of CHARACTER GENERATION ONLY and that it has NO further effect upon the amounts of magic to be learned by a character. It sounds ridiculous, but I know people who would be severely confused if this were not explained. (And no snobbery from the peanut gallery--there is never any excuse for unclear writing.) Renown: Well, I'm a LITTLE less hostile to it than before, now that I've read its explanation, but I still think it's a bad idea, especially since the implementation is pretty much crap. The greatest weakness: It is not possible to gain or lose Renown during play. Guess what folks, the notoriety of a person CAN CHANGE OVER TIME!!!!!! Did that ever occur to you? If you're going to have a damned number, have rules for ALL aspects of that number. If you're going to cop out and say to "wing it" when dealing with Renown, get rid of the damned number. If you won't write complete rules, don't give us crappy, half-assed rules. Professions, particularly businesses: Uh, am I being an idiot to point out that if I own a business in Carmania and I'm running around in Nochet it is HIGHLY unlikely for any profits from that business to reach me on a regular basis???? You might want to think about dealing with that little detail. Mechanics, specifically Skill vs. Skill: I throw in my vote for the "Best Success Wins" camp. That is, if we both simple succeed, but I make my simple success by 20 and you make yours by 15, I win. It's really not that hard, is it? Yes, I know that it will "favor" characters with higher skills, but isn't that the WHOLE POINT of higher skills? As for low skill characters "not having a chance" vs. high skill characters--SO FRIGGIN' WHAT? I get my ass STOMPED utterly when playing chess with a Grand master (I speak from experience), no chances, no survivors. However, most Grand masters will then turn around and give me a few pointers afterwards, so it's a trade. (No, I don't play them in tournaments--my rating is so low that a Grand master would lose points by playing me in tournament, anyway.) Composite Skills (Specifically Sword-dancing): "We represent the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild. And we who are in the Lollipop Guild, would like to welcome you to Munchkinland." Sorry, but this particular selection really stinks big-time. I much prefer the shipbuilding example given in the list. Specific Skills, especially "Lore" vs. "Craft". Okay, I'll have to side against the list on this one. It is VERY possible for a good farmer to have a high "Farming Craft" and a low "Plant Lore". Have any of you on the list actually ever farmed??? I've done some farm work, and I'd have to say that the general knowledge of plants required of farmers is actually not too high. They need to know some basic knowledge regarding when to sow, how wide to sow, when to weed, when to fertilize, what constitutes a weed, etc. The majority of this knowledge is more in the nature of a "craft" than a "lore". Now, a really great farmer would know both the craft and the lore. The lore would include actual details of plant life-cycles, the soil chemistry known to the culture, etc. In other words, the craft is the "how" of the act and the lore is the "why". For a normal year, the demand of lore is pretty low. It is when things go wrong that lore becomes valuable, and you go and ask the old farmer down the road who's seen everything what is going on. Experience. I must state that EVERY method given for handing out experience stinketh most mightily unto heaven and maketh a noisome odor offensive to all Man. One of the great benefits of RQ was that experience did NOT use the video-game approach. By this, I mean that a character could learn skills more by virtue of its actions than by virtue of who sucked up to the GM more. Also, both of the methods given put too darn much work on the GM. Return to the practice of skill checks being automatically awarded on successful use. Then, the GM can tell players how many rolls to make. NOW, what to do with these rolls to simulate the difficulty of skills can take one of two routes: I prefer the 1d3/1d6/2d4 differentiation. I challenge ANYONE to prove to me that it is somehow inferior for this progression not to be "exactly" 2:1. Anyway, 1d3 to 1d6 is NOT 2:1, is it, and that seemed to be okay with the authors. I just want to see some PROOF that 2:1 is the perfect way to go, and I'll shut up. Is it too much to ask for some proof, just a little evidence? The other way, requiring two checks plus successful skill gain rolls for hard skills and allowing two gain rolls per check for easy skills doesn't quite taste as good. What is the basis for the 2:1 religion? POW gain rolls: I don't think there's any way to do this so that all will be pleased. Combat: I propose the following alteration to the sequence: Declaration--characters declare in ASCENDING order of INT both their planned movement and other actions. Why? This permits quick-witted characters to actually be able to use their quick wits in combat. Move--Done in order of MV, ties broken by DEX. Why? Just because I can figure out what you're going to do doesn't mean that I'll be able to fast enough to get into or out of your way. Melee--Done in order of SR, ties broken by DEX. Why? See Move. Post Melee Move--as in the rules. This re-arrangement strikes me as far more intuitively correct and reflective of the complete scope of combat. Let me tell you, fighting in melee is a LOT more than just bashing away at somebody, and the winners are often those who have THINKERS on their side as well as sluggers. Special hits: I like the optional effects and think they should be made the standard effects. One change, though, the optional impale effect should take place if EITHER the victim or attacker successfully expend MV. After all, it hurts to get a spear yanked out regardless of whether I or my opponent is doing the yanking, no? Spirit combat: WHY does someone engaging more than one spirit automatically defend at 0 MP. Please justify this rule. Why can someone defend against TWO attackers in mundane combat but only one in spirit combat. I would suggest that a character be allowed to mount a normal defense vs. two spirit attackers if that character takes all-out defense. This makes a good deal more intuitive sense if spirit combat is to be considered a part of the entire gamut of combat. Fatigue: Put me down in the minority. I like the fatigue rules and find them a damned sight better than what has gone before. I also like the straight skill penalty. Why? It seems to reflect the effects I've noticed on myself of fatigue. I am MUCH more likely to do a stupid thing when I'm tired than when I'm alert. This applies to mental as well as physical skills. As for master fighters supposedly not having this effect--the 10th Dan teachers I've had don't believe that at all. They all taught to "fight smarter, not harder". In fact, it is a sign of great skill to derive greater and greater effects from less and less exertion. Sparring matches I've seen between Dan-level students have been usually a good deal of watching, one offensive move, and one or the other student goes flying. (I have studied Aikijutsu and Kempojutsu--non-sport forms.) Also, wearing a hard helm has a great deal to do with fatigue. I can vouch for this from experience. Economics: I don't care about the chapter title, myself. If you are going to go to barter, you must, in my god-like, infallible opinion, have at least four different prices for every object. They should be "Sartar", "Lunar", "Pavis", and "Prax". That way a poor GM will have a great deal of help in introducing geographic variance into his economies. (It will also be a selling point for the "authentic-feel" mavins, let me tell you.) The World of Magic: Change the chapter name, PLEASE. I suggest "Magic". It's short, accurate, and far less pompous. Don't like the term "Battle Magic"--but I'm not an RQII Grognard, am I? (Gee, one might guess that the VAST MAJORITY of potential RQ:AiG players/customers aren't, either.) I'd prefer it be called "common magic", "folk magic", etc. After all, if an alternate name for "bladesharp" actually IS "plowsharp" (and it is), how "battle" is "battle magic". I would prefer "common magic" with the note that mercenaries, adventurers, and other criminal-types like to use the term "battle magic" (much like gang-bangers have their own criminal jargon). Religions, Cults, etc. You are still making the same silly mistake made in the first three editions of RQ. You are forgetting to EXPLICITLY state that the "Cults" of individual deities are PARTS of a RELIGION, and it is the RELIGION that provides the underlying definition of things NOT the damned cults! You need to completely re-write the too-short paragraph on "Religions" to reflect this. Talk to Loren Miller if you need specific advice. He's far more eloquent than I in dealing with parallel monotheism masking as polytheism. A Cult is NOT a religion but is a sub-sect of that religion. For example, the Cult of the Virgin in Roman Catholicism is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a religion, nor is the cult of ANY saint within Roman Catholicism. Particular saints may be prayed to and favored, and they may grant gifts, but the RELIGION is Roman Catholicism. The over-arching religion INCLUDES the cults WITHIN it. Read a little comparative theology, please. This nonsense of independent "cults" all floating around in theological vacuums has always been one of RQ's weakest points. It is a D&Dism that should be corrected. As for individual cults--what is given is inadequate. At least one or two cults should have a complete write-up. I favor the Seven Mothers AND the Orlanth OF DRAGON PASS. Why do I make this emphasis for Orlanth? Because the "Orlanth" given in River of Cradles is the Orlanth of Pavis, NOT the Orlanth cult of Dragon Pass. The two should probably have some differences. First, Orlanth Lightbringer and Orlanth Rex would have more emphasis in Dragon Pass than in Pavis. I see the Orlanth of Pavis to be more of what happens when Orlanth Adventurous takes over the other aspects. Dragon Pass, given its great mythic value and the fact that the great Orlanthi kingships are near there, would favor Orlanth Lightbringer (a cult I would very much like to see) and Orlanth Rex. Make Glorantha a COMPLETE world, not just a bunch of numbers and half-thought-out concepts. There is a weakness in the Pavis array, by the way: What sorcerous traditions to Flintnailers adhere to? Where is Mostali sorcery, even a Flintnailer version? We need this school of sorcery, since Flintnail's cult has origins different from the Arkati, the other Malkioni, the Carmanians, or the Brithini-based atheists. The write-up of Berserk needs to include notes that the spell is quite different for Humakti--it is of permanent duration and the caster may only cast it upon himself. However, the caster will not attack those who appear to be friends or innocents. The Humakti has become a pure killing machine, the embodiment of the honorable death. If he survives the fight, he will point himself to his enemy's capitol and keep going. He will either die or become a Hero. Shamanic traditions: Aren't there any shamans in the Lunar religion who AREN'T chaos morons? Also, Are the Daka Fal also to be found among the ancestor cult of the Dara Happans? The abilities and levels don't grate me at all. I actually like them. This is very unlike D&D, folks. I like the idea of weird shamanic powers being tied to the POW of a fetch. Sorcery: Okay, I vote with the others to change the name to "Wizardry" and reserve "Sorcery" to mean "any bad magic" or "any foreign magic". In fact, this is a great deal more accurate to the term as traditionally used. As for reserving "adept" for higher station of practice--there are arguments on both sides. I've seen some traditions where an "adept" was more like a "black belt" and came in several grades. It is, however, generally true that the term "Magus" is reserved for masters (and "You must call me Magus" is a quote heard from assholes). Also, whoever told you that "civilized" cultures have more leisure was pissing down his own leg. This is exactly OPPOSITE the truth. Civilized cultures may have a leisure CLASS, but leisure time in general is more available in "primitive" hunter-gatherers than among settled peoples. Take a first-year anthropology course or get hold of a good text-book. I'm on the fence regarding duration and range. I would like to see the expenditure of 1 POW actually count for something. I do agree that the impromptu expenditure of 1POW should count for LESS than the results of a proper enchantment, however. Why? Well, enchantment is a great, careful process, burning POW is much less precise. Also, I consider Zzabur's Closing to have been an Enchantment, even if it is called a "spell". Maintain might need some work--of course, an Adept with a lot of Maintained spells probably has a lot of other sources to draw on for MP--or he should, shouldn't he? Schools of Sorcery: I would like to see a general Mostali school among the atheists. What do the Flintnailers use? They certainly aren't Carmanians, Lunars, Malkioni, or Arkati. If you're going to list the cult, then supply an appropriate school of sorcery. Creatures: I hope that Trollpak will be updated (again). It's tough not having rules for Argan Argars (with the Hai-wai-an flower-ty shirts and all). Don't forget ducks. PS: The plural of "shaman" is "shamans" (sorry, but it was SOOOO grating to see it over and over and over and over).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19384; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:21:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27905; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:21:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:21:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:21:16 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: One more thing. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:20:56 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A5FA3248E0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> There is one thing in the RQ:AiG rules that struck me as remarkably foolish: The application of aging rules for "inactivity". I would NEVER use these rules for "inactivity" since "inactivity" is very badly defined. Sorry, but it just doesn't make sense for a mercenary to suddenly start aging because he's taking time to have a steady job.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21176; Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:43:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29150; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:43:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:43:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:43:14 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 12:44:02 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A657ED3904@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Joerg writes: > >Dustin writes: > >> [Steve Barnes wrote, defending the "GM arbitrarily gives POW checks" system, >> which, actually, barely seems formal enough to be called a "system", but...] > >> The problem is, if a "magically active" character gets 10 POW checks a year, >> and someone who is "less active" gets, say, 4 POW checks, how does a GM >> decide? Like I said, if skill checks were left to this, there would be >> an uproar. > >They are, in one of the two systems offered. > >This doesn't make sense in the usual meritocratic approach of frps, >i.e. those who try hardest advance the fastest. I have seen skill chack >frenzy in my days as GM, but before I have seen clunky experience point >award systems, which I left for the experience point free RuneQuest. >Awarding post-Adventure experience checks is a return to D&D. Once again, I'll mention my radical idea to eliminate POW checks, and just make POW raisable by training. "Sacrificed" POW returns at a rate of POW/20 or POW/10 per season. This eliminates the problems of both arguments ("checks are bad" vs "GM arbitraryness is bad"). >Why not make the POW burnoffs sorcerers have to use Twin POW after >Paul&Mike? A reusable reservoir of sacrificed POW, similar to the >divine Extension spell. Not necessarily the parallel to a shaman's >fetch, but something different from this crazy soul desintegration. Sounds like a good idea. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23332; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:01:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00442; Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:00:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:00:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:00:44 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:00:31 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A6A2A50D44@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly, replying to Steve: >Once again, I'll mention my radical idea to eliminate POW checks, and >just make POW raisable by training. "Sacrificed" POW returns at >a rate of POW/20 or POW/10 per season. This eliminates the problems >of both arguments ("checks are bad" vs "GM arbitraryness is bad"). This idea has certain advantages. A major one is that it models an aspect of Glorantha (shared by most other fantasy universes, including the beliefs about Earth's magic that many people hold): to wit, that there are more and less magically powerful people. In all those stories about gifted apprentices, etc. (churned out by the thousands nowadays) we see many examples of the apprentice who is magically talented, becomes a magician, and is superior all his life. This seems to be the pattern in Glorantha as well: look at Jar-Eel, Argin Terror, etc., etc. In Steve's proposal, this is modelled: people gain rune magic, etc. at a rate proportional to their power. My own idea of what we should model is based on one way we know Gloranthan entities can gain power: through worship. By inspiring powerful emotion in others (fear, terror, awe, love, loyalty, etc.), directed at oneself, one can gain power. We've tried modelling this, with variable results. If we were modelling ancient India, rather than Glorantha, asceticism and personal sacrifice would cause POW gains - it's in all the stories. Gloranthan stories indicate that worship is a key source of power, and perhaps the game system should model that. For you non-Gloranthans out there, rules on this would probably be applicable in most fantasy worlds. Another source of power might be the land itself: if you are one of the only sapients in an area, perhaps you can gain control of more of the land's power. We've played around a bit with this (Fronela after the Ban), with some success. >Why not make the POW burnoffs sorcerers have to use Twin POW after >Paul&Mike? A reusable reservoir of sacrificed POW, similar to the I'll try to do another sorcery posting sometime; if there is interest, I will be likely to do it sooner rather than later. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27813; Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:51:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03797; Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:51:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:51:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:51:16 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character design comments Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:52:00 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A77A3D4152@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. I'm just back from DunDraCon, which probably should have been named "Magic (The Gathering) Con". At one time, it was a hotbed of RQ activity... Anyway, during the con, we wrote up some characters using the new rules, and did a little playtesting. Of the players, I noticed three strategies. One decieded to sell off reknown and/or money to raise other things; another decided to become rich, and purchase training with the money; I went for more versatility in my character, which I will be complaining about in more detail. I like to have characters that can do many things. I like to have decent Scan/Listen skills, be able to ride horses, speak a second or third language; yet I still want a character that measures up in combat (or whatever the focus of the game is). One thing I noticed is that the system discourages versatility in characters. At the low level of expertise, this makes sense. At the higher levels, I claim that characters will have diversified, out of necessity. We were instructed to make characters of the "expert" level. I choose, perhaps unwisely, to make up a Shaman of the Red Mask School. This gave me a magic level of 4. After some deliberation, I decided to use one of my options to raise my level to 5. This doubled my "Spirit Magic POW" from 5 to ten, however, looking at the Shamanistic ability chart, having a fetch size of 1-10 POW results in the same level of ability. Perhaps this was deliberate, who knows... Next, I noticed that Scan and Listen were not available on the Shaman skill chart. Someone claimed that I could spend an option point to join another career, and learn the skill from that chart (or something), but I figured it would be a waste of points. So I ended up with basic rank in these skills, even though I feel that an "expert" shaman should be better than that. Naturally, the first roll the GM had us make were Scan rolls... My basic design was to exchange point in "expert" skills, for twice the pooints in "skilled" skills. Thus I had a somewhat versitile character, but most skills in the 45-60% range, except for the primary Shaman skills at 75%. Still, I claim that an expert character should have a more diversified background. I propose that "expert" characters get some number of "background" skills (lets say 4) at 45%. "Master" characters would get more, maybe 8 skills at 45%, or perhaps 4 at 60%. The current system looks especially bad for "expert" and "master" sorcerors, but even warrior-types are going to need to diversify. Having a "master" warrior, who can only use one kind of weapon would be silly. Having chosen skills, I spent some time trying to puzzle out the Shaman abilities, so as to choose 6. My cursory analysis was that some were really great, and others weak. It was unclear whether I was supposed to choose abilities associated with my school, or if I could just take whatever I wanted. The GM ruled that I could take whatever I wanted. My analysis of the abilities was that Expand Mind, Spirit Trapping, and Discorporation were mandatory. Second Sense sounded cool, so I made it a primary ability, until the GM suggested that it should be a tertiary one, at most. It is essentially an improved use of the "Second Sight", spell, and so it is questionable whether I should have even taken at all. I also liked the "Self Ressurection" ability, although in a world with Ressurection spells available, it seems not so great (now, if you re-form your body in the event that it gets destroyed, that would be great). For some reason, I decided to make it my primary ability. For my final choices, I got Second Sense and Magic Defense. However, the fact that I lacked Possession and Spirit Mastery worried me that my Shaman might be screwed in the long run. Spirit Affinity, while sounding neat, didn't seem very useful. The next problem came when comtemplating the fact that the Red Masks shaman abilities are tied to the Lunar cycle. This becomes wierd for some abilities. One is Expand Mind. Does one's memorized spells change, based on moon phase? (I suggest no, as it is too much of a bookkeeping chore). Likewise Self Ressurection becomes strange. In fact, any ability which is used for a time span longer than a day gets strange (using Spirit Affinity to find runic spirits, for example). Next, being a Shaman, I asked the GM why I couldn't just find any spell spirit I wanted. Consulting the rules, it seemed as if my limit of 18 points of spells available was moot. I just filled up my INTx2 with spells. One strange thing in the rules is on page 162, "resolving the search" (for spirits). "If a spell spirit... No spirit combat roll is necessary if the spirit's MP are equal to or below twice the shaman's MP..." Given a shaman of POW 18, it seems like capturing spell spirits is virtually guaranteed (accidents could happen with intensity 10+ spirits). Next, I was totaly clueless about how many spirits, if any, my Shaman had available. I assumed that I had one bound into my fetch. Consulting the rules, I learned that the best I could get was a POW 10 spirit (hardly a great threat to my enemies). The role of the Fetch was unlear. All it seems to do is raise my shaman abilities and act as a MP battery. Also, the rules state that if the Fetch's MP drop below that of the bound spirit, then the spirit is released. But does this mean I can just draw MP from the spirit and the fetch in equal amounts, to prevent this? On to the combat... I was totally confused about what my shaman could do in combat. After much page flipping, I decided that attacking the enemy, while discorporate would be best. However, we could not find anywhere in the rules something which would tell us how fast the shaman could move while discorporate. We ended up using the listed MV rate for ghosts and wraiths of MV = POW. Well, that's all for now... -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03932; Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:53:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07205; Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:53:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:53:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:52:58 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: combat tactics; cults; POW; sorcery; etc. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 14:52:49 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A8818400BB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Joerg said >I would like a description how I can get a check for this manipulation >skill. What makes you think a) you can get checks; b) they're Manipulation skills? The rules don't suggest either one. >I wouldn't mind an extra roll to see whether a special option >succeeds, as long as this is not simply a replacement for the regular >special. Please, no. No extra rolls -- RuneQuest already has plenty, even after dropping the parry roll after a failed attack. Guy suggested >Cult thumbnails that do not fit into any given culture should >remain in the Divine Magic chapter Let's keep them all in one place. It's never going to be the case that you can read the book in order and create characters after reading chapter 2 (you don't know what the skills mean, you don't know about weapon SR, you don't know what spells to pick). As a practical matter, character creation probably can't be at the end ("OK, now that you know all the rules, it's time to create your first character!"). So let's keep it small, and have pointers to other sections. If Sartarite Warrior said "Cult Skills (see Orlanth Pantheon, p. 135)," you've kept it small (well, _I_ still care about that) and usable (no flipping through the book to find a cult). >There should be information for each culture for the Zero option >where a character does not join a cult. One of my players for >the Sartar background choose this path and I finding a way to >cover this was difficult. Who says this is a choice? In the campaign I'm playing in, my character is still trying to find a cult he can qualify for QUICKLY so he can become an adult. Trained characters don't start as initiates. However, what information do you want? Something like, "If you don't belong to a cult, you're a Not-Adult, and can never get married or own property or be listened to in Council?" [See King of Sartar for cultural details on the Orlanthi.] I don't see how it can be covered in theistic cultures. Bryan Maloney said lots of good stuff, and also >Okay, I'll have to side >against the list on this one. It is VERY possible for a good farmer to have >a high "Farming Craft" and a low "Plant Lore". Actually, I think I was the lone voice. I agree 100% it's possible to have such a farmer. I think it's unnecessary to have a game that gets into that much detail. The fewer skills, the better (both for the load on the players and GM, and the number of different skills a character has to learn). Further, if this level of detail is to be used, it has to be done right. If Craft/Farming and Plant Lore are totally different skills, don't say that Plant Lore is used "by farmers to determine what crops would best grow in a given region and how to care for them," which sounds to me like a use of Craft/Farming. >Return to the practice of skill checks being automatically awarded >on successful use. Then, the GM can tell players how many rolls to make. Having GMed an RQ4 variant where GM awarded numbers of rolls, I hated it. I hated all the unrolled checks left on sheets, and having to decide how many rolls to give out (in the lack of good guidelines). I much prefer the Pendragon approach. I can tell as GM that a specific roll is not worth a check (which is a far easier way to look at it than which ones are worthy). >Special hits: I like the optional effects and think they should be made >the standard effects Please no. I can't stand the bookkeeping of bleeding. > Also, whoever told you that "civilized" cultures have more leisure was >pissing down his own leg. This is exactly OPPOSITE the truth. Civilized >cultures may have a leisure CLASS, but leisure time in general is more >available in "primitive" hunter-gatherers than among settled peoples. Take >a first-year anthropology course or get hold of a good text-book. Exactly. Steven suggested >just make POW raisable by training. "Sacrificed" POW returns at >a rate of POW/20 or POW/10 per season. Not much of a sacrifice then, is it? I'll just sacrifice 10 POW and become an Acolyte, because I'll get it all back in 2 years. Paul said >In Steve's proposal, this is modelled: people gain >rune magic, etc. at a rate proportional to their power. This models getting a unlucky die roll in character creation meaning you're never a magician. > Another source of power might be the land itself: if you are one of the only >sapients in an area, perhaps you can gain control of more of the land's power. I've wanted to play around with using Pendragon-style magic (where place and timing and sovereignty are important). I'm not exactly sure how to fit it into the Gloranthan cults, however. > I'll try to do another sorcery posting sometime; if there is interest, I will >be likely to do it sooner rather than later. I've never seen your fabled sorcery rules.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05101; Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:11:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08201; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:11:43 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:11:51 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:11:14 EST From: dquill@netcom.com (Daniel Quill) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: One more thing. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:11:41 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A8CF786799@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm posting this message for Steve Mauer. If you have questions for him, you can ask Ray, Steve Barnes or myself. We are all in his campaign. This is one of two files since they are large. :) Maurer's List: The Good, Bad, and Ugly in RuneQuest 4 The following is a brief commentary about RQ4, showing various places where the new game met or exceeded my expectations, has minor flaws, and only a few rules you can really drive a mac-truck through. I'm writing these rules in the hopes that the rules aren't quite hardened into cement quite yet, and that a few fixes are still possible. A+/A Grades: ( or - "Whoever says I'm always negative is a complete idiot" ) Gameworld inclusion - RQ was and always is Gloranthan, I'm glad someone finally recognized it. Economics - Absolutely excellent, realism without table overload. I especially like the cultural price tables (but why isn't leather cheap in Prax?). The A/B/C divisions are a good way to divide things for people who are afraid of numbers. Previous Experience - No question about it, the easiest and most gameworld realistic set of rules to determine character background I've yet seen. Oh sure, I can quibble that Renown (especially negative renown, why the heck would someone want that?) wasn't thought through, and everybody will sell it off for the extra purchase point, but it's flawless aside from that. Gameworld Description of Mechanics - Finally it seems somebody figured out that if you want to get the players and GMs into roleplaying in the gameworld, you have to give rules which give gameworld descriptions for what is going on. Sorcery - Quite good, the number of fixes to RQ3 sorcery can barely be counted, so I won't go into them. I would have preferred a more in depth treatment of this complicated magic - specifically, if you have the skill, it is still just as easy to cast an intensity 10 spell as it is an intensity 1 - but for an introductory piece, it could hardly be better. A- Grades: ( or - "Perfect! Oh. Hey. Wait a minute..." ) Skills - Degrees of success, time dependent skills, complementary skills, symmetric contest of skill, skill selection, subskills - all are excellent additions. Giants can still play (and learn how to play) harps better because they are so strong, good looking people still can eavesdrop better than ugly ones. At least Knowledge was fixed with Reasoning. Other suggestions: 1] First Aid cannot realistically heal damage - period. If you want it to be more effective, make it required to heal any major injury with a Heal spell (not just to reattach a severed limb). 2] *ALL* perception skills should be lowered when you wear almost any kind of helm (subtraction depends on helm type). Helms with visors have two subtractions, one when the visor is up, one when down. 3] Please make lanugage the Knowledge skill that it is. If you want, make Orate complementary to cooperative communication; i.e. if you are cute and/or handle yourself well, people naturally listen better to you, even if you have a heavy accent; but your base ability to understand a language doesn't go up when you cast a Glamour. 4] As an optional rule, how hard would it be to divide up Manipulation into Fine Manipulation (Devise, Play, Sleight, and Conceal), and Large Manipulation (Attacks, Brawl, Drive, Grapple, Pass)? STR would not be a factor in Fine manipulation (always considered 10, or use the formula DEX + INT/2 - 15), but otherwise no change would be required. That way, Great Trolls and Giants no longer make such wonderful pickpockets (because they can hold on to the coins with their high STR so well). 5] Ditto for Agility, into Agility (the normal formula) and Reach skills where the positive and negative aspects of SIZ balance out, so it isn't a factor (always set to 10, or use the formula STR + DEX - 20), excess MAS could still be a negative. These would include: Boat, Climb, Maneuver, and Swim. That way migits won't be such excellent climbers. 6] Please get rid of "Martial Arts". Real martial arts is nothing more than normal training in hand to hand combat. If you want the natural weapons to be more effective, increase their damage (along with the rest of the weapons), and do extra damage on a special. Characteristic training - Very good. Needs one fix: someone who increases a characteristic through training or research should only be able to train others for as much bonus as they have. In other words, just because I buff up my STR by +1, it doesn't qualify me to teach advanced +6 STR weightlifting. Weight Gain/Loss - Again, very good, but needs a big fix. CON lost due to starvation or excessive weight changes the BASE CON, not current. Else, you may very well end up with a bunch of roly-poly guys who have retrained their CON (but kept the extra HP/DB/etc). Similarly CON regained due to returning to normal weight should only increase if less than original CON. Actually, I'd prefer that artificially enhanced stats go first (i.e. when you starve your trained STR goes down first). Shaman Abilities - Every PC shaman in the world is going to have a "Magic" spirit affinity. Self-resurection is nearly useless, since any Shaman with "Fertility" affinity can get the exact same ability by trapping a Healing spirit and/or buying Resurrection. I'm not quite sure what a spirit affinity does for runespells - after all, if ANY shaman joins a cult, they can buy cult runemagic just like any other worshipper. I'd prefer something like: "cults typically only accept only shamans with spirit affinities which are in alignment with the god". In other words, wind shamans make very poor Seven Mothers cultists. Divine Intervention - Very good in describing what is and is not possible. However there remains one pretty big flaw: the amount of D.I. effect you get is based on the amount of POW the god takes. This can leave a PC who rolls too low a worthless D.I. For example, if a Chalana Arroy healer is killed from a stab in the back by a troll, and his player rolls a 01, he might expect to be brought back to life. Not so fast! He only gets 3 points of cult special magic; good enough for a Resurrect, but not the Heal Body. She dies from having rolled too well. My fix: add cultists original POW, DI POW lost, and either average them, or roll 101-d100, and take that as the percentage of DI "Strength". Divination - Overall excellent, but PLEASE drop the "knows all about hero- quest paths". Given Greg's desire that there be theological arguments in Glorantha (and the fact that he still turns even the most fundimental parts of its mythology on its head now and then) it's kind of silly to have the gods being able to answer any such question put to them: "Say Yelm, who the hell is this Elmal bozo anyway?", or "Say Orlanth, you slew Yelm the Sun to bring the lesser Darkness, then went on the Lightbringer quest to being Yelm back again, so how the hell is Elmal the Sungod anyway? Never even heard of the guy till last week, is this some Godlearner plot??" Knockback - Seems reasonable, but it doesn't seem reasonable that magic would naturally increase this. You should also shift up on the table for rear and/or side attacks. B+ to B Grades: ( or - "Pretty good. Could be better." ) Weapon Characteristic Minima - Ok, but Weapons used below minimum STR should also have -1 damage per STR. Also, some of the minima and maxima are messed up: Shuriken need a hell of a lot less DEX to throw properly than daggers or Thowing Axes (which only have one sharp end). Like Martial Arts and Dodge, this is probably a leftover from the Sandy Peterson "Gee I want RQ combat to be just like those super-realistic Ninja movies" era. Skill Check Experience - Instead of having "GMs factor in" skill difficulty for the specific check system, why don't you just do the following: A Hard skill check gets you +1d3%, a Medium gets you +1d6%, an Easy gets you +2d6%. Same result. Simpler mechanics. Easier to explain. Skill Training - Good rules but still need several fixes: 1] Instruct should NOT be complementary to the skill being taught; I don't care how good a teacher you are, you can't teach something you don't know. 2] RQ2 had the concept of "Experience Needed" skills. Past a certain point, at the very least, you had to get a skill check in the skill before you could train in it - real experience is neccessary. I would like to see this put back in. 3] While I like Reasoning, I think they should be "Knowledge Needed". Past a certain point, at the very least, you have to get real instruction in the skill; as it stands, people can become expert Physicians merely by splinting enough broken legs - I assure you it doesn't really work that way. 4] Research should not guarantee success. Under these rules, anybody can even research enemy "cult secret" skills, practicing alone, with no equipment or clue how to begin. I suggest you divide research into: "Study" and "Research", where Study means the skill knowledge is available just not easily digestable, and Research is making up your own skill with no guarantee of success; typically you must roll an INTx1 roll to gain anything with Research, and you may end up learning something other than what you were looking for. 5] Being able to train others right up to your skill level is far too abusable (unrealistic too). You've got to lower this, or every GM will have to deal with constantly cross-training gross out monsters: "I'll trade you 175% Greatsword for 165% Enchant." 6] It seems silly to me that shamanistic Magic skills, including such things as Spirit Travel should only increase by being taught. They should be exactly the reverse: Experience Needed. I suggest the following fix: Student's Skill Instruct: Made Missed Botched Up to 1/3 Teachers Training(*) Training Practice Up to 2/3 Teachers Training Practice Study Up to 1 1/3 Teachers Practice Study Research 1 1/3+ Teachers Study Research Wasted(+) (*) Student gets a check in "hands-on" skills (+) "Wasted" means take time to research, but get no increase. Experience Needed Skills Some skills cannot increase by mere instruction; the adventurer must actually use the skill in the "real world" learn how to get better. In such skills, once an adventurer has increased his skill through training, practice, study, or research, he must get real world experience (a check) before he can train (practice, etc..) again. He doesn't have to actually learn from this experience to qualify for another round of training, as failure is often as instructive as success. The following are Experience Needed skills: Act, Bargain, Brawl, Climb, Dodge, Listen, Maneuver, Pickpocket, Scan, Sleight, Spirit Skills(*), Stealth, Track, Weapon attacks, and Weapon parries. (*) Note: Place Spirit Skills in Reasoning category - it makes no sense for DEX, a physical characteristic, to have any effect on how one does on the spirit plane. Knowledge Needed Skills Some skills cannot increase by mere experience; the adventurer must be exposed to the ideas and knowledge in order to learn from experiences using the skill. In such skills, an adventurer can gain by experience only once after increasing by training (practice, etc). There is no limit to the increase directly through training. The following are Knowledge Needed skills: Conceal, Devise, All Reasoning skills, Search, Trap Encumberance/Fatigue - Reasonably good, wonderful compared to what it replaced, but still has quite a few problems: 1] No extra fatigue for carrying heavy stuff; so long as it isn't armor, you can carry up to STR x 5 equipment 19 km just as good as walking. In reality, carrying awkward weight is harder. 2] Effects of Encumberance on skills: no. Under these rules, an 18 SIZ PC who wants to lower his Maneuver subtractions should get fat. By increasing his SIZ to 21, he now is penalized only one point per 2 ENC (which more than makes up for the +9 ENC for the fat). Just so you don't misunderstand, SIZ is not the answer, STR is. Also, while I don't believe magicians need to walk around naked, neither do I believe they can wear platemail and still cast spells properly, which the current rules allow them to do. Fix both of these by integrating them with the ENC Level table. Its simpler *and* more realistic: Total ENC Fatigue ENC Level Travel Skill subtractions ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Up to STRx1 CONx5 None No shift None Up to STRx2 CONx4 Light No shift -15 Agility (not Reach) Up to STRx3 CONx3 Moderate 1 shift -30 Agility, -15 Physical(*) Up to STRx4 CONx2 Heavy 2 shifts -45 Agility, -30 Physical(*) Up to STRx5 CONx1 Overloaded 3 shifts -60 Agility, -45 Physical(*) (*) All skills which require some physical activity. Everything except Perception, Knowledge, and Communication skills, all Custom skills, and Evaluate. Magic skills and sorcery ARE affected. "Shift" means shifts down on the terrain table. Thus, a heavily loaded PC in Hindering terrain would have to roll as if the terrain was Intractable. [ Note: Terrain table should be expanded anyway ] 3] Wearing gauntlets (locations 13 and 16) should reduce your Magic and Fine Manipulation skills, and Sorcery spell percentages. It should also probably reduce your Climb as well. 4] HEAT is why armor and helmets are so exhausting; in cold rainy weather as shown in the example, the armor should cause no extra roll. On the other hand, even leather is exhausting in hot weather. Actually, even nudity can be exhausting in hot weather. A whole SECTION should be devoted to this. If you want to run a game where the low damage weapons can actually do something, don't have stupid "no armor" laws: run your campaign in Pamaltela where due to heat, everybody STARTS at light fatigue, and if you want to wear leather, you START near the point of heat exhaustion. 5] "Careful movement or poor visibility" may be hard on the eyes, but not on the body. If you want, have a "mental fatigue" which lowers effective INT instead of DEX. 6] Fatigue penalties are completely unrealistic. When you get tired, your STR drops, maybe your effective DEX, perhaps even a little INT, and skills which need exertion to succeed drop especially quickly. But, for instance, weary doctors don't fumble 1/10th of the time, or else there'd be a hell of a lot more malpractice suits. Requests for Divine Intervention (a percentile roll) shouldn't be any worse. These rules deform both the very low and very high skill levels to the point of unplayability, making Heroquest impossible. Try something like this: Fatigue Class Description ------------------------------------------------- Normal The adventurer is not fatigued Winded Loose 1/6 STR(*); round up (STR 1 to 8 is -1, 9 to 14 is -2, etc). Agility skills drop 10%, Large Manipulation skills drop 5%. At best, asphyxiation starts at CON x 5. Tired As above except loose 1/4 STR, 1/6 DEX(*). Agility skills drop 20%, Large Manipulation drop by 10%, Fine Manipulation skills drop 5%. Weary As above except loose 1/3 STR, 1/4 DEX. Agility skills drop 30%, Large Manipulation drops 25%, Fine Manipulation skills drop 15%. Exhausted As above except loose 1/2 STR, 1/3 DEX. Agility skills drop 40%, Large Maniuplation Drop 40%, Fine Manipulation skills drop 30%, and all other skills drop 20%. Prostrated As above except loose all STR, 1/2 DEX. Agility and Large Manipulation skills cannot be used. Must roll CONx5 to be able to take any activity at all, and even if so, any skill requiring any effort must special to succeed; this activity also does 1d3 "non-lethal" HP to the character, heals only by rest. Dying Character is dying due to loss of Fatigue. This state cannot be spell induced. Character looses 1d6 "non-lethal" HP per round, heals by rest. (*) Skill subtractions are already factored in. If you like, you may recalculate Move and or Damage Bonus. Roll a Fatigue check each round the adventurer uses a weapon from below its minimum STR or DEX. Optional rule: if the adventurer Specials his skill roll, he makes a normal success no matter what minuses apply. If he criticals, he makes a special no matter what minuses apply. Optional rule 2: Fatigue due to lack of sleep, substitute a temporary loss of INT for DEX (or in addition to). Asphyxiation - Reasonably ok, but the penalty for not taking that first breath is totally unrealistic. Try starting at CONx5 instead. Really, this entire rules set should probably be incorporated into Fatigue, since asphyxiation relates to Fatigue. The present rules allow you to run around fully active while holding your breath with no penalty. You can also heal Asphyxiation damage as it occurs. Special Weapon Techniques - Even though they only take effect on a special (which I agree with totally), I feel there should be some disadvantage to using these. If specials weren't so wimped out, this wouldn't be a problem. Set Spear vs Charge - Adding mount's DB is simple, but not very realistic. You could substitute Velocity in meters for STR for a better result. Magic Speed - If you charge extra SRs just to add backing MP, people will always cast at the maximum spell effectiveness they've got. I also mourn the loss of the 5 melee round "spell preparation", which meant people could actually be too surprised to get off a spell. B- to C+ Grades: ( or - "Identified the problem, didn't quite fix it" ) Magic which replaces skills - RQ has always had problems with spells that completely replace skills. RQ4 fixed some, but widened others. 1] Silence used to be the perfect alternative to Sneak/Move Quietly. I liked the RQ3 way, but it was a bit chincy. How about +25% per point? 2] Healing was the perfect alternative to First Aid, and I like the roll needed to reattach; actually my game is much meaner - you can "misheal" a limb. Unfortunately, Healing 10 now is the perfect alternative to Treat Poison and flame damage. If you want Shamans to be able to heal CON, make it achievable by bargaining with powerful healing spirits, not as a base ability. 4] Detect spells are still the perfect replacement for sense skills. Now they are even more overpowered by conversion to being active. I don't quarrel with the anti-directionality of countermagic, but you also need Detection Blank, at least in Thief/Illusion cults. Does Detect Magic detect the location of Countermagic spells? If it does, there's a problem. Also, I see Detect Trap was quietly dropped - it would be better to give a wimped out replacement (i.e. it gives an inexact location) - else you will still see players running with this one as "useful uncommon spirit magic". 5] Find Enemy has no mention of being blocked by Countermagic. Indended? 6] Glamour should not be a nearly perfect replacement to Act/Disguise, even (or especially) to low APP characters. Stackable Magic - RQ3 has horrible problems with stackable magic in all categories, Battlemagic, Sorcery and Runemagic. Without the inherent stacking limits of RQ2, RQ3 violated steve's first rule of magic: Large quantities of low quality magic should NOT be the equivalent (or better) than high quality magic. So for example RQ3 allowed large quantities of battlemagic to be be equivalent or better than Runemagic, and large quantities of RQ3 Runemagic were sometimes equivalent or better than Heroquest magic. RQ4 seems to have fixed some of the problems introduced in RQ3, but left others alone. In general, I would argue it took the wrong tack, in trying to wimp out individual spells, instead of fixing the underlying cause. 1] Sorcery seems fixed, since the "Free INT" rules were dropped in favor of a system based on skill percentage, and now there is the division between "Low Magic" and "High Magic". The only problem I see comes from another one I already mentioned: skill cross-training. Under the current rules, two sorceror-instructors would be able to teach each other to ungodly skill percentages, and thus be correspondingly gross. But if you fix Training like I suggest, this goes away by itself. 2] Runemagic is NOT fixed. You can still stack literally hundreds of points of Shield together (for instance) to end up untouchable. I find it particularly amusing that 20 points of Impede Chaos (which any Storm Khan could get access to by asking his tribesman to cast their spells on him) will cause the Crimson Bat to fumble against the Khan 99% of the time, quite possibly killing itself in the process. ( Not only is this an example of large quantities of Runemagic being the equivalent of Heroic magic, it is a perfect illustration why the "add to the die roll" mechanic does not work ). 3] Despite the cult restrictions, Battlemagic is still NOT fixed. First, cult rules are silly: cults naturally want their members to be as powerful as possible, and there is no reason why they would want to restrict spirit spell access (the weakest form of magic) to initiates. Next, given that Shamans now have access to Runemagic through spirit cults (which they should), it is silly to make large cults be unable to teach a wide array of simple battlemagic; rather there should be a bonus for teaching some forms of magic. Finally, there are still no ultimate stacking rules based on the quality of the magic, thus for instance, we find that given a choice between learning Bladesharp 5 and Truesword, any broadsword wielder would learn the Bladesharp, since it is better. (Actually, due to the low weapon damage, given a choice between Fireblade and Truesword, anyone who parries with a shield will take the Fireblade, since it averages more than double the damage of any one-handed weapon; see my comments on Low Weapon Damage below) Here are my suggetions at fixing magic gradations: Variable Battlemagic spells have a maximum of 4x effect on a single target, with only the following exceptions: Dispel Magic, Mindspeech, and Healing; the extra spell remains, but cannot exceed the maximum. For example, a Bladesharp 5 can divide into a Bladesharp 3 and 2 for two different weapons. Yet cast on a single weapon, it can only boost skill by 20% and damage by 4. A Dispel Magic 4 will not dispel a Bladesharp 5 weapon. If a Dullblade 1 is then cast on the weapon, it would retain its +20% / +4, the extra +1 of Bladesharp kicking in to neutralize the one point of lowered damage due to the Dullblade. Variable divine spells have similar limits as to maximum effect. Yet unlike Battlemagic effects, they are variable depending on the caster's status. Initiate effect maximums are 2 points, Acolyte effects are typically 4, Runelord/Priests typically have 6, and High Priests can go to 8. For example, even if an Initiate has 4 Points of sacrified Shield, the maximum effect that shield can have is 2 Points (+4 pts protection/ +4 pts countermagic), while an Acolyte could stack all 4 points together on one target for +8/+8. Cultists who are more closely bound to their god are able to use the god's spells more effectively. These effects also vary by the nature of the God in relation to the spell. Closely aligned spells, for instance Chalana Arroy to Restore Health, add +2; meaning a Chalana Arroy initiate could effectively restore up to 4 pts of a characteristic. Spells which go against a gods normal nature, if the god even provides it, have a negative effect. For example, Summon Salamander is both at -2 and twice cost for Zorak Zoran cultists; while initiates can buy the spell, they cannot use it, Acolytes can stack 2 points to get a 1 point Salamander, Priests can stack 4 points to get a 2 point Salamander, and High Priests can stack 8 points to get a 3 point Salamander. Spell Teaching is a stackable spell which allows Priests to teach any battlemagic they know; each point of Spell Teaching allows for 1 point of cult magic. Thus, to teach the spell Bladesharp 4 requires a four point Spell Teaching. Spell Teaching is limited like any Runespell to maximum effect. Thus an initiate can only teach up to 2 points of cult magic, an acolyte up to 4, etc. Spellteaching of a god's favored cult magic is usually at a +2, thus Acolytes of Chalana Arroy can stack 6 Points of Spell Teaching to teach Healing 6 if they had that much Spell Teaching, but could not do the same to teach Protection. The time it takes for priests to regain their spells is one reason why high power spirit magic is so expensive. Many smaller gods are also unable to grant variable Divine spells at the higher intensities; these are listed individually. [ Note: you would have to fix some of the spell descriptions if you took this fix, since, for example, Extension as written would be worthless; it nearly is now ] C to C- Grades: ( or - "Some disappointments are inevitable" ) Weapon Damage - Always too low in RQ, and again lowered further! Now, a normal man (STR 11/SIZ 13), stabbing another utterly average, HELPLESS, NUDE man (SIZ 13/CON 10) with a javelin, can stab him NINE times and still not, on average, kill him. The same man with a POLEAXE, striking the same NUDE man in the chest, will not, on average, even knock him out! (he barely knocks him down - for one round). This average man CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, >>> even including the unrealistic All Out weapon damage rules <<<, kill a nude helpless man with a sightly above average CON (13), in a single blow to the head with a shortsword. If you even consider what armor is like, even before spells and armor enchantment, you realize RQ4 combat will be nothing but hits to the "tink". It also makes weapon and defensive magic that much more powerful in relation to skill effectivness. My solution: If you are going to double effective hit points of every PC (by allowing them to go below 0 pts damage), increase weapon damage correspondingly. Especially, keep high damage specials. Combat Actions - While pretty good, these could be a lot better. Here's what I see wrong with the current rules: 1] All Out x1 1/2 Weapon Damage - What is this GURPS? In real combat, there is NO technique which *guarantees* higher than average damage, expecially one that sheer novices can use. Also, what is exactly subject to the x1.5 multiple? Weapon Damage? DB? Spells? 2] All Out Attack Spell Casting - Please do not allow multiple attack spells to be cast in a round ("I all-out from behind the rock!"). RQ has far too much trouble with machine-gun spellcasters as it is. 3] Wimped Out Specials - I guess this is the inverse of the "All Out" attack. There is no way anyone can get in a lucky "high damage" blow, except with the very rare criticals. 4] No Skill Separation - Some skills require concentration (e.g. an Attack action) to perform, some don't. There are no rules for this. 5] There is no way to "block" someone sprinting by you (the free attack is not enough). Should have a Maneuver vs Maneuver to do this. 6] The spirit combat rules are HORRIBLE! (You will find my treatment of them in the D Grade section). Here's my substitute for the above: Declaration Phase Each combatant gets two actions per melee round. Each action can either be Active (planned and/or requiring concentration), or Passive (partially planned and/or responsive what happens in the combat). All Active actions must be exactly stated in the Declaration phase; for example: "I attack the large broo to my left" or "I Befuddle his allied hawk". Combatants who take two Active actions must declare before anyone else. Active Actions include: - Any melee weapon attack - Any missile weapon attack, except unaimed saturation fire - Any spell which requires a resistance or targeting roll (*) - Maintaining or continuing to cast any active spell (*) - Force a Commanded uncooperative creature to perform an action - Any hard sorcery skill - Any spirit combat attack or special spirit attack (*) - Use one of the following skills: Throw, Catch, Climb, Jump (other than merely landing), or Sleight. First Aid, Treat Poison, Disarm Trap, and Sneak also take active actions, but take the whole round. - An active action based on a condition (e.g. "If he runs, I'll shoot him"); the action is wasted if the condition doesn't occur. (*) These are Spirit Actions if they have less than a 95% chance of success No spirit (including living spirits) can take more than one Spirit Action per round. [ See alternate spirit combat fixes on Grade D rule section ] If a combatatant chooses to take two attacks of any form, the second attack takes place 3 SR after the first. Passive Actions Passive actions need only be generally stated in the Declaration phase; for example: "and I'll defend", "then I'll back off", or "I'm casting a spell on myself". Passive Actions include: - Defend; A parry or dodge against every attack by one opponent. - Disengage; Any normal post-melee move; when a combatant dedicates two passive actions to this, it is called "Sprinting". - Spell; Any spell not described above (*); move a lightwall - Smash; Weapon damage against an immobile object (door); small objects or downed opponents require an attack roll, and may still hit a shield which covers a hit location. - Direct; Direct a ridden animal, elemental, or troops to attack; only for cooperative creatures - Duck; Hide from missile fire using available cover at twice normal effectiveness (in a -30% forest, be at -60%). Combatant can parry but not Dodge, MV is halved and combatant looses the terrain bonus if he moves out - Cover; Cover x2 normal shield locations (2 for small, 4 for medium, 6 locations for large) from missile fire. This cannot be combined with any parry or dodge, and MV is halved while executing this maneuver. - Use one of the following skills: Balance, Boat, Conceal, Drive, Hide, Search, or Swim (*) Subject to Spirit Action limitation. Background Actions Passive actions typically do not take as much concentration as Active actions, freeing the combatant to perform unplanned background actions. Combatants typically get 2 minus Active actions taken in Background actions per round, though GMs should to tailor this the particular situation. Background actions need never be stated until performed. Background Actions include: - Selectively decide not to resist a friendly spell - Ready a weapon or spell matrix - Say something very short (two words: "Get him", "Duck", $#&!, etc) - Use one of these skills: Listen, Scan, Ride - Perform an extremely short unopposed miscellaneous action: Open an unlocked door, step on a weapon, unstrap and drop a shield (but not in a round it was or might have been used). - Stand up - Switch defenses to account for an unexpected attack (change from Parry to Dodge when a gnome attacks) - Selectively decide which hit locations to cover with a shield (1 location for small shields, 2 for medium, 3 for large). - Try to pull out an impaled weapon Associated Actions Some actions can have optional associated actions which may usually be performed "for free" along with the normal Action, though they usually take additional SRs to complete. Unless the GM decides otherwise, this takes 3 SRs or DEX SR, whichever is longer. If you run out of SRs in a round, the action is part of the next round. Only one action may be associated with another. Action Optional Associated action: Attack Ready: Prepare a weapon to be used; takes extra time Attack Close: Move past long weapon using opponent by winning a Maneuver skill contest Shield parry Block: pit your Maneuver vs Maneuver to keep an opponent from moving past you in the Post melee move. Blocker can can cover a total of MV/2 hexes (round up). Missile Attack Load: Load before or reload after; takes extra time Dodge Tumble: apply moving target penalty to missile attacks Dodge or Parry Back Off: Retreat to optimum effective range for a weapon by winning a Maneuver skill contest Cast Sorcery Manipulate: Use a sorcery skill on a spell Dodge or Parry Avoid: pit your Maneuver vs Maneuver to keep a large object (including another enemy) between you and your opponent. Can be done vs many opponents. Free Actions Some actions are always free. They take no specific concentration by the combatant in question, and may be performed as often as desired, even when unconscious or incapacitated. Free Actions include: - Defend with full MP against any spells - Defend with full MP against spirit attacks - Any "natural" effect of the creature; fire from salamanders, dark and cold from shades, pulverize soil by moving gnomes, spread disease by Broos, Immunity to Normal Weapons by were-creatures, etc. - Pray for Divine Intervention (while a PC pray for aid as often as he wishes, gods generally only answer once per situation). Optional Effects of Special Hits Optionally, the exact nature of the special hit can vary with the weapons used. The weapons tables categorize the weapons by type. A combatant who specials wtih a Special Combat Technique gets that special result instead of, not in addition to, the effects listed here. Crushing weapons "crush", doing twice rolled weapon and damage bonus damage. For example, a 1d8 crushing weapon wielded by someone with a +1 DB rolls 2d8+2 damage. Spell damage is not enhanced by this, but is added. Especially when wielded by high STR and SIZ combatants (for instance trolls), this damage nearly always penetrates heavy armor. Slashing weapons "slash", doubling the damage of every point that penetrates. For example, a 1d8 slashing weapon vs 3 point armor that rolls a 6 does (6 - 3 = 3 * 2 =) 6 points damage to the hit location. Slashing weapons are not as useful against heavily armored opponents, but are deadly against lightly armored opponents in crowded combat. Impaling weapons "impale", doing weapon damage plus maximum weapon damage, and sticking in the opponent or his equipment; damage bonus is ignored if negative, but not doubled if positive. For example, a 1d8 impaling weapon wielded by someone with a -1 DB does 8+1d8 points damage to the opponents armor or shield. Impaling weapons are most useful in the hands of smaller combatants. Impaled weapons have a "Sticking STR" of physical damage done minus magical AP. For example, a spear which impaled for 14 pts vs someone protected by a 2 pt Protection spell, has a Sticking STR of 12. This must be overcome to remove the weapon. An impaled weapon does 1 point of critical damage each round it is stuck in an opponent's body, but this also lowers the sticking STR by 1. Wounds cannot be healed while a weapon is stuck in them. Impaled beings are at -5 STR to remove an impaled weapon. Successful First Aid lowers the Sticking STR by 5, a special by 10, a critical means automatic removal. Pole Arms Weapon (not shield) parries against polearms have the effect of a Dodge; a normal parry makes a critical an impale, an impale a hit, and a hit a miss. Polearms include all Spears, Lances, and Pikes, War and Troll Mauls, Great Hammers, Poleaxes, and Swordsticks. Damage Bonus [ At the very least, add the following die rolls: ] STR+SIZ Damage Bonus 01-05 -4 or -2d3 06-10 -3 or -2d2 11-15 -2 or -1d3 16-20 -1 or -1 21-25 0 or 0 26-30 +1 or +1 31-35 +2 or +1d3 36-40 +3 or +2d2 41-45 +4 or +2d3 46-50 +5 or +2d4 51-55 +6 or +1d4+1d6 56-60 +7 or +2d6 61-65 +8 or +1d6+1d8 66-70 +9 or +2d8 71-75 +10 or +1d8+1d10 - - - - - - - - - - - - End Rewritten Rules - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Broken Spells - Either too powerful, too weak, or not well described: 1] With Dismiss Magic, how the heck do you Dismiss "part" of a non- variable or non-stackable spell? What happens when you do? I throw a Dismiss Magic 1 on a Great Parry, what happens? Can it be stacked with Dispell? Frankly, I'd prefer a much more powerful version of the spell. One which would justify it being Runemagic. Here's one attempt: DISMISS MAGIC Magic Rune Common 1 Point Ranged, Instant, Stackable, Reusable Dismiss Magic eliminates all magical spells of its intensity or less on the target at which it is cast. For example, Dismiss Magic 2 eliminates all battlemagic 4 pts or less and all running Runemagic of 2 points or less on a target. Dismiss Magic will eliminate Countermagic, but attacks remaining spells with only its leftover effect, so a Dismiss Magic 2 thrown at a target with 3 points Countermagic, dispels the target's Countermagic and all running 1 point battlemagic spells. Like all spells, casters may add extra MP to help Dismiss Magic penetrate Countermagic. Dismiss Magic may also be used to drive Summoned creatures back to their plane of origin. The Dismiss must have intensity equal or greater than the Summon or Embody used to bring the creature, and the caster must overcome the its MP. Undead, and other magical creatures which naturally reside on the mundane plane are unaffected by this use of Dismiss Magic. 2] Extension doesn't extend Cult battle magic? Again, this is too weak until you get to the silly extreme. 3] Excommunication destroys battlemagic? With a Spirit of Retribution, maybe, but certainly not by default. 4] Do NOT allow disruption to do damage to inanimate objects. This would become yet another spell being the perfect substitute for a skill; in this case, Escape Binding. You just disrupt the rope used to tie you up. Of course, there are a bunch of other misuses too. Stopping a ship doesn't require runemagic, just a few disrupts thrown into the rigging. Lets disrupt someone's armor or shield straps, or better yet the saddle straps under your enemy's horse. The Lunar empire would have hardly needed Yara Arranis if Disrupt had this ability. 5] Why does "Elemental Law" (truestone) give you this silly desire to cast your spells into it? Another Petersonism that should have been taken out. 6] I really wish Healing was not quite so universal. I liked the old Xenohealing from RQ2, which I described as a healing spell for each different Form rune: Man Rune Healing (default; heals anything tied to the man rune, including elves, dwarves, and trolls), Beast Rune Healing (xenohealing), Plant Rune Healing (want to fix your Warrior of Wood?), Dragon Rune Healing (useful only for Dragonnewts, Wyrms, a few other exotics), Spirit Rune Healing (also called "Transfer MP"). This made it so that Humakti couldn't just heal their summoned Gnome and send it back into battle. 7] Why go to the trouble of doing almost reasonable Fatigue rules, if you are just going to make some new spell which perfectly stops it? Wimp the Endurance spell out, please. Certainly it should not be better than Berzerk, a Runespell which after it runs out drops you back to the amount of fatigue you spent. 8] Berzerk is too weak. To toughen it up, I make Berzerks immune to other Mind Affecting spells. Actually, I do this for all Runic mind affecting spells - after all, can a Mindblasted target really be affected by Fearshock? Making Berzerks immune to Mindblast Madness also wimps out those gross-out spells, and gives Lunars something to fear. Also, rather than explaining it separately, just make the blanket statement: The effects of Runic Mind Affecting spells cannot be dispelled. Weapon Modifiers - The problem is that there are none. Once base training is through, it is still as easy to parry with a dagger as it is a shield; easier in fact, you can learn Dagger parry more quickly. How hard would it be to include a Attack/Parry modifiers? Listed with each weapon, they would add or subtract from the user's final Attack and Parry chance, to reflect how easy or hard it is to use the weapon. For instance, a small shield would have: -20/+10 reflecting that it is hard to attack with it, but easy to parry. Most one handed weapons would have quite the reverse (positive or zero attack, negative parry), reflecting ease of attack and difficulty parrying.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05111; Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:12:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08219; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:11:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:12:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:11:22 EST From: dquill@netcom.com (Daniel Quill) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: One more thing. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:12:02 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A8D0192A4D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Two of Two: D+ to D Grades: (or - "Eegad! Dost mine eyes perceve a Mac Truck?") Worship Diety - One POW check per week. Holy cow, you're actually keeping this RQ3 crock? Please PLEASE just make worship services just part of the Sanctify spell: the more worship services you hold, the more Divine spells your shrine/temple/etc can support. (Also the larger your Temple spirit but we won't go into that right now). If you REALLY want to keep this, make it -at most- once per season. Ye Olde Species Max Bug - Is anyone offended that Dryads have a Species Max POW of 46? That a 26 POW Dryad priestess with Worship Aldrya and her pet trees will gain, on average, 24 POW (for spells) per year? 42 POW for Dryads which don't sleep through winter? That this isn't special, it's average? That after one year of this, she could, say, every season cast a Shield 40 extended for 120 years on anyone she pleased? Or some other hideously abusive use of POW, such as shamanistic magic? Please please fix this. It is so simple: Species max is Highest Rollable Value + 1/6th Highest Rollable (round up). It still leaves Dryads with respectible, but not quite heroic Species Max POW of 33. [ Actually, I'd say intelligent elementals should have species max POW which varies by the size of the thing they represent, but maybe that's too complex ] Spirit Plane - This is not really explained in gameworld terms. All I see is a bunch of tables for shaman abilities. Its done so well elsewhere, this really sticks out. Spirit Combat - Unless these are fixed, shamans will be the "sorcerors" of RQ4: 1] Spirits can all gang up on one PC, and unless you have the unique spirit spell "Draw Spirit", there is nothing anybody can do about it. 2] All Out Spirit Combat allows spirits which have no business being able to do anything, still being incredibly effective, even against Shamans. Again, only a spell seems to stop this: "Spirit Block". 3] There is still no way to intercept attacking spirits 4] You must take an ACTION to defend in spirit combat? What next, take an ACTION to defend against spells? Magic Defense at FULL MP should always be AUTOMATIC. PERIOD. 5] The "higher damage for higher-MP" rules make super high power spirits utterly gross, and in addition cause horrible breakpoints 6] The Compromise (for that read any sane GM) forbids Spirits with a POW higher than 3d6+6 from directly attacking embodied opponents (for the same reason why gods don't just come down and splat the PCs/NPCs), either in spirit combat, or just by casting spells. These rules do nothing to limit this. 7] Again no limits to using spirit block and/or spirit shield to cheat in Spirit Binding (Ghost, etc) contests. Worse, Shamans can go grab spirits they have no business being able to attack using either one of these spells. 8] It takes a runepriest a Divine spell to summon an elemental, then a command spell to command it. Shamans can summon (and resummon) a held elemental over and over again with a 2 MP spell (Visibility). 9] Visibility is otherwise vastly overpowered. According to these rules, a God can become visible at a cost of 2 MP. Also its not symmetric, it costs 2 MP to cast, but the spirits POW to Dispel, and the immunity spirits have while under this is absurd. 10] In one on one combat, a +3 advantage in MP makes for about a 90% chance of winning. Nothing has been done to change this. Here is my suggestions on fixes: The Spirit Plane The spirit plane is a very strange place to an embodied creature. Normal senses do not work, for it is detached from all physicality. Instead, spirits can detect any source of POW or Magic (the physical matter of the spirit plane) at a distance of half Spirit POW times target POW. For instance, a 14 POW spirit can see a 32 POW spirit at a range of (14/2 * 32 =) 39. On the spirit plane, this number does not translate into any physical measure of distance. Spirits with zero POW cannot normally be detected. To the newly discorporate, the spirit plane may appear as a place of grey mist. This illusion comes from the confusion of physical senses with the spirit's new state. Such spirits may interpret many things they encounter here into more understandable physical senses (an spirit of hate may appear cold and dark, a healing spirit may appear angelic, etc), but are often surprised when "impossible" things occur due to failure of translation. Most important of these is that on the spirit plane, there is no such thing as direction; no up, down, left, right, forward or back. Distance is mixed with size, so a "faint" spirit may be a very small spirit which is near, or a very large one which is far away. Finally, as spirits have only three characteristics: INT, POW, and WILL (emotion), they can discern personality in the same way that embodied creatures can see color. Spirit Combat Spirits may participate in combat like anything else. Like physical combatants, spirits have two actions, but may take only one "spirit" action per round. This is far more limiting to spirits however, since the only non-spirit action they can take is movement. Spirit Movement While spirits move as quickly as thought, the spatial geometry of the physical world is as bizarre to them as the magical geometry of the spirit world is to normal embodied creatures (see Spirit Plane). For this reason, manifested spirits have a MV of 2, but can engulf to Spirit Attack anyone within Half Manifested POW plus Target POW in meters. For example, a 10 POW spirit 21 meters from an 18 POW priest could attack, but could not attack a 5 POW trollkin 12 meters away. Rarely, a spirit may possess the Inner World Travel skill, akin to shaman Spirit Travel, which allows them to move their POW in hexes per turn. Spirits trapped in areas become very familiar with their prison, and so have a limited version of this skill at 100%. Spirit Actions Anything which requires use of POW or MP is a spirit action. This is typically one of the following: Attack - Rip away an enemy spirit's MP by overcoming them on the resistance table. No matter what the respective MP values, any roll of 51-00 is a miss. A normal success reduces enemy MP by 1 point, plus 1 for every 10 percent the roll was made by. So a 14 MP spirit attacking a 12 MP spirit has the maximum 50% chance, and if it rolled 36, would do 2 MP damage. A special does 5 MP damage, and a critical does 10 MP damage. Unless the Attack is a fumble, the spirit subject to the attack cannot flee after having been engaged by the attacker in spirit combat. Disengage - An aggressive attempt to fight off an enemy spirit. It has the same mechanics and effect as Attack, except a Disengaging spirit cannot bind (possess) its opponent. Spirit Screen and Spirit Shield give their bonus ONLY when the target takes this action; they do not add to the defense of a spirit performing a Spirit Attack. If both spirits choose the Disengage maneuver, they separate without doing any damage. Spell Cast - Spells are cast by pitting MP vs enemy spirit MP at Strike Rank equal to the intensity of the spell (use Manifested MP for manifested spirits only). Spirits can only attack spirits they can "see" at the same range they move. Note that many spells have no effect of spirits. Close Combat Spirit Combat is "close combat". Neither spirit may draw upon any outside source of magic, including MP or spells through mindlinks, allied spirits, or even their own unmanifested POW (including their unmanifested fetch POW). Spells or Spirit Attacks against engulfed spirits have a 50/50 chance of hitting either one, and there is no way to determine which one was hit, unless it makes the spirits disengage. Spirits in combat are acutely aware of each other's condition, so do not keep exact MP secret. Spirit Sequence Many attacks on the spirit plane appear to be simultaneous, all taking effect on SR 1. When this occurs, spirit actions actually take place in the following order: Runespells cast on oneself or through active Mindlink, Spirit Attack and/or Defense of those already engaged, Targeted Runespells, Spirit Move/Engulf to Attack, Battlemagic. Spirit Binding Once a spirit is reduced to 0 MP, the Spirit Attack percentage rises to 95%, so it does not require a Spirit Action to hold a spirit. This frees the attacker to cast another spell, which can be some form of spirit binding. A 0 MP spirit can still attempt to Disengage with its 0 MP (though it cannot Spirit Attack). If a manefested spirit is bound, it looses all its unmanifested POW, which become one or more incomplete spirits. MANIFEST Visibility, Manifest Variable (4 pts maximum effectiveness) Ranged, Passive This special spell allows a spirit, or part of a spirit, to transfer from the spirit plane to the mundane plane, without any accompanying physical form or special abilities. The first point brings up to 6 MP, each additional point allows an extra die of the spirits POW/MP; spirits whose POW is greater than maximum rollable, require one point for each 6 above the maximum. For example, a 21 POW ex-trollkin spirit needs a 2 for 2d6 original species POW, plus 2 for the extra 9 points above 12. Spirits gain one magic HP per point of manifested MP, which can be damaged by the intensity of damaging magic spells; Fireblade does 4 points damage, as does Bladesharp 4. Damage taken reflects on the manefested MP, and when this MP reaches 0, the spirit no longer is in contact with the mundane world. See Spirit Rules for further explanation of manifested spirits. [ Note: the Spirit Rules I suggest are under Spirit Binding below ] EMBODY All cults with special spirits or elementals 1 Point Ranged, Passive, Stackable, Reusable Each one of these spells allow a specific type of special spirit to transfer from the spirit plane, temporarily animating a part of the natural world as its physical body. The base spell allows up to 6 Points, each stacked level allows for an extra die (d6). The points are modified by the element inhabited, typically x1/2, x1 or x2. For example, a 2d6+6 (14 POW) Gnome spirit requires a 3 point Embody, and has a STR of 28 and HP of 46. A same POW sylph would have a STR 28 and HP 28. Regardless of body size, Embody allows the spirit to manefest 3d6+6 POW into the form for the spell duration. Physical embodiments are limited by amount of manefestable element, and its purity. While these are GM determined, as a rule of thumb require a minimum of 1 cubic meter per level of Embody, and purity comprible to the following chart: Purity Level Dark Fire Disease Absent -1 Sunlight Pitch black Fire/Purified Areas Near Absent 0 Shadow Dim stars Running water Present 1 Starry Night Torch/Light Normal wilderness Enhanced 2 Cold/No Moon Bonfire Diseased Dung/Flies Near Pure 3 Freeze/Black Inferno Broo Cesspool Pure 4 Helldark Aether Mallia's Pus With extra stacked Embody, and ample impure element to work with, a special spirit may "grow" more STR at a rate of 1 level every five minutes spent doing nothing else. Thus, a salamander summoned from a 2d6 Bonfire, could become a 3d6 salamander by spending 5 minutes in a flammable region. In hostile (Absent or Near Absent) environments, spirits shrink at a GM determined rate. Spirits may or may not carry their own Embody spell. If they do not, it is up to the priest or shaman to purchase it for them. Once the spell is used, they must return to a temple or elemental plane to regain it, at the ususal rate of one day per point. Kids and Magic - No one has yet told me why kids don't start out with a POW of 19+, since if everybody always gets a POW check at years end, that's what they'd all be starting with. Actually, I say babies start with 1d6 POW, but then I throw out the "Luck Roll" - why are magicians always luckier than thieves, gamblers, or warriors? Low POW Priests - RQ2 said priests had to have a POW of 18 for the god to effectively interact with them (15 POW to start as a Rune lord). RQ3 took away this restriction. The question becomes: why the heck isn't everybody a priest? In medieval europe the answer was: because priests didn't do anything, they just prayed and ate. On Glorantha, priests have access to "high magic", and are an economic boon. In any case, allowing Low POW priests and/or acolytes allows characters to gain runespells like mad. My fix: Reinstitute the POW minimums from RQ2. Priests need 18 POW minimum to maintain their status. Acolytes need 15 POW minimum. Runelords need 15 POW to apply but can drop without penalty. If you loose the POW, you automatically drop in status (including the speed at which you get your runespells back). Low POW Shamans - Ditto priest problems but more so. Shamans are constantly getting POW checks, and by keeping their POW low, can really power up their fetch to ungodly levels in just a few years. My fix: Only allow shamans add to their Fetch POW if they have a POW higher than 18. Thus, a 16 POW shaman who gets POW must keep it himself, but if he had an 18 POW, he could add it to his fetch. A POW 20 shaman can add 2 points of POW to his fetch, but then can add no more. Spirit Descriptions - It is not explained just how, for instance, "Spell Spirits" are absorbed. It leads to the conclusion that you can do this against virtually any spirit. Here's more what I'd like to see: SPIRITS ON THE SPIRIT PLANE Spirits which reside on the the spirit plane may only affect other spirit plane creatures; they can attack any unmanifested POW, including a shamans fetch. With a Special on its Spirit Sense skill, it may sense the POW of embodied spirits (but not spells which do not intrude on the spirit plane); on a Critical, they can translate this to a physical location. Lacking bodies, they also lack a method of automatically regenerating MP. However, they may be "fed" MP by willing characters, and in areas with available mana (where spells have been used), they may "forage" for MP at 1 MP per hour. All disembodied spirits have no "Species Max" POW, but only gain POW on a 01-05 POW gain roll. SPIRITS ON THE MUNDANE PLANE All creatures on the mundane plane must have a physical form. For a spirit to affect the mundane world, even to cast spells or engage in spirit combat, it needs a form. Manifest and Embody create temporary magical bodies for the spirits to enter. Spirits may also be take permanent residence in enchanted objects or regions, and living bodies. Except by use of heroic magic, spirits which exist on the mundane plane must abide by its restrictions. Among other things, this means that they cannot exhibit more than 3d6+6 MP in spirit and spell attacks. Living bodies on the mundane plane generate MP at the rate of POW in MP per day. SPIRIT DISPOSITION Spirits have many types of behaviors, some which seem perfectly logical to shamans, some which don't. Mindless: Either does nothing, or attempts to take action against the PC as guided by its unintelligent nature. Willless: Pieces of framentary knowledge or magic, these can be absorbed by others. Powerless: These are also called Souls, and are nearly indetectable. The powers they exhibit can always be explained away by other means. There are also reputed to be Gods of this realm, most notably the Invisible God and Invisible Orlanth. Enemy: Attempts to destroy, kill, impede, or inconvience at every opportunity. Would rather be destroyed than bound. No appeasements are ever effective. Hostile: Usually attacks as above. May be disuaded into ignoring the character by intimidation and/or significant appeasement with MP and/or POW (3d6 MP minimum). No appeasement ever gains the cooperation and/or favor of such a spirit. Neutral: Usually ignores character, attacks only if provoked. May be persuaded to perform small favor for MP (for 3d6 MP may do one casting of d6 MP spirit spell). No gift ever persuades a neutral spirit to take a risk on behalf of the gifter. Friendly: Will do small favors, leaves if provoked. May be persuaded to take risks (attack, etc) for gifts of MP. Spirit never accepts a bargain of greater detriment than benefit Allied: Routinely takes risks on summoner's behalf, tattles on PC to his god if provoked. Spirit typically perform actions of greater detrement than benefit (D.I. on the PCs behalf). SPIRIT TYPES There are hundreds of "species" of spirits which can be found on the spirit plane, but all can be classified into one of a very few categories. These are the types of spirits: Incomplete: The broken remanents of other spirits, or magic which has gained a sort of independence. They lack or have irreparably damaged one or more characteristics. Examples include: Spell Spirits (POW, damaged INT only), Passion spirits (damaged POW, damaged WILL only), Unintelligent spirits (POW, WILL, damaged/fixed INT), Curse/Blessing Spirits (POW, damaged INT, damaged WILL), Undead Spirits (WILL, damaged POW, INT or damaged INT). Magic/Rune: Spirits which embody a rune, and derive special powers and special disadvantages from it. Rune spirits may be complete or incomplete. Examples include: Disease Spirits (Disorder/Death), Healing spirits (Harmony/Life), Salamanders (Fire), Gnomes (Earth), Sylphs (Air), Undines (Water), Shades (Darkness), Lunes (Moon), Virtues (Law), Demons (Chaos), Nymphs (Man/), Nightmares (Illusion), etc. There are also Hero Magic spirits, often called Spirit "Kings" - of extreme power. Natural: Spirits which have full INT, POW, and WILL. Despite the name, these are one of the rarer of the spirits. Spirit cults, who know the ways of both the spirit plane and the god plane, call these the "unjudged", since they are the spirits of the dead who have declined to be judged so as to reenter the great cycle. Discorporate Shamans and Priests are Natural Spirits as well. Absorbing Spirits Spirits with incomplete or absent souls (no WILL) can be absorbed by other spirits. When this happens, the spirits POW and INT goes away, and its knowledge and whatever fragmentary personality it has merge with the dominant spirit. Spell spirits are typical examples of this, however Emotion (Madness) spirits also desire to be absorbed since it fulfills them in some way. [ Mechanics deleted ] Once fully absorbed, such spirits are nearly impossible to get rid of. The only method which has been known to work is exposing the character to something the Soul bonded spirit cannot stand. For instance, strong light to a dark loving spirit, or initiating to a god with the opposite runes as the soul spirit; this is why "forbidden" spells disappear upon initiation to some gods. The horrific Atyar cult can consume complete souls, but this is said to drive them slowly insane. - - - - - Spirit Binding and Enchantments - Seriously broken. Most needing rules dropped from RQ2, or at least something equivalent that addresses the same problems. 1] There is no maximum on number of bound spirits like there was in RQ2. Anyone halfway enterprising can get more spirits (and MP, etc) than they can possibly handle. While I didn't think the RQ2 mechanic worked especially well, at least there was one. 2] Used to be you had to put spirits in crystals, because that was the only thing that could hold them. While I can accept Spirit Trapping Enchantments, they are WAY WAY too cheap. 1 POW allows you to trap 3d6 POW of spirit? At the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, it should be 1 POW per 1d6 or 6 pts of plusses, so a 3d6+6 spirit trap would cost 4 POW. Actually, it might even be greater. 3] Attack-Dog Spirits - The "release" capability is hideous. I can just see some enterprising young PC realizing that for 2 POW he can make a "combat ghost" he can release to attack others in combat, and run around with four or five of the things (much more useful than runemagic). 4] Ranged Spell Attack Spirits - The ability to allow a spirit perform a ranged attack is equally hideous: "Me and my 9 bound spirits all cast Disrupt - oh, by the way, their average POW is 22". 5] Spirit Regeneration - An old old problem. The more spirits you have, the more they regenerate. Anyone with a serious spirit collection (such as shamans) has more MP than they know what to do with. Why do Gods need worship MP, when spirits can regenerate MP just as fast as anybody else? 6] POW gifts - The cost of "quality" POW points might be more reasonable if POW wasn't so easily transferred. _Anyone_ can give POW, and any discorporate spirit can accept it - including apparently Shamans or other people with Discorporaion cast on them. The worst abuse is givng POW to your allied: "My 49 POW allied in the sword casts Sever Spirit". Of course, if you limit maximum POW on the mundane plane, this problem goes away by itself. 7] Summon/Command Cult Spirit - With these spells, an Acolyte can get any number of bound cult spirits and special spirits at no cost. I say Summon spirit allows you to bring a spirit which has been named; you get the name from your God passed on through some Divination (e.g. "The spirit Hyim is for Oko The Huge"). Usually you get at most one name per year, but high cult status or favor from the god may increase this (likewise the reverse). 8] The "Creating Enchantment" rules again substitute POW for high skill. I see no reason why some idiot who just wants to blow POW can automatically make some incredibly sophisticated magic item, as easily as a simple one. More importantly, the unconditional ability to create "made to order" magic items leads to mini-maxer heaven. Lets see: Armoring enchantment costs 1 POW, but add a 1 POW area effect and I can effectively Armor all my hit locations (as opposed to spending 5 more POW via Armoring enchant rules). Or say, Storm Bulls making light matrices which only work on chaotic targets - whatever disguise Chaotics had left is now gone. Here is one way you could fix these problems: Transfer Ritual Magic/Hard This skill allows the user to transplant his POW into another spirit. Success means the spirit gained 1 POW, failure means it didn't. Disembodied spirits can typically only accept 1 POW per month at the maximum, as this grafting process takes time. Embodied spirits take longer: a maximum rate of 1 POW per year. ENCHANTMENTS The most common permanent magic in Glorantha are enchantments. There are four general types: Runemagic Enchantments, Sorcery Enchantments, Battlemagic Enchantments, and Spirithold/Spiritlink Enchantments. Runemagic Enchantments Made by Enchant , these create an extra place for a god to place his runemagic to aid his cult. Often the god limits the enchantment so as not to affect his cultists, or only be usable by his cultists. The gods interest in this depends on the power of item in question. They usually will listen to (but not always follow) the wishes of the cultist whose POW is being used to create the item. Sorcery Enchantments Made by Enchant Sorcery, these create a matrix which when powered with MP, cast a specifc sorcery spell with optional manipulations. The spell so generated may not be manipulated by any outside source, nor it is possible to learn how to cast the sorcery spell from examing the matrix. Battlemagic Enchantments Made by the runemagic Enchant or the magic skill Create Spiritmatrix (see below), these create a matrix which when powered with MP, cast a specific battlemagic spell. The spell cannot be partially cast (a Bladesharp 4 matrix cannot cast a BS 2), nor it is possible to learn the battlemagic from examining the matrix. Create Spiritmatrix Magic/Medium With this skill the magician can separate any spell spirit he has consumed, and permanently bind it into a physical object which must be enscribed with the runes of the spell totem. On success, he spends 1 POW per point of spell and the matrix is created. Whether he succeeds or fails he looses knowledge of the spirit magic spell. Spiritholding and Spiritlink Enchantments These two enchantment forms are closely related. Spiritholding enchantments create a matrix to house (or trap) a spirit in an object, a place, or a familiar. Spiritlink enchantments take an otherwise unbound spirit, place it in the location, and either bind its power, make it perform a specific deed, or forge an alliance. Despite its complexity, all magical traditions in Glorantha use these, as they are very useful. Spiritholding Enchantments Made by a variety of spirit and rune spells, these either prepare an area or inanimate item to hold a spirit, or allow a spirit already present (such as an animal) to be bound or allied. How a spirit is held affects how it can be bound and whether any spirit inside it can be freed by the Dismiss Magic or Free Ghost runespells, as shown in the following table: TYPE Example Binding Ghost Allied Dismiss? POW Storage Crystal Y N N N Inanimate Sword Y Y Y Y* Living Familiar Y N Y N Region Graveyard N Y N Y Disembodied Spirit N N Y N * Regardless of binding, Allied spirits cannot be dismissed. The following are various Spiritholding Enchantments: Dead Crystals These have the natural ablity to hold spirits up to three times their base POW. Neither can they be damaged. SPIRIT PRISON Spirit Prison, Spirit Trap, Spirit Store, Create Haunting Ground Variable (to 4) Ritual Each point of spell lets the caster spend a point of POW to hold a spirit. The first POW creates 6 points of spiritholding, each additional adds add +1d6. Since like most battlemagic its maximum effectiveness is 4, the caster can spend at most 4 POW to create a spiritholding enchantment of 3d6+6 POW. If the caster is enchanting a region, its maximum radius is its spiritholding capacity in meters, but may be more limited; a 14 POW capacity prison has a maximum 14m radius. Spirits bound in regions must Manifest to attack (see spell) but do so at will (no MP cost). If the caster is enchanting an item, its maximum size enchantable is its spiritholding capacity in ENC; the entire item must be enchanted. Spirits in items may, if their binding allows, cast spells, but may not spirit attack. Spirits in prisons regenerate MP at a rate of POW MP per week, but do not get POW gain rolls. The spirit is released if its MP ever becomes greater than spiritholding capacity of the prison, if it is overcome by a Free Ghost or Dismiss Magic runespell, or if the spell runes are damaged. This latter happens any time Total Damage the object has taken overcomes the items Total Hit Points. AWAKEN Beast/Mastery Nearly All Beast Rune Cults 2 Points Ritual (Enchant), Nonstackable, Nonreusable This spell brings a fixed INT animal to normal full intelligence, or 2d6+6 INT whichever greater, and enables its spirit to be Allied or Bound. The animal's metabolism and digestion also changes, increasing its appetite and preventing it from living off of forage. Large awakened animals are the luxury available only to the very rich, especially in Prax. ANIMAL FRIEND Beast Nearly All Beast Rune Cults 1 Point Ritual (Enchant), Nonstackable, Nonreusable This spell enables a non-intelligent animal to be bound. No unintelligent animal can be Allied. If stacked with Divine Intervention, it may cause a discorporate spirit (such as an Allied spirit whose body died) to permenently replace the spirit of the animal. HOLY Magic/Stasis Common 1 Point Ritual (Enchant), Nonstackable, Nonreusable This spell creates a home for a spirit in the specified item type, typically a Sword, Armor, or Tool associated with the god. It may accommodate any sized spirit, but entrance must be voluntary. The spirit can cast spells on the mundane plane only up to the Species Max of the caster. For example, a 28 POW Humakti Allied in a Holy Sword could only cast spells with an effective MP of 21. It defends at its full MP. Spirits in such items may be allied or voluntarily bound. Temples typically give runemasters one Holy Item without cost if it is their intent to place their Allied spirit into it. Spiritlink Enchantments Made by a variety of spirit and rune spells, these define how the spirit is to be used. The skills defined below cost 1 POW on each successful use. Failure means the spirit escapes, if it is so inclined. Spirits already linked or bound by one enchantment cannot be affected by another. Spirit Binding Magic/Easy This skill allows the user to bind a cooperating or defeated (0 MP) spirit into some prepared spirit holding magic or animal. If successful, it sets up a permanent Mindlink which allows the caster to draw upon the spirits MP and spell knowledge. The bound spirit cannot cast spells or engage in combat, but retains control of its natural body. The binding stops if the item or body holding the spirit breaks or dies, the binder dies, or if the two are separated by more than 5 km. Spirit binding is not always involuntary. Some spirits may agree to service in exchange for permanent POW (see Transfer Ritual). It is rarely useful to bind uncooperative animals as spirits, since they can just run away. Ghost Binding Magic/Hard This skill allows the user to bind a defeated (0 MP) spirit into prepared Spirit Prison (see Spirit Trap). If successful it binds the spirit to the area, and forces it to follow one very simple command. The spirit has no leeway in interpreting the command (weasiling is NOT allowed), and must perform it so long as it is able and can perceve the command condition (i.e. a ghost told to cast spells on Trolls must be able to percieve their nature). It may perform other actions so long as they do not interfere with the task set (i.e. an enemy ghost forced to attack its former friends cannot waste MP to make its attacks useless). More complexity may be added at a -10% modifier per condition. Command Type Modifier Example(s) Very Simple -0% Attack strangers, Defend Temple Simple -10% Dispel all befuddles Moderate -20% Heal when I'm wounded Complex -30% Cast firearrow when bow pulls Very Complex -40% Ignite specified thing on "fire" command ALLIED BONDING Common 1 Point Ritual (Enchant), Nonstackable, Reusable This spell is cast by a runemaster who has persuaded a cult spirit to become his Allied spirit. It forges a permanent Mindlink between the two spirits, making them best of friends. Allied spirits must stay in their bodies, but can be involuntarily disembodied (killed or broken) like anyone else. Even if disembodied, allied spirits regain their magic at POW MP per day. CREATE GHOST Zorak Zoran, Undeath Gods, Chaotic Death Gods 1 Point Ritual (Enchant), Nonstackable, Nonreusable In a ritual performed over a fresh corpse, the caster may attack the dead spirit in spirit combat. If he reduces the spirit to 0 MP, a Spirit Prison (see the battlemagic spell) of the exact POW neccessary to hold the spirit is created, and a Ghost is created as described under Enchant Ghost. If the caster wishes to add more complexity to the instructions, treat the Enchant Ghost skill as 100% before subtractions. CREATE GUARDIAN Humakt, Storm Bull, 1 Point Ritual (Enchant), Nonstackable, Nonreusable In a ritual performed over a fresh corpse, the caster may request the dead spirit to become a guardian. If the spirit acceeds, a Spirit Prison (see the battlemagic spell) of the exact POW neccessary to hold the spirit is created, and the spirit becomes a guardian (an independent spirit) for a set length of years. Spirit Guardians may continue to gain in cult status, before passing on to their god. F Grades: (or - "Tis a good game that has none of these") I do believe there are none of these. The closest is where you say the taste of orange peel causes you to roll CONx5 or be nauseous. Actually all the Sorcery illusion examples are pretty silly.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05970; Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:26:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09055; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:25:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:25:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:24:56 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: combat tactics; cults; POW; sorcery; etc. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:24:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A90A0E071C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul R. replying to David Dunham: >Paul said >>In Steve's proposal, this is modelled: people gain >>rune magic, etc. at a rate proportional to their power. >This models getting a unlucky die roll in character creation meaning you're >never a magician. Exactly right. Most people on Glorantha seem destined to never become professional magicians; for the Westerners this is explicit, for other cultures implied. Throughout most fantasy literature a talented few become the professional magicians; the exceptions are quite rare. Most people get average to low rolls; if you want to play a professional magician don't use pure random character creation. >Please no. I can't stand the bookkeeping of bleeding. Rules requiring extra bookkeeping are irksome; long spells of fixed duration are another example of this. It's 28 days since you cast your four-week spell - when exactly does the spell fail? I prefer the 'magic pool' concept for bookkeeping ease as much as anything. >> Also, whoever told you that "civilized" cultures have more leisure was >Exactly. Exactly. >I've never seen your fabled sorcery rules. I can't tell if this is for or against reposting... - paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07555; Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:45:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10212; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:45:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:45:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:45:06 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Creating Shamans; Intro Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:44:55 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3A9600B425C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Steven Barnes wrote about character creation. First, my heretical view that it doesn't matter, you only build characters once (almost everyone in my RQ4 game has the same characters they did almost two years ago). >Next, I noticed that Scan and Listen were not available on the >Shaman skill chart. ... >I ended up with basic rank in these skills, even though I feel >that an "expert" shaman should be better than that. I feel that no shaman should be very good interacting with the physical world (the article in Heroes magazine portrayed this well). They got this one right. >Having a "master" warrior, who can only use >one kind of weapon would be silly. That would be your own damn fault. (As well as impossible -- Master Lunar Soldier gets two weapons "free," and can get 7 others to 90% if he really wants to.) >Having chosen skills, I spent some time trying to puzzle out the >Shaman abilities, so as to choose 6. My cursory analysis was that >some were really great, and others weak. It was unclear whether >I was supposed to choose abilities associated with my school, or >if I could just take whatever I wanted. The GM ruled that I could >take whatever I wanted. Alas, this is what I ruled, and I've since regretted it. A shaman's abilities should come only from his school (or at least the majority should). Not that I really care what abilities the shaman has, but what purpose is there to schools otherwise? >Second Sense sounded cool, so >I made it a primary ability, until the GM suggested that it should >be a tertiary one, at most. It is essentially an improved use of >the "Second Sight", spell, and so it is questionable whether I should >have even taken at all. It's a lot better than Second Sight -- it works for free. Also, at higher levels, it can pierce defensive magic, which Second Sight has a limited ability to do. (Second Sense is also one reason shamans don't get good with Scan and Listen.) >The next problem came when comtemplating the fact that the Red Masks >shaman abilities are tied to the Lunar cycle. This becomes wierd >for some abilities. One is Expand Mind. Does one's memorized >spells change, based on moon phase? (I suggest no, as it is too >much of a bookkeeping chore). Likewise Self Ressurection becomes >strange. In fact, any ability which is used for a time span longer >than a day gets strange (using Spirit Affinity to find runic spirits, >for example). I don't see Expand Mind as a serious problem -- even as a tertiary skill, you get INT*2, which is quite a lot. And if on some days you can't use some spells, what's the problem? You do have a point with abilities that take longer than a day (although as GM I'd say that the good days balance out the bad days, just use the tables as normal). >the rules >state that if the Fetch's MP drop below that of the bound spirit, >then the spirit is released. But does this mean I can just draw >MP from the spirit and the fetch in equal amounts, to prevent this? Yes. >I was totally confused about what my shaman >could do in combat Stay out of it. Cast spells. Release spirits. I'm surprised you had the time to attack while discorporate -- it takes at least an hour. In actual fact, shamans make poor general-purpose player characters. They should have as many societal duties as priests. Guy wrote >He attempted to read the introduction but found that he could not >understand a word! Rereading the intro, I agree with someone else's comment that it's way too long. On p. 1, cut the last paragraph staring with "A blood red planet." The Timeline could probably go away (it's in the Glorantha chapter). Inner World and Genertela should be moved or deleted. Mythology could go in the Divine Magic section. History should go to the Glorantha chapter. Time doesn't need to be repeated. Weather and Geography should go in Glorantha chapter. Level of Civilization should remain in the intro, it gives a handy overview which can be grasped without learning new terms. Lands of Genertela should remain, but be trimmed radically -- most of what's needed is covered in Character Creation, and the rest should be moved to Glorantha. Most if not all of Play Aids should go in the GM chapter. I question the inclusion of a specific source for battlemats -- or is Chessex paying for the mention? Campaign Supplements could be renamed Story Supplements ("campaign" is an unfortunate holdover from miniatures army -- most of us don't run military campaigns). I assume a map will go in the intro chapter (with at least one other map in the Glorantha chapter).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10678; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:30:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12293; Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:29:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:29:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:29:46 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Maurer's Comments Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:29:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3AA1E732D23@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Daniel Quill (on behalf of Steve Maurer) said >First Aid cannot realistically heal damage - period. FIrst Aid does realistically heal damage. Damage represents pain, and that can be treated. > 4] As an optional rule, how hard would it be to divide up Manipulation > into Fine Manipulation (Devise, Play, Sleight, and Conceal), and > Large Manipulation (Attacks, Brawl, Drive, Grapple, Pass)? More appropriate as a house rule than as a complication for RQ. >Shaman Abilities - Every PC shaman in the world is going to have a "Magic" >spirit affinity. Except for the one in my campaign. He didn't take any affinities at all. After all, the only thing affinity (except Spirit) gains you is time, and who's in that much of a hurry? >Self-resurection is nearly useless, since any Shaman >with "Fertility" affinity can get the exact same ability by trapping a >Healing spirit and/or buying Resurrection Self-resurrection is cheaper -- 1 POW instead of 3, and that assumes that the cult gives its initiates Resurrection in the first place. (Also note that Resurrection isn't in the base rules...) Your complications to fatigue are massive, and should be ignored in the interest of space. (Actually, many of your fixes make the rules much larger, and thus I find it hard to consider them fixes.) >Set Spear vs Charge - Adding mount's DB is simple, but not very realistic. >You could substitute Velocity in meters for STR for a better result. And have to compute a damage bonus on the fly? Again, a house rule, RQ should use the simpler DB. >Unfortunately, Healing 10 now is the perfect alternative to >Treat Poison and flame damage. It takes a shaman over a year to find Heal 10. Few are going to bother. >I find it particularly amusing that 20 points of Impede Chaos (which any >Storm Khan could get access to by asking his tribesman to cast their >spells on him) will cause the Crimson Bat to fumble against the Khan >99% of the time, quite possibly killing itself in the process. Now that you've had your laugh, look at the word "nonstackable" on p. 147. Even if it were stackable, divine magic isn't cumulative from different sources, it's stackable in one casting. 20 casts of Impede Chaos would give chaos creatures +5 to the die roll for 15 minutes. It would require 20 dispels to get rid of. >cults naturally want their members to be as >powerful as possible, and there is no reason why they would want to >restrict spirit spell access (the weakest form of magic) to initiates This assumes an infinite supply of cult spell spirits. Cults may have few large spell spirits, and want to reserve those for the most deserving members. >Variable Battlemagic spells have a maximum of 4x effect on a single >target, with only the following exceptions: Dispel Magic, Mindspeech, If that's what you want, why not just seriously limit the availability of larger spell spirits? Then you wouldn't need a rule that has exceptions. >3] Wimped Out Specials - I guess this is the inverse of the "All Out" >attack. There is no way anyone can get in a lucky "high damage" >blow, except with the very rare criticals. Double damage is wimpy? >All Active actions >must be exactly stated in the Declaration phase; for example: "I attack >the large broo to my left" or "I Befuddle his allied hawk" The present system of loose declarations works much faster. >it is still as easy to parry with a dagger as it is a shield; >easier in fact, you can learn Dagger parry more quickly How so? Shield Parry is an Easy skill, Dagger Parry is Medium. >1] There is no maximum on number of bound spirits like there was in >RQ2. Anyone halfway enterprising can get more spirits (and MP, >etc) than they can possibly handle. While I didn't think the RQ2 >mechanic worked especially well, at least there was one. I agree with you on both parts of this observation. With the new Spirit Trap rules, my players just went on a binge of making Spirit Traps, and the player shaman filled them. I'm just starting to see the results...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17419; Mon, 21 Feb 94 20:29:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17063; Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:27:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:29:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:26:51 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW checks Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 18:26:41 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3AC12012110@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I'm for priests, shaman, and adepts get checks 10 times a year, others five. My reasoning is that the rules are basically guidelines for moderately experienced GM's, most inexperienced GM's not knowing the rules and most advanced GM's doing whatever the hell they want anyway. The current discretionary rules will probably simplify down in practice to 10 checks for magical specialists, five for others {I do not think we need to worry about non-magic using PC's}, aat least that is how I would do it. Since I think that is the case, I'd favor writing it that way.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18409; Mon, 21 Feb 94 20:46:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17818; Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:46:14 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:46:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:46:00 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Dunham's Sorcerous Nits. Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 18:45:51 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3AC63B951A5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Consider making up a logarithmic table and using that for sorcery range and duration. Reason: Exponential has proven too strong in many people's opinion, and linear though elegant looks too weak. Though I'm not a big fan of the memorize a table school, and it doesn't fit the RQ philosophy, this looks to be the best of several less than totally attractive options. Vary the amount of skill needed to produce a given Lunar sorcery effect by the phase of the moon. This is more elegant and easier to tailor to the phase of the moon rules.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21889; Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:06:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18629; Mon, 21 Feb 94 22:06:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 22:06:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 22:06:36 EST From: Anthony Utano To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trainable POW Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:06:26 +1100 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3ACBBB319E7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Anthony Utano here: Tim Leask writes > > I like Steve Barnes' radical POW is trainable concept. > (Sacrificed POW is regained at POW/20 or POW/10 per season. POW is trainable > no power gain rolls) > Sounds Good > I'd like to add a couple of further even more radical suggestions. > > 1. You don't lose a point of POW for joining a cult instead when you > become an initiate or apprentice (for the first time) you gain 1D3 POW as > part of your spiritual/magical awakening. > > 2. When one becomes a shaman,priest,rune lord or adept you gain a further > 1D3 POW as your spiritual/magical training reaches the next stage. > > ...some stuff deleted > I have always view the POW sacrifice as the binding between the initiate and their God, so I feel this to be counter to the way deities & their cults work . > I recognise that Steves' suggestion is a radical departure from the current > way things are done, but it gave me food for thought. Has anyone else > got any bright ideas regarding POW they'd like to share ? I was thinking about the idea of Humans with a max POW greater than 21, my suggestion in essence is; 1. You always have a 5% chance to increase POW, on a POW gain roll. 2. The POW gain roll is based on the maximum POW that the character has ever had, i.e. the maximum on which the gain roll is based becomes stretchable. 3. max POW is increased in units of 1 only. This implies that people whom have bother to get their POW upto high levels don't have to much trouble in remaining Priests (18+ POW), but can still obtain rune magic. Another view of this idea, is that once a person has _learnt_ ability to control their high POW, they can easly regain that POW. Example. Fred has 21 POW, and make a POW gain roll ( < 5 %), for a one point increase, he now has max POW 22. Fred now sacrifices for 3 points of Rune magic, and has a POW of 19. His new chance to get a POW increase is (22-19)*5 = 15%, not (21-18)*5 = 10% Years later, Fred the Priest has max POW of 26, and has 18 current POW, he has a (26-18)*5 = 40% chance, not just a little 15% as per the current rules. In this way a person can slowly increase their maximum POW, in addition allows Priests to have their POW and use it for Rune magic. I don't think would lead to an drastic increase in POW, but could make higher levels of POW accessable. See ya. Anthony  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25690; Tue, 22 Feb 94 02:54:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04236; Tue, 22 Feb 94 03:53:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 3:54:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 3:53:48 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: "CHE Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:26:12 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B2855B69EB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> guy.hoyle@chrysalis.org writes: > If you try to cram every little thing into the rules, you end up bogging down > play. Glorantha needs more sourcebooks, not more rules. > (There. Bet THAT ticks some people off). If you want to play the dozens on this, the proper answer is, "If you want simple minded, stupid rules, play D&D." ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23985; Tue, 22 Feb 94 02:08:01 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03334; Tue, 22 Feb 94 03:06:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 3:08:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 3:06:05 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Maurer's Comments Date: 22 Feb 94 03:02:58 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B1B9AC7C22@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Daniel Quill posted two *long* documents by Steve Maurer. I liked what I saw, but my software is unable to download and store anything above 25k or so. Couly you please re-edit them into three sections and mail them to my private e-mail address? ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24287; Tue, 22 Feb 94 02:17:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03536; Tue, 22 Feb 94 03:17:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 3:17:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 3:17:18 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: ENC; Fatigue Rules; POW; sorcery Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 00:17:09 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B1E993732B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Here's an idea for ENC (not fully worked out): high ENC should reduce MV. We now have human MV at around 7, high enough to reduce. Perhaps ENC of over STR+CON should reduce MV by 1. Most metal armor would slow you down (assuming you're carrying a sword and shield). For mounts, it might be over STR*2 + SIZ. A human in armor would probably slow down a horse. This would be a simple ENC penalty without needing to remember when 10 rounds have gone by or making any rolls. Loren said >For the GM it's very hard to keep track of things that happen every X >number of rounds. The fatigue roll, if it is used, happens every X >number of rounds. How about we change it, and combine it with another >optional rule, the botch, to resolve both this problem and the problem >we had with skilled characters getting fatigued as quickly as >greenhorns. Every time you roll a botch in combat (or another physical >action) you must check fatigue. Actually, your proposal probably brings about more bookkeeping. I agree it's difficult to keep track of rounds, but most of the time, a battle doesn't last that long, and nobody gets fatigued. Under your proposal, people would, and this would have to be tracked. In reality, I have little problem with the fatigue roll being called for at GM's whim (i.e. when he estimates that 10 rounds have passed), since it applies to both PCs and NPCs alike. Tim suggested >1. You don't lose a point of POW for joining a cult instead when you >become an initiate or apprentice (for the first time) you gain 1D3 POW as >part of your spiritual/magical awakening. So what's to prevent you from joining every cult in your pantheon? Ray suggested >Consider making up a logarithmic table and using that for sorcery range and >duration. Reason: Exponential has proven too strong in many people's >opinion, and linear though elegant looks too weak. Though I'm not a big fan Uh Ray, logarithmic is weaker than linear. If we were using log2 the table would look like Intensity Effect 1 0 2 1 4 2 8 3 so there's diminishing returns. >Vary the amount of skill needed to produce a given Lunar sorcery effect by >the phase of the moon. This is more elegant and easier to tailor to the >phase of the moon rules. Which makes sense to me. On Full Moon (or Dark Moon) all manipulations might be +25%, on Dark Moon -20%, on Crescents -10%, or some such.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26460; Tue, 22 Feb 94 03:25:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04709; Tue, 22 Feb 94 04:25:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 4:25:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 4:25:18 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: spirits, high-level combat, B. Gor Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 01:21:19 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B30BC07AD0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: Guy Robinson's comment on spirits >How much information is in RQ4 on spirits, the spirit plane, how the >spirit plane and mundane plane interact, how binding works, etc.? >Considering that the role of the spirit world is one of the defining >differences between RuneQuest and other games, and is apt to be a major >source of confusion to newcomers (it was to me), there ought to be more >detail of how these things work. One page of the Combat chapter, page 86, deals with Spirit Combat. You defend against a spirit with MP or 0 MP rather than POW and this would seem tyrannicial unless you take into account the Humakti Sever Spirit Divine Magic Spell (MP vs. MP) and the shamantic skill of Spirit Combat, which allows someone to defend against Spirit attack with the Spirit Combat percentage of their POW. No reference is made to Spirit Combat. The fumble table and the last sentence of this page suggest outcomes but there is nothing very coherent or complete. World of Magic, page 111-112, lists two kinds of possession, dominant and covert possession, neither of which evicts the possessed person's spirit into the Spirit plane like RQ2. They are usefull concepts. One problem is that within the description of Dominant describes the situation where this type of possession is possible but Covert possession lacks this. On page 112, Death and the Paths of the Death describes death and how the 3 magical perspectives view the fate of the spirit. Lacking is informationation about how acessable a recently slain person's spirit is to magic that affects Spirits. If they are fully vulnerable then slain foes will provide the most accessable source of spirits to someone other than a shamanas they linger around the body for 7 days. It mentions that the Malkioni believe that dead who have followed Big M's laws will reach Solace. How ever the Sorcery chapter reveals that to reach Solace someone must cast a Ritual Low Sorcery Spell called Solace after the event of that person's death. Spell spirits are the means by which Battle Magic is taught. They are fixed INT spirits with a POW of 1d6 per point of Battle Magic spell they equate to. The fixed INT make them like some kind of spiritual cattle. If you lose the spirit combat to gain the spell you are possessed but the Spell Spirit will take no action as a result of this dominant possession. Divine Magic has domesticated Spell Spirits via the Spellteaching Divine Magic spell. Priests with this Divine magic spell can call a spirit which a shaman would have to actively for. With Soul Sight it is possible to view the active defensive spells and signs of initation that a character might bear. In the Spirit Magic chapter it goes further to classify Spirits and Battle Magic by Runes. Therefore, presumably, spirits are marked by their Runic associations although I have yet to find implicit reference to this. There exist spells to command and control Spirits but binding of spirits require that the spirits are commanded into a Spirit Trap, a enchanted item which requires the expendature of POW to create. If you want a more flexible Spirit Trap you need to expend more POW. Shaman can trap spirits within their fetch but the most powerfull shaman the rules can generate, with a POW 15 fetch, can only trap two at the most. Evene then the current MP of the Spirit cannot exceed the MP of the fetch for it to be retained within. Spirits appear to be able to retain Battle Magic and non physical skills after death and they can develop the Spirit skills which Shamans can also learn. In the Pathes of Death section I refered to earlier these are the skill learn while lingering for 7 days around the spirits former body. The rest of the information on spirits can be found in the Creatures section which has no real information about mundane spirits except that two stats a spirit is like to possess is INT and POW. The Spirit section of the Creatures chapter concentrates on the more prominent spirits, like elementals wraiths and ghosts. What is missing is details of the average spirit, information for Allied Spirits other than those that can be 'stolen' from the Sorcery Awaken Familiar Spell. >An example of what not to do is the way binding is described in RQ3. >Two types of spirit bindings are described, one binding a spirit into >a delimited area and another trapping a spirit in an object with no >ability to sense outside it. Then the example given, pitting Cormac >vs. the disease spirit, describes a spirit bound into a skull but evi- >dently floating around it in a way not covered by any of the rules. >I thought that was really annoying. Within RQ:AiG the rules are mostly complete and consistent concerning spirits, with Spirit Magic being a very good chapter. The problem is that Spirit Magic does address Spirit Magic and not the Spirit Plane which I believe warrant more attention. Some subjects are missing. One problem is that the assertions of the Spirit magic and the Sorcery chapter are not propogated out to the the rest of the rules. Another is that nowhere is the common spirit fully described or the consequnces of Spirit Combat collected. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27634; Tue, 22 Feb 94 03:52:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05074; Tue, 22 Feb 94 04:52:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 4:52:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 4:52:11 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trainable POW Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 01:52:55 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B37E7A04FD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes here. > Anthony Utano here: > > I was thinking about the idea of Humans with a max POW greater than > 21, my suggestion in essence is; > > 1. You always have a 5% chance to increase POW, on a POW gain roll. > 2. The POW gain roll is based on the maximum POW that the character > has ever had, i.e. the maximum on which the gain roll is based becomes > stretchable. I like this idea. I've always been bugged by the fact that it is really hard to raise your POW from 20 to 21. And yet, when you sacrifice from 21 down to 20, the point of POW is worth the same as some guy with a POW of 3 sacrificing a point. This proposal at least rewards characters who achieve POW in some way. -------------------- >David here. >Steven suggested >>just make POW raisable by training. "Sacrificed" POW returns at >>a rate of POW/20 or POW/10 per season. > >Not much of a sacrifice then, is it? I'll just sacrifice 10 POW and become >an Acolyte, because I'll get it all back in 2 years. The missing part of this proposal is that there are also limits on the number of points of divine spells you can have, based on cult rank and time in rank. I don't have any hard numbers, but I was using something like: Initiate 1-5 Priest 6-10 High Priest 10+ This is what prevents characters from just loading up on vast amounts of spells. Enchantments are a problem in this system, however I think this more a problem with the existing rules being based on the assumption that players will never sacrifice enough POW to truely abuse the system. Part of the reason I came up with the idea, was to make the current sorcery rules more usable, since I am GMing in Carmania. >Paul said >>In Steve's proposal, this is modelled: people gain >>rune magic, etc. at a rate proportional to their power. > >This models getting a unlucky die roll in character creation meaning you're >never a magician. Yes, you're right. Some character who rolls low on his INT and DEX will never make a good sorceror. Oh wait, You're talking about POW... -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27894; Tue, 22 Feb 94 03:56:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05128; Tue, 22 Feb 94 04:56:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 4:56:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 4:56:20 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Pow Recovery and Training Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 01:55:48 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B390266BCB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here: Steve Barnes writes: >Once again, I'll mention my radical idea to eliminate POW checks, and >just make POW raisable by training. "Sacrificed" POW returns at >a rate of POW/20 or POW/10 per season. This eliminates the problems >of both arguments ("checks are bad" vs "GM arbitraryness is bad"). Power returning at a given rate after sacrifice weakens the value of a point of POW in the 'POW ecology' and would probably cause inflation of somekind. After all who would want MP in whorship when POW can be recovered as well, albeit at a slower rate. The issue is that Sorcerers have a really bad time with Schools of Sorcery that further restrict the sorcerer and the need to burn POW like crazy for more potent effects. >Why not make the POW burnoffs sorcerers have to use Twin POW after >Paul&Mike? A reusable reservoir of sacrificed POW, similar to the >divine Extension spell. Not necessarily the parallel to a shaman's >fetch, but something different from this crazy soul desintegration. The reservoir would need some work but I believe that the best way of doing this would be to add another construct, kin to the familiar, which allows regeneration of sacrified POW. This allows sorcerers the chance to cast magic without unbalancing Glorantha. This store would have to be something physical, as the sorcery does not commonly work with spirits, which further aids game balance as these items could be stolen or taken away during conflicts. Training POW I have to say that although I feel formal POW training should not exist, except by Schools of Sorcery possibly, POW practise should be possible. This would not be something formal but more akin to fervent worship, sacrificing a large %age of MP, with the Worship divine spell being cast prehaps. Note that I suggesting a very slow rate of progress but this is intentional on my part. Something culturally viable essentially and which characters within Glorantha could be aware of. The fervent whorship would be also encoraged as the Cult would receive more MPs. Training INT The same mechanism could applied to INT eg. practise only. Researching esoteric apsects of Lores by an already knowledgable practisioner would be a good model for INT practise, in my humble opinion. A better model, although prehaps too good in terms of practise time, would be a %age of time spent studying Reasoning and Knowledge skills could count as practise. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28406; Tue, 22 Feb 94 04:17:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05384; Tue, 22 Feb 94 05:14:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 5:16:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 5:13:59 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Creating Shamans; Intro Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 02:14:40 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B3DB7D2A31@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >David here. > >Steven Barnes wrote about character creation. > >First, my heretical view that it doesn't matter, you only build characters >once (almost everyone in my RQ4 game has the same characters they did >almost two years ago). > >>Next, I noticed that Scan and Listen were not available on the >>Shaman skill chart. ... >>I ended up with basic rank in these skills, even though I feel >>that an "expert" shaman should be better than that. > >I feel that no shaman should be very good interacting with the physical >world (the article in Heroes magazine portrayed this well). They got this >one right. Haven't read this article; however, another interpretation is that a shaman is someone with special perceptions, beyond that of ordinary people. As such, they should have *superior* scan... Anyway, the GM required a scan roll, when I wanted to spot something using my Second Sense. >>Having a "master" warrior, who can only use >>one kind of weapon would be silly. >> >That would be your own damn fault. (As well as impossible -- Master Lunar >Soldier gets two weapons "free," and can get 7 others to 90% if he really >wants to.) My mistake, having not studied the warrior sections. However, the master of 7 weapons will have only 2 other skills, something that I claim is impossible. Unless the character was some form of monastic warrior, they will have raised a variety of background skills beyond basic. This is especially important if the GM expects you to know a variety of Lore, Custom and Craft skills appropriate to your culture and profession, in addition to the standard "adventuring" skills. >I don't see Expand Mind as a serious problem -- even as a tertiary skill, >you get INT*2, which is quite a lot. And if on some days you can't use some >spells, what's the problem? You do have a point with abilities that take >longer than a day (although as GM I'd say that the good days balance out >the bad days, just use the tables as normal). The problem is that I have to mark next to each spell which moon phases it is available and how many points. Then when I want to cast one, I have to scan the list. >>I was totally confused about what my shaman >>could do in combat > >Stay out of it. Cast spells. Release spirits. I'm surprised you had the >time to attack while discorporate -- it takes at least an hour. I was able to discorporate in 15 minutes, because the moon was full. >In actual fact, shamans make poor general-purpose player characters. They >should have as many societal duties as priests. Yes, and people often play priests as player characters too. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29806; Tue, 22 Feb 94 04:59:11 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05985; Tue, 22 Feb 94 05:58:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 5:58:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 5:58:40 EST From: Brian Jackson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Got my copy of RQ:AiG this week. Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 10:37:36 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B49A232B94@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Does this mean that the non-RQcon copies are being sent out ? Brian Jackson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06259; Tue, 22 Feb 94 08:22:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16386; Tue, 22 Feb 94 09:21:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 9:22:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 9:21:52 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Quill on Spirit matters Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 9:21:49 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B7FD527BB4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dquill@netcom.com wrote extensively on a wide variety of topics. ONe thing in particular popped out for comment. (I agreed with much of his other criticism, though not necessarily the way he wants to fix it) He wrote: 8] It takes a runepriest a Divine spell to summon an elemental, then a command spell to command it. Shamans can summon (and resummon) a held elemental over and over again with a 2 MP spell (Visibility). 9] Visibility is otherwise vastly overpowered. According to these rules, a God can become visible at a cost of 2 MP. Also its not symmetric, it costs 2 MP to cast, but the spirits POW to Dispel, and the immunity spirits have while under this is absurd. On 8] I would hope that the priest also has access to the spirit magic through cult spirits. If not, then that needs to be changed. Of course the priest would prefer to cast the Control, rather than the Command spell, on bound spirits. But everyone would rather have the Command spell for ordering around unbound spirits. On 9] The whole point of Visibility is that it IS asymmetric. Is it symmetric to pick a fight with a Storm Buller by pinching his butt? Very easy to pinch him, not so easy to get him to stop paying attention after that. This is a silly example of course, but the point is that the veil between worlds is not too hard to pierce, but once you bring something through, you have the devil's own time getting rid of it. Unless it wants to go, of course. Mike Dawson -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information about Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" . ------------------------------------------------------/_\  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07349; Tue, 22 Feb 94 08:42:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17906; Tue, 22 Feb 94 09:42:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 9:42:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 9:42:29 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Character Generation & Keeping RQ:AiG Small Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 06:32:26 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3B8554B4F96@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here responding to Dave Dunhams comments: >>Cult thumbnails that do not fit into any given culture should >>remain in the Divine Magic chapter >Let's keep them all in one place. It's never going to be the case that you >can read the book in order and create characters after reading chapter 2 >(you don't know what the skills mean, you don't know about weapon SR, you >don't know what spells to pick). As a practical matter, character creation >probably can't be at the end ("OK, now that you know all the rules, it's >time to create your first character!"). The chances are good that people will attempt to generate characters in an attempt to get the rules into focus. After all it does give someone something concrete to do. Also it allows players to empathise early with the game as they have a character to think about. The well disciplined approach would be to have character generation at the point where it can be fully understood, I agree but this is a game not a scholastic endevour so providing a faster and easier start up is a Desirable Thing. >So let's keep it small, and have >pointers to other sections. If Sartarite Warrior said "Cult Skills (see >Orlanth Pantheon, p. 135)," you've kept it small (well, _I_ still care >about that) and usable (no flipping through the book to find a cult). One of reasons I suggest puting the cults with the character generation culture information to encourage the space to be used as efficiently as possible. The culture descriptions are incomplete without the cults and vise versa, as you demonstrate below. Anyway the final product will have an index so finding a cult should be a simple matter of consulting the index. >>There should be information for each culture for the Zero option >>where a character does not join a cult. One of my players for >>the Sartar background choose this path and I finding a way to >>cover this was difficult. >Who says this is a choice? In the campaign I'm playing in, my character is >still trying to find a cult he can qualify for QUICKLY so he can become an >adult. Trained characters don't start as initiates. I offered Orthani initation at the cost of 1 POW to the Sartarite characters. This allowed them to buy Cult spells at initiate level and purchase Cult Skills. The characters were generated at skilled level anyway. The only person who selected cult skills, my 15 year old stepson, just wrote down Cult Skills. There is not enough information to encourage Cult Skills to be adopted by a less than thorough reader, or someone new to roleplaying. If we are going to have just thumbnails then these thumbnails should dove tail neatly into the character generation system. Someone opted not to join a Cult and I had no information to cover this situation. Even the bloke who collects RQ material, reads them but is too inhibited to play had no comment on this issue. >However, what information do you want? Something like, "If you don't belong >to a cult, you're a Not-Adult, and can never get married or own property or >be listened to in Council?" [See King of Sartar for cultural details on the >Orlanthi.] I don't see how it can be covered in theistic cultures. If the cultural restrictions are that severe, yes. All the characters are looking at are thumbnails in the Divine Magic chapter and unless the GM is familiar with RQ cults the pruchaser of RQ:AiG is stuffed. Your reference to King of Sartar demonstrates that RQ:AiG will have to be expanded before it is summarised down to a reasonable size. This is why I am suggesting aggregation of similiar areas like cultural information with the cults from that culture. I *do* care about the size of RQ:AiG but I also care about its integrity as a product. Currently unless the purchaser of RQ:AiG also buys Gods of Glorantha, King of Sartar and whole host of other RQ3 Glorantha restoration products then that person does not have a complete game. There is a difficult balancing act for the next draft. Balancing between conveying the atmosphere of Glorantha without breaking this fragile, ambigious concept with the hammer of many years of Gloranthan writings is a challenging task. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11525; Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:47:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12905; Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:47:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:47:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:47:26 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Trainable POW Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 11:47:06 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3AA69C770E2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here: I like Steve Barnes' radical POW is trainable concept. (Sacrificed POW is regained at POW/20 or POW/10 per season. POW is trainable no power gain rolls) I'd like to add a couple of further even more radical suggestions. 1. You don't lose a point of POW for joining a cult instead when you become an initiate or apprentice (for the first time) you gain 1D3 POW as part of your spiritual/magical awakening. 2. When one becomes a shaman,priest,rune lord or adept you gain a further 1D3 POW as your spiritual/magical training reaches the next stage. The power gains for initiation and cult progression are the culmination of magical training that led up to these events rather than an instant effect. This mechanic gives the Guy with 7 POW a way to improve his POW through devotion to his cult even if he can't afford the time or money for training. 3. POW training is usually carried out by Priests or Shamans same rules apply as for other characteristic training. 4. Sacred Time counts as a season for purposes of regaining POW and training POW. I recognise that Steves' suggestion is a radical departure from the current way things are done, but it gave me food for thought. Has anyone else got any bright ideas regarding POW they'd like to share ? Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20485; Tue, 22 Feb 94 11:16:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00415; Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:16:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:16:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:16:04 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The nail has been capitally struck! Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:15:51 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BAE4AD2345@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Somebody (Robinson, I think) hit DEAD-ON one thing that was bothering the edges of my mind regarding RQ:AiG. The package as presented provides a great deal of erudition on Glorantha, but relatively nothing in the way of USEFUL information. For example: We are regaled with an enormous tale of Arkat but we are told NOTHING regarding the importance of initiation in Orlanthi or Praxian culture. Sorry, but even if Arkat is important to the history of Glorantha, I would favor jettisoning the story if it were necessary to have space to point out that an Orlanthi without an initiation/membership in a cult (which is PART OF a religion) has no standing in the community. Give us USEFUL information about Glorantha--assume that the VAST MAJORITY of RQ:AiG buyers have never heard of Greg Stafford, Glorantha, or RQ, and don't give a shit about any of them. Sorry to slap you in the face with a nasty fact, but this will probably be the truth. Put into RQ:AiG what is necessary to PLAY Glorantha, not what is necessary to philosophize about it. Put in the neat, colorful tidbits of social and cultural "stuff" that gives a world flavor and limits. You don't have to worry about mechanical limits on spell power available (a definite D&Dism) if you carefully and EXPLICITLY lay out the SOCIETIES of the world and explicitly lay out the fact that magic only exists within the context of these societies and how this context functions. LESS HISTORY MORE SOCIETY, OR RQ:AiG is dead, dead, dead. Let me put it this way: If you have a good timeline, you can dispense with the vast majority of prose history. To be blunt, it don't mean shit if that's all you have to the world--might as well go play Forgotten Realms. I want MEAT. I want the societies as they ARE in the setting. I want SOLID daily stuff, not hoary old stories. Save the majority of the erudition for a work on Gloranthan religions, okay? Put the CORE stuff in the CORE game. The core stuff is the day-to-day of the cultures, NOT reams of history. Let's put it another way: While the American Revolution and the doctrines debated surrounding it are very important in the formation of USA culture, and to have an in-depth understanding of the roots and underlying workings of USA culture, nobody would be so foolish as to think that the best way to enculturate (NOT indoctrinate) somebody to the USA is to give a narrative of our history and legends while completely ignoring "insignificant" details of the modern society like legal sanction for monogomy and no other forms of marriage, the widespread legal ownership of firearms, the crime rate, the high rate of gadget ownership (and general gadgetophilia of the population), the general USA chauvinism, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Presenting a world for an RPG setting is an attempt at a fictional ENCULTURATION of the player so that player can create and play characters that FIT the world. Erudite mumblings regarding history, myth, etc. have their place, but that should be SECONDARY to getting a solid feel for the world FIRST. VERY MANY of the problems I have seen raised about RQ:AiG (the poor introduction, the "abusibility" of spell availability, the problems with enchantment, arguments over the "fact" that Ernalda is the "best" battle cult, etc.) stem from this central, probably fatal flaw. RQ:AiG as it currently stands FAILS utterly in enculturating players into Glorantha even though it produces reams of scholarly (dare I say "sterile scholarly"?) information on the world. You serve us meringue when we starve for barley and meat. Bryan J. Maloney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22285; Tue, 22 Feb 94 11:38:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02159; Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:37:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:38:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:37:41 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Compromise between the Linear and Exponential Sorcery factions Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:37:33 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BB40F47567@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Earlier I ignorantly suggested logarithmic as a possbile compromise between the Linear and the Exponenential sorcery factions. As was correctly pointed out to me, logarithmic is in fact weaker than linear, an elementary mistake I should never have made. Not the first stupid mistake I've made, nor will it be the last. My main point still stands, though. The pro-linear people argue that exponential sorcery can get really gross, and that while the skill limitation rules make it harder to get gross out sorcery than Free Int, it is still possible. The pro-exponential people argue that it takes for example, two points of range just to equal the performance of a pretty ordinary POW 15 spirit magician, casting Befuddle, in the range department. Both points are correct. Linear sorcery is too weak at the low end; Exponential sorcery too gross at the high end. We therefore need numbers that rise faster than linear at the low end and lower than exponential at the high end. Frankly, I don't care where they come from, make up the numbers if you have to. If people insist on a proposal from me, I offer: The first point of range or duration multiplies base range or duration by 7. The second point of range or duration multiplies base range or duration by 6 and adds the result to the first point. The third point multiplies by 5 and adds, etc. or { a different proposal } 1 pt range = 100 meters 1 pt duration = 70 minutes 2 pt range = 500 meters 2 pt duration = 6 hours 3 pt range = 1250 meters 3 pt duration = 15 hours 4 pt range = 2000 meters 4 pt duration = 24 hours or something along these lines. I don't say my numbers are what you want. I do say the debate should be conducted around what numbers you actually want, not around a specific formula. I am not generally a big fan of tables or numbers calculated according to obscure formulas, but it may be necessary here. If you want the numbers to vary by phase of the moon, for lunar sorcery, figure them out and print them as a table, for each phase of the moon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15695; Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:55:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15881; Mon, 21 Feb 94 20:55:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 21 Feb 94 20:55:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 21 Feb 94 20:55:10 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: combat tactics; cults; POW; sorcery; etc. Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:52:41 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3AB8ADE7F09@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell replying to: > Paul R. replying to David Dunham: > > > >Paul said > >>In Steve's proposal, this is modelled: people gain > >>rune magic, etc. at a rate proportional to their power. > > >This models getting a unlucky die roll in character creation meaning you're > >never a magician. > > Exactly right. Most people on Glorantha seem destined to never become > professional magicians; for the Westerners this is explicit, for other > cultures implied. Throughout most fantasy literature a talented few ^^^^^^^^^^ and most myths I've read. become the > professional magicians; the exceptions are quite rare. Most people get I don't think the problem is that bad: any human with a rolled POW of 14 or more can reach the human maximum of 21. The average 10-11 pow roll can reach 15-16 POW through training (I am assuming the x1.5, max 21 rule still applies for training limit). It also balances out those races with a 2d6+6 POW: in the current rules, it doesn't matter that a human rolls 18 for initial POW and an aldryami rolls 8, the elf always has a maximum POW of 26, the human 21. I'd even support removing the 21 limit from max+min roll, and just use the initial rollx1.5: anyone who rolls 18 can train their POW to 27. > >I've never seen your fabled sorcery rules. > I can't tell if this is for or against reposting... Well here's a definite _for_ from me: I've never seen your sorcery rules either! > > - paul > Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01607; Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:19:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10205; Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:19:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:19:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:19:01 EST From: "QFF00036@niftyse" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments on Oliver's Summary of RQ:AiG. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 3:23:00 JST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BCF1546CDC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Hi RQ4ers. Kuri is here. RE:Oliver's Summary of RQ:AiG About Damage Bonus >this is now a single value that is added to or subtracted from weapon >damage dice rolls. Its good. But I also want alternative D.B. table like RQ3 errata. About POW gain >POW gain - human (and other) POW can now increase above 21, though with >only a 5% chance of success. 5% chance is tooooooooo big. It is not "slow and painstaking process". How about 1% chance ? Hummmm.... For Priests 2%, huh? (because they have Magic Rune. In RQ2, Priest gets +20% bonus to make POW gain roll) About Magical defence >Attack With MP, Defend with POW Not so bad. But Rune Lord's major advantage is lost. Hummm..... How about this? -- Anyone who concentrate on magical defence can defend with POW. Otherwise one must defend with MP. To concentrate on magical defence one lose a combat option for that round. Rune Lords always defence with POW. Gods help their lords. About Magic casting >Spirit/Cult Magic casting - the chance to cast a spirit/cult magic spell >is POW x5. I hate POWx5 roll for casting Spirit/Cult Magic. It needs extra roll. For low-POW character (who needs magical aids most) its too hard. How about this? -- To cast a spell the caster must overcome both the spell-strength points and the target's POW in her MP resistance roll. If the roll is lower or equal than her current POW she awards POW check. It is good for low-POW character but still is difficult to cast really highpower spell. The sections not mentioned above are EXCELLENT. Regards. // Kuri (QFF00036@niftyserve.or.jp) //  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28333; Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:50:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07417; Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:49:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:50:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:49:35 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Maloney's cry for meat Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:49:31 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BC73BD0D66@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Dawson here, not Kirsten Niemann. Bryan Maloney said: "RQ:AiG as it currently stands FAILS utterly in enculturating players into Glorantha even though it produces reams of scholarly (dare I say "sterile scholarly"?)information on the world." This summary, while perhaps a bit overstated, is true. It is very hard to figure out what daily life, customs, and living culture are like based on the info in RAG, or most any other Gloranthan soruce. To figure it out, you have to go through a tremendous amount of skull sweat. I must point out that the kind of work necessary is much harder to write than the "scholarly" stuff currently included. But he is right, it should be included. even if you have to kill some of the "scholarly" stuff. This reminds me of the problems of (Guy Robinson?), who cruised right through much of the book, but was stopped dead on the introduction. Mike Dawson -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information about Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" . ------------------------------------------------------/_\  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29594; Tue, 22 Feb 94 12:58:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08207; Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:58:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:58:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:57:42 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Responses to Steve Maurer's comments Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 13:56:21 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BC966177F9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> My comments on Steve Maurer's comments. I restrict myself to places where I either disagree or wish to enlarge. If I agree with what Steve said, I don't say anything. In other words, presume that I agree with him except where I explicitly state otherwise. > Skills - Degrees of success, time dependent skills, complementary skills, > symmetric contest of skill, skill selection, subskills - all are excellent > additions. Giants can still play (and learn how to play) harps better > because they are so strong I have always found this to be absurd. Why are Uzko all better musicians than all other typical PC species? Why are they also all better pickpockets? This is still a Murphy's Rule to me. > > 1] First Aid cannot realistically heal damage - period. If you want > it to be more effective, make it required to heal any major injury > with a Heal spell (not just to reattach a severed limb). That depends on how "damage" is defined. I would state that healing 1D3 for a normal success is still excessive, however. Sorry, but first aid is just that FIRST AID. It functions ONLY to stabilize a person and reduce effects of shock. If you have a real injury, you need time or time AND surgery to actually heal it in the real world. Lets put it another way: An average person wielding a knife in RQ does 1D3. Now, if I were to be cut pretty good in the arm with this "knife" I doubt that anything short of time or stitches and time could do very much for the wound. > 4] As an optional rule, how hard would it be to divide up Manipulation > into Fine Manipulation (Devise, Play, Sleight, and Conceal), and > Large Manipulation (Attacks, Brawl, Drive, Grapple, Pass)? STR would > not be a factor in Fine manipulation (always considered 10, or use > the formula DEX + INT/2 - 15), but otherwise no change would be > required. That way, Great Trolls and Giants no longer make such > wonderful pickpockets (because they can hold on to the coins with > their high STR so well). I would go for this, if only to stop the ridiculous preponderance of Uzko virtuosi and expert Uzko pickpockets I saw in my last RQ campaign. Splitting up Agility skills doesn't taste as nice to me. > 6] Please get rid of "Martial Arts". Real martial arts is nothing more > than normal training in hand to hand combat. If you want the natural > weapons to be more effective, increase their damage (along with the > rest of the weapons), and do extra damage on a special. Well, I would differ from Steve on this on one point: That depends on the "Martial Art" you study. Some styles (the eclectic ones that also utilize holds, locks, and GETTING OUT OF THE WAY) tend to be more effective in the long run than just learning to punch and kick. However, I would rather see "Martial Arts" as they exist in RQ be dropped entirely. The truth of the matter is that a good puncher is a good puncher, regardless of how he learned. The eclectic stylists simply also learned wrestling, principles of throws and locks, dodging, and FIGHTING STRATEGY. There is no magic method to the punch or kick--a punch is a punch, just most people are SOOOOOO unskilled that they can't throw a simple punch for shit. If unarmed combat with "Martial Arts" is so damned powerful, then why did all styles that were in use before the 20th century emphasize WEAPON use over unarmed combat (except in regions where weapons were too illegal to get--and even these styles "invented" weapons out of tools)? Why? Simple: Weapons are BETTER than the empty hand. The only advantages had by the empty hand is that you always have it, and it is very difficult to effectively make it illegal. Final conclusion: Trash "Martial Arts"--it's a bozo idea. >Divine Intervention - Very good in describing what is and is not possible. > However there remains one pretty big flaw: the amount of D.I. effect you get > is based on the amount of POW the god takes. This can leave a PC who rolls > too low a worthless D.I. For example, if a Chalana Arroy healer is killed > from a stab in the back by a troll, and his player rolls a 01, he might > expect to be brought back to life. Not so fast! He only gets 3 points of > cult special magic; good enough for a Resurrect, but not the Heal Body. > She dies from having rolled too well. My fix: add cultists original POW, > DI POW lost, and either average them, or roll 101-d100, and take that as > the percentage of DI "Strength". Too complicated. I would prefer the following: "My child, you are pleasing in my sight and I give you the gift of a Resurrection, now, while I'm here, is there anything else you think you need?" "Uh, could I have a Heal Body?" "Done." and Chalana Arroy collects two more POW from the supplicant for that spell. Yes, it still "punishes low rolls" but it's cleaner than Steve's proposal. >B+ to B Grades: ( or - "Pretty good. Could be better." ) > Shuriken need a hell of a lot less DEX to throw properly than daggers or > Thowing Axes (which only have one sharp end). Like Martial Arts and Dodge, > this is probably a leftover from the Sandy Peterson "Gee I want RQ combat to > be just like those super-realistic Ninja movies" era. So true, so true, so true. Shuriken are very easy to throw, definitely far easier to throw effectively than an axe (I speak from personal experience, having thrown tomohawks and shuriken). Also, there is no place for them in non-Kralorelan areas. If you want a bad-ass throwing weapon that FITS use a Hurlbat. It was used from ancient Rome to medieval Europe and it has the weight and basic shape of an axe. However, it is constructed with pointy and edgy bits all over the place so that it is hard to throw it in such a way that it DOESN'T land with nasty effect. Ordinary axes and knives are not all that easy to throw properly especially not compared to specialized weapons like hurlbats and shuriken. PS: The terrifying reputation of the shuriken had nothing to do with the amount of damage it did in and of itself. Those who would use it had a habit of soaking them in horse manure and urine until they got rusty, letting them dry, and THEN using them. Tetanus is a NASTY, AGONIZING death, and if you see it once, you'll be careful when some yoyo starts tossing those little packages around indiscriminately (and that is how they were used--not as precision weapons but as terror tactics, usually to slow down pursuit). Regarding all the stuff about training: I just want to make explicit my agreement with the vast majority of what Steve wrote. I also like a good deal of what he wrote about ENC >B- to C+ Grades: ( or - "Identified the problem, didn't quite fix it" ) > 2] Healing was the perfect alternative to First Aid, and I like the roll > needed to reattach; actually my game is much meaner - you can "misheal" > a limb. Unfortunately, Healing 10 now is the perfect alternative to > Treat Poison and flame damage. If you want Shamans to be able to heal > CON, make it achievable by bargaining with powerful healing spirits, > not as a base ability. Hmm... Doesn't this problem seem to be more one of RQ:AiG not giving us a thing for context and daily details but burying us in useless erudition? I cannot repeat myself too much on these points, I would conclude. > Stackable Magic - RQ3 has horrible problems with stackable magic in all > categories, Battlemagic, Sorcery and Runemagic. Without the inherent > stacking limits of RQ2, RQ3 violated steve's first rule of magic: > > Large quantities of low quality magic should NOT be the equivalent > (or better) than high quality magic. > Speak the LAW and Speak it TRUE. I could not agree more than I do. Adhere to this principle as much as can be done, permit no deviation on this point. Ignore this principle only at risk of severe munchkinism and crocking. > > 3] Despite the cult restrictions, Battlemagic is still NOT fixed. First, > cult rules are silly: cults naturally want their members to be as > powerful as possible, and there is no reason why they would want to > restrict spirit spell access (the weakest form of magic) to initiates. > Next, given that Shamans now have access to Runemagic through spirit > cults (which they should), it is silly to make large cults be unable > to teach a wide array of simple battlemagic; rather there should be a > bonus for teaching some forms of magic. Finally, there are still no > ultimate stacking rules based on the quality of the magic, thus for > instance, we find that given a choice between learning Bladesharp 5 > and Truesword, any broadsword wielder would learn the Bladesharp, > since it is better. Uh, Steve, yer pissin down yer leg. Let us posit a situation wherein one can gain a great deal of power by adopting certain rites and rituals. This power would greatly increas the prestige and power of one's own "cult"--one little detail, one's "cult" is Roman Catholicism and the rituals are human sacrifice. Get my point? Sorry, but power is NOT necessarily the only premise of a cult, try reading some more comparative religion. "Ritual purity", "righteousness", "virtue", and other such things can be just as influential as naked lust for power. > > Variable Battlemagic spells have a maximum of 4x effect on a single > target, with only the following exceptions: Dispel Magic, Mindspeech, > and Healing; the extra spell remains, but cannot exceed the maximum. > For example, a Bladesharp 5 can divide into a Bladesharp 3 and 2 for > two different weapons. Yet cast on a single weapon, it can only boost > skill by 20% and damage by 4. A Dispel Magic 4 will not dispel a > Bladesharp 5 weapon. If a Dullblade 1 is then cast on the weapon, > it would retain its +20% / +4, the extra +1 of Bladesharp kicking in > to neutralize the one point of lowered damage due to the Dullblade. Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me. > > Variable divine spells have similar limits as to maximum effect. > Yet unlike Battlemagic effects, they are variable depending on the > caster's status. Initiate effect maximums are 2 points, Acolyte > effects are typically 4, Runelord/Priests typically have 6, and High > Priests can go to 8. For example, even if an Initiate has 4 Points > of sacrified Shield, the maximum effect that shield can have is 2 > Points (+4 pts protection/ +4 pts countermagic), while an Acolyte > could stack all 4 points together on one target for +8/+8. Cultists > who are more closely bound to their god are able to use the god's > spells more effectively. Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me. > > These effects also vary by the nature of the God in relation to > the spell. Closely aligned spells, for instance Chalana Arroy to > Restore Health, add +2; meaning a Chalana Arroy initiate could > effectively restore up to 4 pts of a characteristic. Spells which > go against a gods normal nature, if the god even provides it, have > a negative effect. For example, Summon Salamander is both at -2 and > twice cost for Zorak Zoran cultists; while initiates can buy the spell, > they cannot use it, Acolytes can stack 2 points to get a 1 point > Salamander, Priests can stack 4 points to get a 2 point Salamander, > and High Priests can stack 8 points to get a 3 point Salamander. Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me. > > Spell Teaching is a stackable spell which allows Priests to teach > any battlemagic they know; each point of Spell Teaching allows for 1 > point of cult magic. Thus, to teach the spell Bladesharp 4 requires > a four point Spell Teaching. Spell Teaching is limited like any > Runespell to maximum effect. Thus an initiate can only teach up to 2 > points of cult magic, an acolyte up to 4, etc. Spellteaching of a > god's favored cult magic is usually at a +2, thus Acolytes of Chalana > Arroy can stack 6 Points of Spell Teaching to teach Healing 6 if they > had that much Spell Teaching, but could not do the same to teach > Protection. The time it takes for priests to regain their spells is > one reason why high power spirit magic is so expensive. Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me. >C to C- Grades: ( or - "Some disappointments are inevitable" ) > > Weapon Damage - Always too low in RQ, and again lowered further! Now, a > normal man (STR 11/SIZ 13), stabbing another utterly average, HELPLESS, > NUDE man (SIZ 13/CON 10) with a javelin, can stab him NINE times and > still not, on average, kill him. The same man with a POLEAXE, striking > the same NUDE man in the chest, will not, on average, even knock him out! > (he barely knocks him down - for one round). This average man CANNOT > UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, >>> even including the unrealistic All Out weapon > damage rules <<<, kill a nude helpless man with a sightly above average > CON (13), in a single blow to the head with a shortsword. If you even > consider what armor is like, even before spells and armor enchantment, > you realize RQ4 combat will be nothing but hits to the "tink". It also > makes weapon and defensive magic that much more powerful in relation > to skill effectivness. I think the problem here comes from Oliver et. cie. going overboard to fix the fact that average damage in RQIII was too damned high at the low end of things. The simple additive damage bonus would have been sufficient by itself, in my opinion, especially when coupled with the great liberalization of when death is determined. However, they ALSO had to lower the weapon damage--you went overboard, guys. You need to swing back just a bit, or you'll have another famous Murphy's Rule on your hands. (You know, the one where a D&D fighter cannot be executed by beheading--hate to see that extended to RQ, wouldn't you?) > [ At the very least, add the following die rolls: ] > > STR+SIZ Damage Bonus > 01-05 -4 or -2d3 > 06-10 -3 or -2d2 > 11-15 -2 or -1d3 > 16-20 -1 or -1 > 21-25 0 or 0 > 26-30 +1 or +1 > 31-35 +2 or +1d3 > 36-40 +3 or +2d2 > 41-45 +4 or +2d3 > 46-50 +5 or +2d4 > 51-55 +6 or +1d4+1d6 > 56-60 +7 or +2d6 > 61-65 +8 or +1d6+1d8 > 66-70 +9 or +2d8 > 71-75 +10 or +1d8+1d10 Don't like the die roll DB. Sorry, but it just seems to be a sop to the Grognards and an unnecessary complication. >D+ to D Grades: (or - "Eegad! Dost mine eyes perceve a Mac Truck?") > > Worship Diety - One POW check per week. Holy cow, you're actually keeping > this RQ3 crock? Please PLEASE just make worship services just part of > the Sanctify spell: the more worship services you hold, the more Divine > spells your shrine/temple/etc can support. (Also the larger your Temple > spirit but we won't go into that right now). If you REALLY want to keep > this, make it -at most- once per season. I must agree here. One POW gain roll per week is just plain foolish. Ordinary Worship services should not grant such incredible gains. One POW check per WEEK? 50 rolls per YEAR? Lemme see, that pretty much guarantees that all Priest-types have a POW of 20 within a couple of years AND get 2-3 points of Divine Magic per year, pretty much GUARANTEED. This doesn't even COUNT any other activities a priest might do of a spiritual nature. Consider a Sword of Humakt or a Storm Kahn. They should have a couple of zillion points of reusable Divine Magic in no time flat. Did you really want this to happen? > > Ye Olde Species Max Bug - Is anyone offended that Dryads have a Species > Max POW of 46? That a 26 POW Dryad priestess with Worship Aldrya and her > pet trees will gain, on average, 24 POW (for spells) per year? 42 POW for > Dryads which don't sleep through winter? That this isn't special, it's > average? That after one year of this, she could, say, every season > cast a Shield 40 extended for 120 years on anyone she pleased? Or some > other hideously abusive use of POW, such as shamanistic magic? Please > please fix this. It is so simple: Species max is Highest Rollable Value > + 1/6th Highest Rollable (round up). It still leaves Dryads with > respectible, but not quite heroic Species Max POW of 33. [ Actually, I'd > say intelligent elementals should have species max POW which varies by > the size of the thing they represent, but maybe that's too complex ] Like Steve says. > Spirit Combat - Unless these are fixed, shamans will be the "sorcerors" > of RQ4: > 1] Spirits can all gang up on one PC, and unless you have the unique > spirit spell "Draw Spirit", there is nothing anybody can do about it. > 2] All Out Spirit Combat allows spirits which have no business being > able to do anything, still being incredibly effective, even against > Shamans. Again, only a spell seems to stop this: "Spirit Block". > 3] There is still no way to intercept attacking spirits This is a problem. What happened to the shamanic ability to send the Fetch out to intercept attacking spirits. Shamans are supposed to be SPIRITUAL WARRIORS. Read a little bit about shamanism, would you? PLEASE! > 4] You must take an ACTION to defend in spirit combat? What next, > take an ACTION to defend against spells? Magic Defense at FULL MP > should always be AUTOMATIC. PERIOD. Well, I've no problem with needing to take an action to defend in spirit combat. "Actions" are a matter of attention, not just the number of arms you have. Resisting spells is a passive matter, defending in ANY kind of combat is an active matter. > 5] The "higher damage for higher-MP" rules make super high power spirits > utterly gross, and in addition cause horrible breakpoints Breakpoint, schmakepoint, I've never thrown a 40POW spirit at my PCs (unless a Shaman would be dumb enough to annoy one). > 6] The Compromise (for that read any sane GM) forbids Spirits with a POW > higher than 3d6+6 from directly attacking embodied opponents (for the > same reason why gods don't just come down and splat the PCs/NPCs), > either in spirit combat, or just by casting spells. These rules do > nothing to limit this. Gee isn't this just another matter of a lack of good USEFUL background information being ignored in favor of sterile erudition? My harp carps again. > 7] Again no limits to using spirit block and/or spirit shield to cheat > in Spirit Binding (Ghost, etc) contests. Worse, Shamans can go > grab spirits they have no business being able to attack using either > one of these spells. Shamans have "business" attacking ANY kind of spirit. They are the warriors and the masters of the spirit world. That is their social and religious function. > 8] It takes a runepriest a Divine spell to summon an elemental, then > a command spell to command it. Shamans can summon (and resummon) > a held elemental over and over again with a 2 MP spell (Visibility). Yeah, so, what's wrong with that? Shamans are supposed to be seriously mega in the realm of spirits. If a priest wants to be mega in spiritual things, he'd better worship a deity of SPIRITS, no? > 9] Visibility is otherwise vastly overpowered. According to these > rules, a God can become visible at a cost of 2 MP. Also its not > symmetric, it costs 2 MP to cast, but the spirits POW to Dispel, > and the immunity spirits have while under this is absurd. I would agree that Visibility is too darn nice for what it grants. I would either make it a MUCH more expensive spirit magic spell, or make it a Divine spell specific to spirit and shaman-led cults. > 10] In one on one combat, a +3 advantage in MP makes for about a 90% > chance of winning. Nothing has been done to change this. > I agree with what Steve has to say regarding movement and the appearance of the spirit plane. I don't like his "fix" for spirit combat. Guess what, folks, what is broken about spirit combat is the fact that it is based on the damned resistance table!!!!!!!!! Am I the ONLY person on this list to see that? I ran the last draft version of Spirit combat in my RQ campaign, and the players LIKED it. They liked it a good deal. After a couple of times with this system, I then showed them the resistance-table based system. The overwhelming response was distaste. A few of them commented on how this didn't feel like it fit with the rest of the game and how they hoped that it wouldn't be used to replace the "good" system they had already used. (I didn't tell the players which system was the RQIII method). Now, my campaign was not dominated by RQ grognards, but was all complete newcomers to the game except for me and one player (he didn't like the draft system, either--makes you wonder how much of the list's distaste was due to quality and how much was due to simple intellectual laziness--new things are BAD! Go back to the OLD ways!). I will post my fix to spirit combat as soon as I've got it written up. Hint: It won't use the resistance table, so it will fix that +3MP advantage nearly guaranteeing a win. It won't be perfect, but it will be simple and useable. > MANIFEST > Visibility, Manifest > Variable (4 pts maximum effectiveness) > Ranged, Passive > > EMBODY > All cults with special spirits or elementals > 1 Point > Ranged, Passive, Stackable, Reusable I like these spells > > > Kids and Magic - No one has yet told me why kids don't start out with > a POW of 19+, since if everybody always gets a POW check at years end, > that's what they'd all be starting with. Actually, I say babies start > with 1d6 POW, but then I throw out the "Luck Roll" - why are magicians > always luckier than thieves, gamblers, or warriors? Uh, you don't initiate until the age of 15. I rule that membership in Voria doesn't grant a POW roll. But that's another background thing that got left out, isn't it? > Reinstitute the POW minimums from RQ2. Priests need 18 > POW minimum to maintain their status. Acolytes need 15 POW minimum. > Runelords need 15 POW to apply but can drop without penalty. If > you loose the POW, you automatically drop in status (including > the speed at which you get your runespells back). I don't like this "fix", but I never saw the lack of a POW minimum as something that was "broken". > > > Low POW Shamans - Ditto priest problems but more so. Shamans are > constantly getting POW checks, and by keeping their POW low, can really > power up their fetch to ungodly levels in just a few years. > > My fix: Only allow shamans add to their Fetch POW if they have a POW > higher than 18. Thus, a 16 POW shaman who gets POW must keep it > himself, but if he had an 18 POW, he could add it to his fetch. > A POW 20 shaman can add 2 points of POW to his fetch, but then can > add no more. Don't like that, not one bit. The numbers are too high. As for shamans keeping their POW too low, just have a few nasty things that can temporarily hinder the connection between shaman and fetch--THEN you'll see high POW shamans! I agree very much with all the problems raised regarding enchantment. The proposed fixes look to be pretty good, too. In fact, the fixes look darn good. Remember, those parts I did not respond to I agreed with.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10122; Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:32:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16541; Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:32:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:32:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:31:47 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Compromise between the Linear and Exponential Sorcery factions Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:31:40 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BE27DC2190@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here. Uhhh.... Let me say I don't even like Duration at all; our original concept (before compromising) was that all spells should be either somehow maintained or Instant. Maintaining spells may cost mp/time. In this model, spirit magic is maintained by the spell spirit (in the spirit helper sub-model), Divine Magic is maintained by the god or a spirit in his retinue, sorcery is maintained either by the sorcery, an enchanted spell token, Vested power, or an external source somehow tapped by the sorcerer (more on this later). Assume for a moment that the Duration problem is 'solved' somehow. Now, what is the problem with Range? I really don't feel that there is too much of one: if you properly limit targetting according to traditional laws of magic, then there is no game-balance problem with long-range spells, and life can get interesting. The exponential table is fine, plus add ons for natural barriers and adverse conditions. More later, Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11332; Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:44:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17404; Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:44:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:44:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:44:01 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trainable POW Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:43:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BE5C0D3E5F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. I've said this one before: we have experimented with POW gain chance being (Original POW - Current POW + 10) x 5% instead of (Species Max - POW)*5%. Works interestingly. Could be combined with trainable POW; I will think about it. I definitely like the idea that one tends to return to one's original POW. Worship/fame could raise this, loss of worship/infamy could lower it. Oh, species MAX for stats is broken in the draft. Anyone disagree?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11798; Tue, 22 Feb 94 14:48:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17708; Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:48:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:48:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:48:09 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trainable POW Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:48:03 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BE6DB560ED@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here. Tim writes: >>>>>>>>> e.g. Arila rolls up a MAX POW of 12 and decides to join cult of Seven Mothers. As part of her induction into the cult she attends classes and ceremonies at the local temple the culmanation of which is her initiation ceremony. Successful initiation means she learnt her leasons well and her POW training succeeded - Arila's MAX POW increases to 14. She is then asked to sacrifice a point of POW to establish the link to her gods. Arila's current POW now drops to 13. She also sacrifices for a madness spell at this time further reducing her current POW to 12. Her current POW slowly increases over the next 3 seasons back to POW 14. <<<<<<<<< I could support this but would change one thing: her current POW does NOT change at Initiation, just her Maximum. Thus after Initiation she drops to 11 POW but begins to rise toward 14. WIll think about this proposal; it merits some thought. - Paul >One other note - Maximum POW never decreases - diseases such as Soul Waste Disagree. SOme things are very bad indeed, on Glorantha.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12380; Mon, 21 Feb 94 23:14:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24085; Tue, 22 Feb 94 00:13:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 0:14:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 0:13:50 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trainable POW Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 16:13:19 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3AEDA9A6BE7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here: Anthony Utano writes: > Tim Leask writes > > > > I like Steve Barnes' radical POW is trainable concept. > > (Sacrificed POW is regained at POW/20 or POW/10 per season. POW is trainable > > no power gain rolls) > > > > Sounds Good > > > I'd like to add a couple of further even more radical suggestions. > > > > 1. You don't lose a point of POW for joining a cult instead when you > > become an initiate or apprentice (for the first time) you gain 1D3 POW as > > part of your spiritual/magical awakening. > > > > 2. When one becomes a shaman,priest,rune lord or adept you gain a further > > 1D3 POW as your spiritual/magical training reaches the next stage. > > > > ...some stuff deleted > > > I have always view the POW sacrifice as the binding between the > initiate and their God, so I feel this to be counter to the way > deities & their cults work . Maybe I should explain further and modify what I said slightly. Here's how I interpret Steve's System. A character starts with a Maximum POW of 3D6. This POW can only be raised through training/research etc. Becoming an initiate is potent training so you gain 1D3 or to your Maximum POW. Likewise becoming Priest or Lord of a cult you gain 1D3 to Maximum POW. You can sacrifice POW for spells this lowers your current POW. Your current POW increases by Maximum POW/20 per season (for initiates or less) or by Max POW/10 per season (for those above initiate status). 21 POW is species MAX for purposes of calculating the success of training/research but there is always a 5% chance to increase through research regardless of level. As an alternate suggestion instead of rolling 1d3 for POW increases use the old POW gain table from RQ2 01-10 Gain 3 POW 11-40 Gain 2 POW 41-00 Gain 1 POW - this could be used for training and research as well e.g. Arila rolls up a MAX POW of 12 and decides to join cult of Seven Mothers. As part of her induction into the cult she attends classes and ceremonies at the local temple the culmanation of which is her initiation ceremony. Successful initiation means she learnt her leasons well and her POW training succeeded - Arila's MAX POW increases to 14. She is then asked to sacrifice a point of POW to establish the link to her gods. Arila's current POW now drops to 13. She also sacrifices for a madness spell at this time further reducing her current POW to 12. Her current POW slowly increases over the next 3 seasons back to POW 14. Several years later Arila approaches her Priestess about getting some POW training. Arila is in good standing within the cult so the Priestess agrees. So over the next few seasons Arila attends classes at the temple under the tutelage of the High Priest. At the conclusion of the course her Maximum POW rises from 14 to 15 and her current POW rises by 1. Arila spends her next years helping to quell rebellion in Sartar and rises to rune lord where upon her Maximum POW now rises from 15 to 18 (after a lucky roll) and her current POW rises by 3. She now regains POW twice as fast as before. One other note - Maximum POW never decreases - diseases such as Soul Waste attack only current POW. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16168; Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:29:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21034; Tue, 22 Feb 94 16:29:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 16:29:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 16:29:14 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Solace; creating Masters Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:29:05 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3BF1CFE5429@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Wayne Shaw responded to Guy Hoyle >> If you try to cram every little thing into the rules, you end up bogging down >> play. Glorantha needs more sourcebooks, not more rules. >> (There. Bet THAT ticks some people off). > >If you want to play the dozens on this, the proper answer is, "If you >want simple minded, stupid rules, play D&D." Cheap shot, Wayne. D&D is more complicated in most ways (but it features much faster combat than RQ and is also much more popular, wonder if there's a correlation...). I once GMed an AD&D scenario at a convention (it was a really good scenario I'd playtested). I'd never GMed AD&D before in my life. At one point somebody wanted to grapple. This involved a completely different rules mechanic than normal combat. I managed to convince the players that it wasn't worth looking up the grapple rules. (Later they told me I was the best GM they'd played with.) Guy Robinson noted >How ever the Sorcery chapter reveals >that to reach Solace someone must cast a Ritual Low Sorcery Spell >called Solace after the event of that person's death As I read that, you can cast it on yourself as you die. This casting happend automatically, but you still have to make your roll. >I offered Orthani initation at the cost of 1 POW to the Sartarite >characters. This allowed them to buy Cult spells at initiate level >and purchase Cult Skills. The characters were generated at skilled >level anyway. A Skilled character normally gets Magic 2. If you choose Divine Magic (i.e. you're Sartarite), this makes you a "Low Initiate." So there's no need for spending additional POW to become an initiate (in fact, the way the table's set up, you've already spent that point of POW). So technically you have no choice, if you're Sartarite, and old enough, you're in a cult. The rules make it weird and unusual not to (although they're not very explicit about this). The GM would have to make special provisions (e.g. give back the point of POW and disallow learning most spells). King of Sartar has a wealth of additional detail on the Orlanthi culture, but unlike RQ2, RQ:AiG at least gives a reasonable feel for being Orlanthi. >The only person who selected cult skills, my 15 year old stepson, >just wrote down Cult Skills. There is not enough information to >encourage Cult Skills to be adopted by a less than thorough reader, >or someone new to roleplaying. I agree there's a problem, we just disagree on the solution. Cult skills are mentioned on p.22, but there should be an explicit pointer to the cult listing. Having an index doesn't make up for cults scattered throughout the book. Steven Barnes said >However, the >master of 7 weapons will have only 2 other skills, something that I >claim is impossible. Unless the character was some form of monastic >warrior, they will have raised a variety of background skills beyond >basic. This is especially important if the GM expects you to know >a variety of Lore, Custom and Craft skills appropriate to your culture >and profession, in addition to the standard "adventuring" skills. Most Yanafil Tarnils RLs would have 4 Master choices left over, which can be split into 8 Expert choices (and as I GM, 16 Skilled choices). Also note that Custom/Own is base 50%. If you're single-minded enough to master 7 weapons, it's not unreasonable to think you're not a well-rounded individual. Bryan Maloney said >LESS HISTORY MORE SOCIETY, OR RQ:AiG is dead, dead, dead. I agree with this. SOME history is important, but the only really important stuff is Lightbringer's Quest, Founding of Sartar, and Conquest by Lunar Empire. We need far more on what it means to be a member of a polytheist, clan-based society. >This is a problem. What happened to the shamanic ability to send the Fetch >out to intercept attacking spirits. Shamans are supposed to be SPIRITUAL >WARRIORS. Read a little bit about shamanism, would you? Having the fetch as a pseudo-independent entity was very messy in RQ3. RQ:AiG seems closest to my memories of reading about shamans than any other version. Shamans tend to be healers, not warriors. >what is broken about spirit combat is the fact that it is based on the >damned resistance table!!!!!!!!! > >Am I the ONLY person on this list to see that? I ran the last draft version >of Spirit combat in my RQ campaign, and the players LIKED it. They liked it a >good deal. I ran the last draft of spirit combat (rolling the skill, damage going down as you lost MP) in my campaign,and nobody really liked it. Paul Reilly said > Oh, species MAX for stats is broken in the draft. Anyone disagree? The section on Characteristic Maxima is a little confusing, but Species Max is the same as it always was, isn't it?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00468; Tue, 22 Feb 94 18:07:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29826; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:07:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:07:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:07:16 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Spirit Combat Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 8:05:55 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C1BF40024E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> As to spirit combat being broken becauswe it is based on the resistance table, I ran the RQ4 draft 2.0 spirit combat (not a resistance table in sight) and no one round here liked it much. There are basically two problems with spirit combat in RQ2/3. The first one is that shamans particularly (and other spirit combat specialists too, I guess, like Subere priestesses) have no potential for experience increase or whatever, other than by increasing POW, which they have much more useful things to do with. So Blueface heads of into the spirit plane, with his 250 point fetch left behind to guard his body, and just his natural POW and a few protective spells - which makes it a moot point how he captures those 40 point spirits. Basically there was no way to increase your attack ability at all. Of course, shamans did get defensive magic, which only exacerbated the second problem with spirit magic - it was dull. A long series of rolls, chipping away at your opponent, no tactical choices at all - often continueing on for some time after it becomes obvious who is going to win. Very dull in play. So the RQ4 gang decided to change it, and a good thing too. But the changes fixed the first problem (shamans have now got skills that mean even relatively small POW (human max is relatively small for the Inner region of the spirit plane) shamans can take on the big guys and stand a chance. Nice. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of players, whose spirit combat goes up by experience only and starts at 25 (and is unlikely to get much above 35 before they start nudging acolytehood) the system replaced the system of uninteresting number rolling that slowly picked away at your opponent with a system that worked very similarly in practice, except fights against even small spirits still had small attack chances (so took longer) and spirit combats required twice as many dice rolls and twice as many combat actions. Bleugh! So spirit combat is a section of the rules that is mildly broken - particularly with the new emphasis on shamans, the rules need to be more in depth than the RQ3 ones. But they should not be set up so that everyone fights in a skill based manner, or everyone needs to use funny tactics when they are just beating up spell spirits or whatever. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02442; Tue, 22 Feb 94 18:31:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00977; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:31:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:31:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:31:03 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Compromise between the Linear and Exponential Sorcery factions Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 8:30:04 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C2249C1397@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Paul here. > > Uhhh.... > > Let me say I don't even like Duration at all; our original concept (before > compromising) was that all spells should be either somehow maintained or > Instant. Maintaining spells may cost mp/time. > WHile I am one of the people argueing for exponential time to return to duration, let me say that I am happier to have it removed entirely rather than have the current stripped down white elephant version that we have now, that is far less useful than any of the other manipulations (unless you spend permanent POW!), and seemingly largely redundant compared with Maintain. Just remove duration and beef up Maintain a little seems reasonable to me (allowing some restricted sources of external Power to maintain as well, so sorcerers can set up complex maintained spell systems if willing to spend lots of time and energy on it, as Paul suggests). Part of the reason why I dislike the linear duration is that I suspect that in most capaigns it will just not be used at all, and why having it hanging around cluttering up the rules if no one is going to use it. Oliver likes the idea that sorcery will cause you to use POW on single use spells, and thus there is the temptation to destroy your soul (hes been listening to priestly propaganda), but believe me, the current version is a temptation that very few of my players will have trouble resisting - I mean even if they happened to want to cast a long duration spell in extremis, they are unlikely to own Duration at all, and if they do, unlikely to have it any decent level. > In this model, spirit magic is maintained by the spell spirit (in the spirit > helper sub-model), Divine Magic is maintained by the god or a spirit in > his retinue, sorcery is maintained either by the sorcery, an enchanted spell > token, Vested power, or an external source somehow tapped by the sorcerer > (more on this later). > It is always nice to have some sort of underlying rule to the magic system as well. > Assume for a moment that the Duration problem is 'solved' somehow. > Now, what is the problem with Range? I really don't feel that there is > too much of one: if you properly limit targetting according to traditional > laws of magic, then there is no game-balance problem with long-range spells, > and life can get interesting. The exponential table is fine, plus add ons > for natural barriers and adverse conditions. > Too right. can't agree more. The current draft would limit sorcerers a lot compared to RQ3 ones anyway (free Int 18 is a lot easier to come by than manipulations at 180%), removing the things that people like the least. And has anyone really found that logarithmic range causes big problems in their games? I have no problem at all. Apart from the fact that it is perfectly reasonable for certain people to ocassionally get a large tactical advantage, long range usually chews through enough mps that it is not a big problem unless you are dealing with a really serious sorcerer. I do recall someone (Oliver I think) complaining that sorcerers with high range skills become very deadly when fighting on completely flat plains - but forgive me if I fail to see this as a serious problem. Personally I think without logarithmic range, a large number of sorcery spells (phantom sense, teleport) are all but useless. Bring back logarithmic range increase! > More later, > Paul > Cheers' Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02954; Tue, 22 Feb 94 18:38:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01240; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:38:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:38:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:38:28 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Solace; creating Masters Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 16:38:55 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C2445808F1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David said: >Steven Barnes said >>However, the >>master of 7 weapons will have only 2 other skills, something that I >>claim is impossible. Unless the character was some form of monastic >>warrior, they will have raised a variety of background skills beyond >>basic. This is especially important if the GM expects you to know >>a variety of Lore, Custom and Craft skills appropriate to your culture >>and profession, in addition to the standard "adventuring" skills. > >Most Yanafil Tarnils RLs would have 4 Master choices left over, which can >be split into 8 Expert choices (and as I GM, 16 Skilled choices). Also note >that Custom/Own is base 50%. If you're single-minded enough to master 7 >weapons, it's not unreasonable to think you're not a well-rounded >individual. Except that he/she will have only mastered 3.5 weapons, since Parry is a separate skill. Of course, if we made weapon skills less specialized, a warrior wouldn't have to waste as many skill options. And don't forget to learn Dodge, Maneuver, Brawling, and one or more of those special weapon skills. But the ones I really pity are the poor Sorcerors. I can't see how you could possibly make a diverse "master" sorceror. Both Range and Duration cost 2 options each, leaving 2.5 options left (that is at best, 5 low sorcery spells). Yes, one could settle for less than 90%, but then he wouldn't be much of a "master" IMHO. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03601; Tue, 22 Feb 94 18:47:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01595; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:47:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:47:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:47:33 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Bryan Maloney on RAG Date: 22 Feb 1994 19:45:40 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C26B241825@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) | In the Beginning, the Introduction sent me straight to nappy-land. Zing | that sucker up and SHORTEN it. It's too darn long and it all of what you I agree. The intro was good for Gloranthan historians but of little to no use for people who want to ROLEPLAY there. RQ is a ROLEPLAY game, not a historical treatise on Glorantha. Luckily, OJ agrees that the intro is intimidating to anyone not already a RQ fan. | Play Aids needs some work. The FIRST thing you need to do is point out | that these supplements are for the THIRD edition of RQ and some adaptation | may be necessary. Second, and extremely important, you MUST emphasize that | these supplements may contradict each other and that these contradictions | and inconsistencies are NOT accidents. This is very true. Most other games and world histories are written with the assumption that published sources are infallible, and that they supercede individual campaigns. This is a *HUGE* difference in RQ and you should point it out when you introduce the world. Of course, carrying this out in practice is a *bit* of a trick (understatement alert). | Renown: Well, I'm a LITTLE less hostile to it than before, now that I've | read its explanation, but I still think it's a bad idea, especially since | the implementation is pretty much crap. The greatest weakness: It is not | possible to gain or lose Renown during play. Guess what folks, the | notoriety of a person CAN CHANGE OVER TIME!!!!!! Further ranting deleted. I agree. That's why I proposed that Renown (Aspect/Area) be scored as a percentile ability and increased by experience (and political campaigning) just as if it were a skill... not that it *is* a skill proper... but if the easiest and most consistent way to use it is to treat it as a skill then I say "do it." | Experience. I must state that EVERY method given for handing out | I prefer the 1d3/1d6/2d4 differentiation. I challenge ANYONE to prove to I prefer 1d3/1d6/2d6 to all the other choices. It's a LOT easier to remember. That's enough of a reason to get my vote. | POW gain rolls: I don't think there's any way to do this so that all will | be pleased. It would be a good trick to model them so that everybody likes them. If "worship" is the way that people get more POW then you might get POW checks at several types of situations. After a period of contemplation, vaguely a week in which you can do your ordinary work, you get to make a roll for POW increase and any POW checks you earned during that time are wiped from the slate. Time to earn some more. 1. You successfully led a dangerous expedition. People are likely to offer hero-worship to someone who accomplishes daring feats. 2. N people (where N is your current POW) came to you with requests for aid and you satisfied their requests, without any payment being offered or given. Note the aid could be "smite my enemies" as easily as "heal me" and "instruct me" so this isn't a goody-two-shoes rule. People will offer hero-worship to someone who helps them and their community. 3. A descendant is born. Successful Ceremony roll needed, by the birth-parents or someone else in attendance. Note that adoptees would count as descendants, so their children would count as your descendants. People will offer worship to ancestors. 4. You preside over a public or private gathering as the primary performer, where there are at least as many people present as POW**2. Successful Ceremony roll needed. Note this is the genericized version of priestly POW gain. While I like the implications of this sort of mechanic for POW increase, it trespasses on the territory of APP and Renown. I still prefer the model that "Defeating tough enemies with magic makes you more POWerful." | Fatigue: Put me down in the minority. I like the fatigue rules and find | them a damned sight better than what has gone before. I also like the | straight skill penalty. Why? It seems to reflect the effects I've noticed | on myself of fatigue. I am MUCH more likely to do a stupid thing when I'm | tired than when I'm alert. This applies to mental as well as physical | skills. As for master fighters supposedly not having this effect--the 10th | Dan teachers I've had don't believe that at all. They all taught to "fight | smarter, not harder". In fact, it is a sign of great skill to derive | greater and greater effects from less and less exertion. This is where I'm going to re-launch my idea that you only check for fatigue when you botch (or fumble). This allows high skill fighters to "fight smart instead of hard" and not tire themselves. | Religions, Cults, etc. You are still making the same silly mistake made | in the first three editions of RQ. You are forgetting to EXPLICITLY state | that the "Cults" of individual deities are PARTS of a RELIGION, and it is | the RELIGION that provides the underlying definition of things NOT the | damned cults! You need to completely re-write the too-short paragraph on | "Religions" to reflect this. Talk to Loren Miller if you need specific | advice. I can send a pretty lengthy rant on the subject, in fact. RAG needs to cover the difference between Religion and Cult in the rules. Lay membership or Low Initiate status is a start. Unfortunately they aren't well described in the rules. | Also, whoever told you that "civilized" cultures have more leisure was | pissing down his own leg. This is exactly OPPOSITE the truth. Civilized | cultures may have a leisure CLASS, but leisure time in general is more Agreed. | I'm on the fence regarding duration and range. I'm not, at least with Range. I think that Range should be exponential as in RQ3, and it could easily be restricted by certain sorcerous colleges in the east islands campaigns, et al. In every fantasy world that I have read in which long-range magic worked it was true that a ship with a wizard would always beat one without a wizard. This is true from the Worm Ourouborous to Earthsea to the Black Company to the Wheel of Time. I don't think that a good magic system should produce any other result. Besides, if you don't allow sorcerous spells long range then they'll get whipped by priests and shamans and dwarves (not to mention waertagi). As for duration, I like the idea of the Maintain skill, but I don't think it should be rare. Without Maintain or something like it the Regeneration spell is utterly worthless, and so are other spells that require duration for any effect (like Immortality, a great carrot for PC sorcerors to quest after). I have an idea. Make Maintain work just like all the other sorcerous manipulations. You can have as many points of spell Maintained as your Maintain/10. It doesn't reduce your MP or MP regeneration. The trick to maintaining more spells is to get a huge Maintain skill, and that's a tough job if you aren't Brithini or otherwise immune to age. | Schools of Sorcery: I would like to see a general Mostali school among | the atheists. What do the Flintnailers use? They certainly aren't | Carmanians, Lunars, Malkioni, or Arkati. If you're going to list the cult, | then supply an appropriate school of sorcery. Agreed. You *have* to list the sorcerous schools in/around Dragon Pass. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04080; Tue, 22 Feb 94 18:48:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01665; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:48:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:48:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:48:35 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Steve Maurer on RAG Date: 22 Feb 1994 19:46:42 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C26F833F7E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Maurer wrote and David Quill sent: | A+/A Grades: ( or - "Whoever says I'm always negative is a complete idiot" ) | Sorcery - Quite good, the number of fixes to RQ3 sorcery can barely be | counted, so I won't go into them. I would have preferred a more in depth | treatment of this complicated magic - specifically, if you have the skill, | it is still just as easy to cast an intensity 10 spell as it is an | intensity 1 - but for an introductory piece, it could hardly be better. Just note that the sorcery fixes have made sorcery weaker than any other magic system, and that overcompensation is a bad thing. But I far and away prefer the Skill/10 limit to the Free INT one. | A- Grades: ( or - "Perfect! Oh. Hey. Wait a minute..." ) | Skills - Degrees of success, time dependent skills, complementary skills, | symmetric contest of skill, skill selection, subskills - all are excellent | additions. Giants can still play (and learn how to play) harps better | because they are so strong, good looking people still can eavesdrop | better than ugly ones. Actually the skill in playing musical instruments for performance is tied to your APP, not to STR or DEX. I've played guitar and sung in a rock band on stage, and I'm not that quick a player, but people enjoy what I do. They enjoy it not because my fingers are fast but because I'm a good performer. It's a COMmunication skill, not MANipulation. Likewise, when I was playing violin in an orchestra, the single biggest factor in whether people liked the performance wasn't the skill of the players but the APP of the conductor and soloist. Music is COMmunication. The problem is not with the modifiers, it's with the placement of skills. Musical instruments should be COM skills, Pickpocket should be AGI, Languages should be KNOwledge skills, and so on. | B+ to B Grades: ( or - "Pretty good. Could be better." ) | Skill Check Experience - Instead of having "GMs factor in" skill difficulty | for the specific check system, why don't you just do the following: A | Hard skill check gets you +1d3%, a Medium gets you +1d6%, an Easy gets | you +2d6%. Same result. Simpler mechanics. Easier to explain. Isn't that what it says already? | Skill Training - Good rules but still need several fixes: | 1] Instruct should NOT be complementary to the skill being taught; I | don't care how good a teacher you are, you can't teach something | you don't know. I agree. It should be limiting, just as with sorcery spells and skills or ride and attack. | 2] RQ2 had the concept of "Experience Needed" skills. Past a certain | point, at the very least, you had to get a skill check in the skill | before you could train in it - real experience is neccessary. I | would like to see this put back in. Oh, how much training would you allow after getting an experience check? One "unit"? What's the "unit"? I have an alternate suggestion for Experience-needed skills. Once past the trained level in a skill---is that 60% or 45%---if your training or research fails then you have to get real experience before you can train or research it further. Use it on an adventure. You don't like the adventure idea? Sorry, RQ is an ADVENTURE game!!! This isn't TRAINING QUEST: ADVANCED INSTRUCTION IN GLORANTHA, it's RuneQuest: ADVENTURES in Glorantha!!! | 4] Research should not guarantee success. TRUE! No method of learning should guarantee success, especially WRT secret or difficult knowledge. | 5] Being able to train others right up to your skill level is far too | abusable (unrealistic too). You've got to lower this, or every GM | will have to deal with constantly cross-training gross out monsters: | "I'll trade you 175% Greatsword for 165% Enchant." The simplest fix is to make the Instruction skill the limit for training. If your Instruction skill is 40%, then that's the highest you can train someone else with your 284% broadsword skill. To successfully Instruct, you succeed at Instruction and simultaneously at the skill, and the students gain 1d3/1d6/2d6 in the skill taught. A fumbled Instruction would give them a 2d6/1d6/1d3 minus in the skill taught (Why? Because it's Easy to misteach a Hard skill, Hard to misteach an Easy one). If players decide to research and practice their Instruction up to the levels where this gets abusive, then they have too much time on their hands and only the GM is to blame. | Also, while I | don't believe magicians need to walk around naked, neither do I | believe they can wear platemail and still cast spells properly, | which the current rules allow them to do. I do not agree. I have always appreciated that Glorantha was a world where magic-users could walk around in as much armor as the dumbest warriors. Screw game balance and the D&D Magic-user ideal! In fact, I would remove DEX from the Magic modifiers entirely. Correct use of the magical laws of sympathy is much more important for success in magical targeting than getting your fingers in exactly the right spot. Naturally the wizard/shaman/priest needs to be able to Perceive her target and to make some sort of vague movements and mutter something, but incredibly precise movements aren't necessary. Unattuned iron (which should subtract 5% per ENC from spell success chances, both offensive and defensive), restraints, and Slave Bracelets will stop those who use magic well enough. That said, I like Steve's fatigue table with one modification. | Total ENC Fatigue ENC Level Travel Skill subtractions | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Up to STRx1 CONx5 None No shift None | Up to STRx2 CONx4 Light No shift -15 Agility (not Reach) | Up to STRx3 CONx3 Moderate 1 shift -30 Agility, -15 Physical(*) | Up to STRx4 CONx2 Heavy 2 shifts -45 Agility, -30 Physical(*) | Up to STRx5 CONx1 Overloaded 3 shifts -60 Agility, -45 Physical(*) | | (*) All skills which require some physical activity. Everything except | Perception, Knowledge, and Communication skills, all Custom skills, | and Evaluate. Magic skills and sorcery ARE NOT Physical skills. | 4] HEAT is why armor and helmets are so exhausting; in cold rainy weather I agree that the Fatigue section in the Natural World should pay more attention to this. | Special Weapon Techniques - Even though they only take effect on a | special (which I agree with totally), I feel there should be some | disadvantage to using these. If specials weren't so wimped out, | this wouldn't be a problem. That's why I prefer the "either/or" version of special combat techniques, and why I'd take the extra skills out entirely. | B- to C+ Grades: ( or - "Identified the problem, didn't quite fix it" ) | Stackable Magic - RQ3 has horrible problems with stackable magic in all | categories, Battlemagic, Sorcery and Runemagic. Without the inherent | stacking limits of RQ2, RQ3 violated steve's first rule of magic: | | Large quantities of low quality magic should NOT be the equivalent | (or better) than high quality magic. What is high quality magic? It sounds as if you are claiming that DIVINE magic is somehow higher quality than SPIRIT magic and SORCERY. I disagree. They are different in quantity, not quality. As for the cumulative "problem" with magic, it doesn't work that way. The rules should elucidate the difference between multiple castings of the same spell and stacked castings so other people don't make the same error. I think that many of Steve's "fixes" to magic are actually attempts to return it to RQ2. I don't think that's a good idea. | C to C- Grades: ( or - "Some disappointments are inevitable" ) | Weapon Damage - Always too low in RQ, and again lowered further! Now, a | normal man (STR 11/SIZ 13), stabbing another utterly average, HELPLESS, | NUDE man (SIZ 13/CON 10) with a javelin, can stab him NINE times and | still not, on average, kill him. The same man with a POLEAXE, striking | the same NUDE man in the chest, will not, on average, even knock him out! Really? Let's see. Spear does 1d6, damage bonus is +1. The first time it does 6 points or more to a location (happens 33% of the time) it is guaranteed to take the location below zero, then bleeding kicks in and the victim dies when bleeding takes him below -HP. I don't see a problem with this. I'm not sure what the Poleaxe does. Let's assume it does 1d10, just for convenience's sake. On the average it will do 6 points of damage, which incapacitates our hypothetical nude man just like in the above situation and gives him a few rounds before he bleeds to death. What's the problem? As for the reason why the damage was lowered... In a RQ3 game we played a few years back the PCs were chasing a gang around. One of the characters (unarmored, since they were all in a city) kicked at a punk who had a sword, the punk very luckily parried, and with his ordinary damage bonus of 1d4 did a total of 1d8+1+1d4 to the character for enough to easily cut off his leg. In RQ2 and RQ3 the only way to survive ordinary city adventures with rare violence was to run around in full war gear. PCs never took off their armor, since they couldn't survive without it. This is the problem with the old rules, and part of the reason why weapon damage has been reduced. | This average man CANNOT | UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, >>> even including the unrealistic All Out weapon | damage rules <<<, kill a nude helpless man with a sightly above average | CON (13), in a single blow to the head with a shortsword. Instant death isn't what I want. I want impairing wounds that make the victim bleed to death. They give GM and players more latitude in life and death situations. | 5] There is no way to "block" someone sprinting by you (the free attack | is not enough). Should have a Maneuver vs Maneuver to do this. Agreed. Maneuver should be used for a lot more than the rules allow. | Damage Bonus | [ At the very least, add the following die rolls: ] Disagree. At the most, put this in an optional rules appendix. | 4] Do NOT allow disruption to do damage to inanimate objects. Agreed. | 6] I really wish Healing was not quite so universal. I liked the old Agreed. | Wimp the Endurance spell out, please. Agreed. | The effects of Runic Mind Affecting | spells cannot be dispelled. Not quite. Berserkers are immune to chaotic Mind Affecting magic. Otherwise, how would the Arroyans calm the Berserks down? After all, their calming skill dispells the Berserk, doesn't it? | Weapon Modifiers - The problem is that there are none. Once base training | is through, it is still as easy to parry with a dagger as it is a shield; | easier in fact, you can learn Dagger parry more quickly. Not in RQ4. Shield parry is easy. Dagger parry is medium. | would add or subtract from the user's final Attack and Parry chance, to | reflect how easy or hard it is to use the weapon. For instance, a small | shield would have: -20/+10 reflecting that it is hard to attack with it, Not a bad idea, but I think it's too complex for core rules. This seems like a natural for a house rule, and I understand that Steve already uses it as a house rule so that's fine. | D+ to D Grades: (or - "Eegad! Dost mine eyes perceve a Mac Truck?") | | Worship Diety - One POW check per week. Holy cow, you're actually keeping | this RQ3 crock? Please PLEASE just make worship services just part of | the Sanctify spell: the more worship services you hold, the more Divine | spells your shrine/temple/etc can support. (Also the larger your Temple | spirit but we won't go into that right now). If you REALLY want to keep | this, make it -at most- once per season. Agreed. | Ye Olde Species Max Bug - Is anyone offended that Dryads have a Species Species Maxes *are* silly, just as in RQ3 and RQ2. Human sorcerors and priests and shamans ought to be able to raise their POW over 21, other stats too, without a heroquest. I'd prefer to just stick with the ORIGINALx1.5 as each character's max score. STAMP OUT SPECIES MAXIMA!!! | Spirit Plane - This is not really explained in gameworld terms. All I | see is a bunch of tables for shaman abilities. Its done so well | elsewhere, this really sticks out. Agreed. I wouldn't make it a grey featureless fog though, I'd make it like an alternate reality version of the local terrain, where everything is closer to the *essential* or *ideal* version of itself. It would be full of animal and plant spirits, and people wouldn't be there unless they had hung out there a *long* time, in which case they could become ghosts when they died. Spirits would have appearances consistent with the section on visual effects of magic. A spell spirit of bladesharp would look like a wickedly-sharp weapon flying past. You get the idea, I think. | 3] There is still no way to intercept attacking spirits I think that shamans should be able to do this with their fetch. I'm not sure that anybody else should as a matter of course, but then VISIBLE spirits exist in the physical plane and you should be able to interpose your body between them and their victim (contest of Maneuvers). | 4] You must take an ACTION to defend in spirit combat? What next, | take an ACTION to defend against spells? Magic Defense at FULL MP | should always be AUTOMATIC. PERIOD. I agree. | 5] The "higher damage for higher-MP" rules make super high power spirits | utterly gross, and in addition cause horrible breakpoints I agree. This works with the spirit attack skill, but not with the POW table. | 7] Again no limits to using spirit block and/or spirit shield to cheat | in Spirit Binding (Ghost, etc) contests. This has always been an unclear rule. Please describe exactly what spirit block and spirit shield etc do for the spirit combatant, and how you use them or don't to bind spirits. | 9] Visibility is otherwise vastly overpowered. According to these | rules, a God can become visible at a cost of 2 MP. Also its not | symmetric, it costs 2 MP to cast, but the spirits POW to Dispel, | and the immunity spirits have while under this is absurd. I propose a meta-rule, that it takes 1MP per 10 points of each characteristic to manifest an otherworld creature in the physical plane. Thus, a ghost with INT 13 and POW 16 requires 4MP worth of Visibility or 4MP worth of Sorcerous or SpiritMagic Summon Ghost or 2POW of Divine Summon Ghost. A Demon with 7 stats at 13 each requires 14MP or 7POW to summon. Likewise, I'd extend these rules to the various Dominate and Command and Control spells, since this makes Dominate/Control/Command Human naturally much harder than the fairly ordinary spells to Dominate/Control/Command . It also makes it pretty darn hard to summon and/or control a god. | 1] There is no maximum on number of bound spirits like there was in | RQ2. Anyone halfway enterprising can get more spirits (and MP, | etc) than they can possibly handle. While I didn't think the RQ2 | mechanic worked especially well, at least there was one. Well, since APP is Appeal now, we can go back to the APP/3 rule. I think this is a good fix. | 2] Used to be you had to put spirits in crystals, because that was the | only thing that could hold them. While I can accept Spirit Trapping | Enchantments, they are WAY WAY too cheap. 1 POW allows you to trap | 3d6 POW of spirit? At the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, it should be 1 POW per | 1d6 or 6 pts of plusses, so a 3d6+6 spirit trap would cost 4 POW. | Actually, it might even be greater. This is where I'd use the 1POW per 10 characteristic points trapped meta-rule. | 3] Attack-Dog Spirits - The "release" capability is hideous. I can | just see some enterprising young PC realizing that for 2 POW he | can make a "combat ghost" he can release to attack others in combat, | and run around with four or five of the things (much more useful | than runemagic). What happens when his luck runs out while he's finding and binding new ghosts to go in his traps? I mean, they do leave for good when you release them, don't they? Do they? | 4] Ranged Spell Attack Spirits - The ability to allow a spirit perform | a ranged attack is equally hideous: "Me and my 9 bound spirits all | cast Disrupt - oh, by the way, their average POW is 22". Ranged targeting by spirits should require a use of Visibility (or a spirit bound in a living body), and again we're back to the 1MP per 10 Characteristic Points per characteristic meta-rule. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00993; Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:55:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03159; Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:19:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:24:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:18:59 EST From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: re: QFF00036 on Oliver's Summary Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:16:45 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C2F140570D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >> From: "QFF00036@niftyse" >> Subject: Comments on Oliver's Summary of RQ:AiG. >> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 3:23:00 JST ... >> Not so bad. But Rune Lord's major advantage is lost. Hummm..... >> How about this? -- >> Anyone who concentrate on magical defence can defend with POW. >> Otherwise one must defend with MP. To concentrate on magical defence one >> lose a combat option for that round. Decent compromise to the defend with POW /defend with ZERO choice you have re: actively defending against an attack in the current draft. >> Rune Lords always defence with POW. Gods help their lords. Agreed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06414; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:38:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03734; Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:30:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:38:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:30:52 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Pow Recovery and Training Date: 22 Feb 1994 20:21:45 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C323F735FA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask writes: > The current POW gain mechanism in fact encourages > those with low POW to sacrifice it because they are almost certain > to get it back very quickly while those with high POW are discourage because > it will take them much longer to regain what they have lost. > I'd argue that this is the reverse of what most non RQ-ers would expect. Agreed. This supports my idea that an individual's maximum stats should be computed at 1.5 times the original stat. Period. NO SPECIES MAXIMA! Someone with 18 POW original should have a better chance of getting POW back if/when he sacrifices it than the poor schmuck who starts with 5 POW. This also removes a problem I noticed in character generation that players would not choose a POW over 14 for starting characters, because extra points didn't make any difference for max POW. That said, I also think that the POW maximum, and only the POW maximum, should stretch, giving the 5 POW schmuck at least a *chance* of getting to Rune Level someday and the naturally talented mage or priest a really massive POW. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08223; Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:01:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB04877; Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:01:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:01:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:00:53 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Pow Recovery and Training Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 18:01:30 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C3A4080164@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask writes: >POW can already be recovered under the current system quite easily and >at a faster rate. The current POW gain mechanism in fact encourages >those with low POW to sacrifice it because they are almost certain >to get it back very quickly while those with high POW are discourage because >it will take them much longer to regain what they have lost. I agree. This is very annoying to me. The new rules make it even worse, since you can raise your POW over 21. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09349; Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:28:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05961; Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:28:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:28:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 21:28:15 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: ENC; Fatigue Rules; POW; sorcery Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 18:28:02 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C418D66527@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To Tim, on Lunar Magic, if we're changing magic points available to Lunars I much prefer a global rule changing total stock to changing casting cost. Total stock need only be figured once, and if the GM is running the Lunars can be done ahead of time. Changing casting cost of spells is a bad idea simply because it is one of the few parameters still fixed; making us remember it changing too is a bad idea. This is especially important since most campaigns are disgustingly pro-Orlanth, Lunars will often be being run by the GM, who may have a lot of characters to run and does not need any more problems. I was going to change casting chance of cult magic, too. Or move everyone down a class in maximum on dark moon ... no, this seems to be a real problem. I think copying Greg's existing GoG lunar rules without thinking this problem through is a mistake. Oddly, Lunars were not all that important in most RQ II/III campaigns so this problem never became major, both with publication of Lunar cults it will. Re: Elimination of Duration and replacement with Maintain, I'll have to think about that. If we go to exponential range, the targeting rules have got to be thought through real carefully. Arms have been waved, but I want to see the proposed targeting rules before buying anything. It is clear that Duration and Maintain are in competition with each other and need to be playbalanced carefully. Disagree as to the uselessness of Duration. It is often more important that your spells still be up when the enemy's go down, than exactly how long they last. When planning an attack {on the few occasions PC's actually plan}, a feint to sucker the enemy into casting their spells followed by a retreat, followed by the real attack, is often suggested and sometimes tried. Sorcery spells that lasted an hour and extensioned Divine Magic could give a decisive advantage to such a plan.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06592; Tue, 22 Feb 94 23:16:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11446; Wed, 23 Feb 94 00:16:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 0:16:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 0:16:15 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Shamans as healers vs. warriors. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 00:16:02 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C6E5C75780@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> All of the reading I've done on shaman and shamanism stress one fact: Shamans are spiritual warriors par excellence. Their healing ability primarily derives from their ability to successfully combat spirits of illness and ill fortune. The fact that RuneQuest has decided to adopt the North American aboriginal model of shamanism to near complete exclusion of Eurasian and African shamanism actually drives their model of the shaman FURTHER into the spiritual warrior camp. Note that I always say SPIRITUAL warrior, NOT physical warrior. African shamanism, by the by, tends to work via a VERY different path, whereby the shaman gains power by being possessed BY benevolent spirits, who then act through the shaman rather than having power by chasing down and beating up spirits. The Loa of Voodoun are a Christianized version of this principle.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06884; Tue, 22 Feb 94 23:24:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11829; Wed, 23 Feb 94 00:24:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 0:24:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 0:23:52 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Instruct; POW Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 21:23:38 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C706357DFB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren said >The simplest fix is to make the Instruction skill the limit for >training. If your Instruction skill is 40%, then that's the highest you >can train someone else with your 284% broadsword skill. That makes it almost impossible to find trainers -- is that your intent? Might be better to make the training max the AVERAGE of skill and Instruct. Tim Leask said >POW can already be recovered under the current system quite easily and >at a faster rate. The current POW gain mechanism in fact encourages >those with low POW to sacrifice it because they are almost certain >to get it back very quickly while those with high POW are discourage because >it will take them much longer to regain what they have lost. >I'd argue that this is the reverse of what most non RQ-ers would expect. >Magically gifted individuals should gain POW at a faster rate not slower. >The current system is far more open to abuse the Steve's suggested fix >and has a variable value for POW which is the reverse of that desired. I dislike a system that limits your hope of ever getting anywhere based on an initial die roll (yes, I prefer rolling for characters, not spreadsheeting them; even if you're a spreadsheet fan, that just means you have to put X points into POW or you're an idiot). I think the species max system works pretty well -- I see nothing wrong with the fact that elves are innately magic. High POW is its own reward, and you don't not sacrifice it purely because of the difficulty of getting it back. Having a LOW pow makes it difficult to get POW checks if you believe in POW checks, or difficult to cast spirit magic if you believe in POW*5%, and it always makes it easier to get Befuddled. I've never seen anyone IN PLAY (as opposed to character creation) reduce their POW while it's low on the theory that it comes back quicker. Further, POW does NOT represent being magically gifted -- I've always liked the "integration of an adventurer with his universe" bit. Do Priests become less gifted because they sacrifice? No, but their gain of personal power puts them somewhat out of tune with the universe. In PenDragon Pass, I made POW gain a matter of rolling over POW on d20 (and a 20 always succeeds). This is a slightly lower rate than RQ3, and doesn't give elves any advantage. The rule doesn't translate exactly into RQ terms, but could still be used.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07668; Tue, 22 Feb 94 23:39:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12240; Wed, 23 Feb 94 00:39:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 0:39:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 0:39:22 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: shamans Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 21:39:13 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C748654CAB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Bryan Maloney wrote >All of the reading I've done on shaman and shamanism stress one fact: >Shamans are spiritual warriors par excellence. Their healing ability >primarily derives from their ability to successfully combat spirits >of illness and ill fortune. The fact that RuneQuest has decided to adopt >the North American aboriginal model of shamanism to near complete >exclusion of Eurasian and African shamanism actually drives their model >of the shaman FURTHER into the spiritual warrior camp. Note that I always >say SPIRITUAL warrior, NOT physical warrior. True, the only shaman I've seen (in a documentary) was a steppe nomad; it didn't look like she was fighting spirits, only visiting them. (If I remember right, this was essentially a multi-part divination. And it didn't fit the solitary shaman picture well.) Don't many shamans have fire resistance as a pretty standard power? To Solar shamans, I added: Miscellaneous: Solar Shamans exist outside the age group social structure of their tribe, and can be male or female (though most Grazer women follow the Feathered Horse tradition). Their fetches usually appear to be horses or falcons. Shamans have immunity to fire as if a primary ability; each level protects against 1d6 intensity of fire (see The Natural World). I also added (at someone's suggestion who wanted Sheng Seleris to be powerful): SPELL EXTENSION This ability allows a spirit magic spell to be cast for a long period of time. If 1 POW is spent at the same time, duration is measured in days instead of hours. Level 1 1 hour Level 2 2 hours Level 3 4 hours Level 4 8 hours Level 5 16 hours etc.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15896; Wed, 23 Feb 94 01:16:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18874; Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:15:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:16:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:15:39 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Steve Maurer on RAG Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 23:16:27 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C8E34B2F00@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: >| B- to C+ Grades: ( or - "Identified the problem, didn't quite fix it" ) >| Stackable Magic - RQ3 has horrible problems with stackable magic in all >| categories, Battlemagic, Sorcery and Runemagic. Without the inherent >| stacking limits of RQ2, RQ3 violated steve's first rule of magic: >| >| Large quantities of low quality magic should NOT be the equivalent >| (or better) than high quality magic. Just to clairify what Steve Maurer is talking about, he considers magic in Glorantha to be ranked in three steps: 1) Spirit / minor sorcery 2) Divine / major sorcery 3) Hero / God magic >What is high quality magic? It sounds as if you are claiming that DIVINE >magic is somehow higher quality than SPIRIT magic and SORCERY. I >disagree. They are different in quantity, not quality. Then why is Divine magic hard to get, in comparison with spirit magic (which is taught to lay members)? I think we can agree that Divine magic is generally more powerful than Spirit magic. >As for the >cumulative "problem" with magic, it doesn't work that way. The rules >should elucidate the difference between multiple castings of the same >spell and stacked castings so other people don't make the same error. I agree that this point should be clairified, if it is indeed the case. However, what Steve is getting at is that 4 points of Shield should be better than the best Protection spell possible. Instead, you can merely aquire Protection 8 plus Countermagic 8, and get almost the same effect. Likewise, he is stating that Divine magic is in desperate need of stacking limits, something I wholeheartedly agree with. You should not be able to make yourself immune to virtually all non-critical attacks, simply by casting 20 points of shield. To have magic that good should require major Heroquesting, not merely loads of POW and/or spell trading. >I think that many of Steve's "fixes" to magic are actually attempts to >return it to RQ2. I don't think that's a good idea. The lack of stacking limits in RQ3 is seriously unbalancing. I agree that RQ2's limits were somewhat arbitrary. However, with the new cult system, it makes sense to provide divine stacking limits for each cult, similar to the limits in place for Battle magic. >| Ye Olde Species Max Bug - Is anyone offended that Dryads have a Species > >Species Maxes *are* silly, just as in RQ3 and RQ2. Human sorcerors and >priests and shamans ought to be able to raise their POW over 21, other >stats too, without a heroquest. I'd prefer to just stick with the >ORIGINALx1.5 as each character's max score. STAMP OUT SPECIES MAXIMA!!! I always get nervous when I see multipliers in game systems. With your proposal, the Naiad who happened to roll 30 on her POW would have a max POW of 45. This is hardly an improvement... -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16151; Wed, 23 Feb 94 01:22:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19341; Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:22:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:22:43 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:22:27 EST From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: David Cake & Axe Trance Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:27:02 +0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C9003B5345@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> OOh! A thread named after me! Net fame at last ! Too bad I missed most of it. :-) Here are my thoughts in more detail about why I dislike Axe trance. I>am not talking it to the daily, because as far as I am concerned most of the cultural etc. validations are spurious. I chose to reply to David Chengs post because it seemed to express the pro-Axe Trance spirit most clearly. Basically, whether the spells is culturally appropriate is pretty much irrelevent - The spells for the other cults are culturally relevent too, that is no reason for BG to get the best combat spell in the book for 1 point. I agree with the evaluation of how dangerous the BGs killing rage should be - but personally I find that Berserk is quite terrifying enough - with the added advantage (to both the role-players and the game balance people) that it actually enforces a particular kind of behaviour, rather than just give you immense skill bonuses with no disadvantage at all. I like the BG cult, and have used it several times in play - but I >have taken to simply disallowing this spell, after one or two ridiculous uses. > > I don't care how high some furious woman can pump up her attack. I > like the idea of an Avenger cleaving dozens of guys before she herself > is killed. (BTW, I can't say I agree on the Babeester Gor=Defender, > Gorgorma=Avenger thing. I can't quote sources right now, but this > doesn't feel right). > And I like the idea of Storm Bulls killing dozens of chaos beasties and eventually going down - but I do not think that there Berserk should be supplemented by a super-duper 'Chaos-killing trance' spell to make it even more lethal - especially a spell that does not actually have any suggestion of a particular use or emotional state or whatever in the spell description - part of the problem with it, all other spells that ramp attack levels up really super-high have emotional side effects (Arrow trance, Berserk) (Crush is much more limited). > To consider game play: there are still only 10 SRs in a melee round. > The woman is still susceptible to missles and spells. She can only > kill perhaps 3-4 guys per round. They can still try to run away. > Sure, it is only overpowered one way, not every way at once. This is like saying a spell that gives you as many hit points as you want is not unbalanced because you can still easily be taken down with magic. > The spell is only flawed from the perspective of "all cults should > have equal 'power'." This is an idea I just don't agree with. > It's not like you would ever have a tabletop minis battle, with one > guy bringing his 100 Orlanthi thanes, and the other bringing his 50 > Babeester Gor warrior women. > No, roughly equal power. If two cults have the secret of the Berserk rage, it should be much the same power unless there is a good reason. All the death cults but Humakt cast the same Sever Spirit. Why should the BGs have better weapon enhancing magic than any body else? > If you want, in your campaign you can say that a BG woman can only > cast the spell while on an "avenging quest." > > * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com > Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight] > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16564; Wed, 23 Feb 94 01:35:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20032; Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:35:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:35:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:35:00 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Several More Things Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:34:27 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C935D2770D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here commenting on Steve Mauer's comments: 1) I like the idea of dividing agility and manipulation skill categories into sub categories. It has always been frustrating to live with anomoli es such as Steve points out when they can be fixed so easily. Let's stop having "Giant p ickpockets" and "midget mountain climbers" as Steve suggests. 2) I also hate the skill training rules which allow cross-pollination of skills. Cite as many sociological reasons why widespread cross-training would not occur, the fact remains that PC's in adventuring groups are going to do it. 3) " No extra fatigue for carrying heavy stuff; so long as it isn't armor"...I hope this isn't true. Have the "Oh I hate extra bookkeeping" people so swayed the rules that we are going to allow someone carrying their full ENC capacity in bags of gold or hiking equipment to be as nimble as a man in a loincloth? Pulease! 4) I completely disagree with Steve on the stackability of battle magic and divine magic. One of the most frustrating aspects of RQ2 was that defenses totally outstripped offenses at higher levels. For example, a Humakti Runelord with a bastard sword, D6 damage bonus, and bladesharp 4 (the maximum) could do a max of 21 points on a regular hit. However, his opponents could have iron plate (9 pts) heavy leather (2 pts) Protection 4 (4 pts) and Shield 4 (8 pts) for a total of 23 points. This was ridiculous. I like the current RQAiG system. Battle magic and divine magic should be unlimitedly stackable, BUT high levels of spells (esp battle magic) should be rare and only invoked for deserving persons. In my campaign, not only do cults reserve higher level spells for their most trusted members (not only for the reason cited by someone that high level spell spirits are rare and thus saved for powerful cult members, but also because no cult would want to give its initiates powerful spells and possibly have them turn to other cults(this has happened in Glorantha many a time). Finally, I have rules that even within a single cult, often a given temple will seek to gain prestige for its members by only teaching a powerful battle magic spell that it knows to its members. Stackable rune magic is also not broken. If someone has sacrificed 20 pts of POW for shield, then more power (no pun intended) to them! If they use it all in one battle, then heaven help them when 16 minutes later, the next attack comes, and a lot of good that much shield is going to do if someone crits. In any case, after a certain point, unless you are fighting the Bat, no one is going to need to cast more than 5-6 pts at any one time. Also, high level battle magic is not necessarily comparable to divine magic. What is the difference between a Dismiss Magic 4 and a Dispel Magic 8? Well, roll over POW x5% on the latter in a critical situation and you 'll find out real quickly! 5) "There is no way to "block" someone sprinting by you (th e free attack is not enough). Should have a Maneuver vs Maneuver to do this."....I agree. Please include this in the rules, as it is constantly needed in battles. In realistic fights, few people fight to the death. When one side or another starts to win, the other side will generally flee. Thus, rules to cover fleeing a battle and stopping fleeing should be addressed in detail. 6) Regarding the too little weapon damage rules, I believe there is some rule that states that 3x damage to a vital location = instant death. Thus, if the rules haven't changed too much, a Con 11 person would have say a 4 hp head. An impaling dagger would do (D6?) x2 =12 points and could kill him. Keep in mind that it is actually quite difficult to kill someone with a single blow. Only a critical or special should be able to do this. 7) Regarding the declaration of intents, I like them kept more vague. People can react to a fluid situation reasonably well even in a 6 second melee round. Also, the RQ2 requirement for exactness led to s tatements of "I attack the broo unless he falls in which case I will draw my bow and fire at the closest scorpion man unless I am wounded in which case I bring healing to mind unless......." . 8) Special Hits. Please have different weapon types do different special hit results. I hated the fact that pre errata RQ3 had no difference between slashing and smashing weapons for special hits. 9) I second the vote that disrupt not do damage to inanimate objects. This opens up too many cans of worms. What's next, will glue work on organic material? (OK I glue shut his mouth and his nostrils...hey, I just invented a Death Spell!). 10) I agree that spirit combat should bedesigned so that he who has the most Spirit Block does not always win. Frankly, I find Spirit Block to be grossly offensive in its power. When most divine magic equates to battle magic on a 2:1 ration, why does Spirit Block give 10 defense instead of 4? That would make it a much more manageable spell. I do not like the suggestion that all spirits miss on a roll of 51-00. This means the ghost of Dokat hits a POW 10 victim as often as a POW 10 spirit? No way! 11) I hope that the statement that RQAiG gives POW gain checks every week is plain wrong. Otherwise, Priests become gods. Also, I do not like minimum POW requirements for Priests. What stops everyone from becoming a Priest? Try lack of Ceremonyh skills, lack of cult skills, lack of cult affiliation, lack of will to officiate at ceremonies and spend 90% of their time on cult duties. I would hope, however, that a Priest is required to have more than 50% in the skills of Cermony, Enchant, and Summon as was in RQ3. Just how popular is the Priest of a temple with, say, a 50% Ceremony going to be at the High Holy Day service. Whoops, sorry all you Initiates, but I messed up this important ritual and now you have all missed a POW gain roll and your crops will whither! A Priest should have to have at least a 80% Ceremony. That would also stop most commoners who are not devoted to becoming a Priest from becoming a Priest. 12) Regarding enchantments, since I have not read RQAiG, I cannot directly refernce St eve's suggestions against the new rules, but suffice to say this. Enchantments are the most important magic rules to fix and playtest, simply because they are permanent. If a battle magic spell is too strong or has loopholes, well at least it will go away in x melee rounds. If an enchantment is screwed up, it remains constantly screwed up in every minute of the game. Playtest them well and to the extremes and fix them!!!!!!!! David Dunham writes: ) Please no. I can't stand the bookkeeping of bleeding. To him and all of the other "Please no more bookkeepingers out there", don't your players keep track of anything?! As GM, I track the monsters. Bleeding does not really need to be tracked for monsters (read as NPC's, etc.). Once they are down and out of the combat, whether they are dead or just dying has little effect. Instead, when the battle is over, I retroactively roll the bleeding rolls only if the players state that they are seeking a prisoner. David also writes: ) [there are no horse training rules] What! Come on! Lunars use cavalry, Sartarites use cavalry, the entire Praxian nomad society IS cavalry. Then there are the Grazelanders and the Pentians. And you are going to have some of us people who have never even ridden a horse try to wing rules on this subject? Pulease! Andy Weill writes: ) Judging RQ:AIG without reading it and based solely on this ) forum is notfair to the product. Then get me a copy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew! Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16606; Wed, 23 Feb 94 01:36:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20063; Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:36:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:36:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:36:20 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: shamans Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:35:23 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C93B8B73D9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > SPELL EXTENSION > This ability allows a spirit magic spell to be cast for a long period of time. > If 1 POW is spent at the same time, duration is measured in days > instead of hours. > > Level 1 1 hour > Level 2 2 hours > Level 3 4 hours > Level 4 8 hours > Level 5 16 hours > etc. > He-he-he! My brothers of the conspiracy to bring back exponential duration in sorcery can rejoice - while we may be losing on the sorcery front, we have infected the shamanic folowers with our heresy. He-he-he (* generic evil laugh *) Cheers Dave >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16836; Wed, 23 Feb 94 01:39:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20090; Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:39:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:39:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 2:39:10 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Several More Things Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:38:33 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C9479A3B8F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here commenting on Steve Mauer's comments: 1) I like the idea of dividing agility and manipulation skill categories into sub categories. It has always been frustrating to live with anomoli es such as Steve points out when they can be fixed so easily. Let's stop having "Giant p ickpockets" and "midget mountain climbers" as Steve suggests. 2) I also hate the skill training rules which allow cross-pollination of skills. Cite as many sociological reasons why widespread cross-training would not occur, the fact remains that PC's in adventuring groups are going to do it. 3) " No extra fatigue for carrying heavy stuff; so long as it isn't armor"...I hope this isn't true. Have the "Oh I hate extra bookkeeping" people so swayed the rules that we are going to allow someone carrying their full ENC capacity in bags of gold or hiking equipment to be as nimble as a man in a loincloth? Pulease! 4) I completely disagree with Steve on the stackability of battle magic and divine magic. One of the most frustrating aspects of RQ2 was that defenses totally outstripped offenses at higher levels. For example, a Humakti Runelord with a bastard sword, D6 damage bonus, and bladesharp 4 (the maximum) could do a max of 21 points on a regular hit. However, his opponents could have iron plate (9 pts) heavy leather (2 pts) Protection 4 (4 pts) and Shield 4 (8 pts) for a total of 23 points. This was ridiculous. I like the current RQAiG system. Battle magic and divine magic should be unlimitedly stackable, BUT high levels of spells (esp battle magic) should be rare and only invoked for deserving persons. In my campaign, not only do cults reserve higher level spells for their most trusted members (not only for the reason cited by someone that high level spell spirits are rare and thus saved for powerful cult members, but also because no cult would want to give its initiates powerful spells and possibly have them turn to other cults(this has happened in Glorantha many a time). Finally, I have rules that even within a single cult, often a given temple will seek to gain prestige for its members by only teaching a powerful battle magic spell that it knows to its members. Stackable rune magic is also not broken. If someone has sacrificed 20 pts of POW for shield, then more power (no pun intended) to them! If they use it all in one battle, then heaven help them when 16 minutes later, the next attack comes, and a lot of good that much shield is going to do if someone crits. In any case, after a certain point, unless you are fighting the Bat, no one is going to need to cast more than 5-6 pts at any one time. Also, high level battle magic is not necessarily comparable to divine magic. What is the difference between a Dismiss Magic 4 and a Dispel Magic 8? Well, roll over POW x5% on the latter in a critical situation and you 'll find out real quickly! 5) "There is no way to "block" someone sprinting by you (th e free attack is not enough). Should have a Maneuver vs Maneuver to do this."....I agree. Please include this in the rules, as it is constantly needed in battles. In realistic fights, few people fight to the death. When one side or another starts to win, the other side will generally flee. Thus, rules to cover fleeing a battle and stopping fleeing should be addressed in detail. 6) Regarding the too little weapon damage rules, I believe there is some rule that states that 3x damage to a vital location = instant death. Thus, if the rules haven't changed too much, a Con 11 person would have say a 4 hp head. An impaling dagger would do (D6?) x2 =12 points and could kill him. Keep in mind that it is actually quite difficult to kill someone with a single blow. Only a critical or special should be able to do this. 7) Regarding the declaration of intents, I like them kept more vague. People can react to a fluid situation reasonably well even in a 6 second melee round. Also, the RQ2 requirement for exactness led to s tatements of "I attack the broo unless he falls in which case I will draw my bow and fire at the closest scorpion man unless I am wounded in which case I bring healing to mind unless......." . 8) Special Hits. Please have different weapon types do different special hit results. I hated the fact that pre errata RQ3 had no difference between slashing and smashing weapons for special hits. 9) I second the vote that disrupt not do damage to inanimate objects. This opens up too many cans of worms. What's next, will glue work on organic material? (OK I glue shut his mouth and his nostrils...hey, I just invented a Death Spell!). 10) I agree that spirit combat should bedesigned so that he who has the most Spirit Block does not always win. Frankly, I find Spirit Block to be grossly offensive in its power. When most divine magic equates to battle magic on a 2:1 ration, why does Spirit Block give 10 defense instead of 4? That would make it a much more manageable spell. I do not like the suggestion that all spirits miss on a roll of 51-00. This means the ghost of Dokat hits a POW 10 victim as often as a POW 10 spirit? No way! 11) I hope that the statement that RQAiG gives POW gain checks every week is plain wrong. Otherwise, Priests become gods. Also, I do not like minimum POW requirements for Priests. What stops everyone from becoming a Priest? Try lack of Ceremonyh skills, lack of cult skills, lack of cult affiliation, lack of will to officiate at ceremonies and spend 90% of their time on cult duties. I would hope, however, that a Priest is required to have more than 50% in the skills of Cermony, Enchant, and Summon as was in RQ3. Just how popular is the Priest of a temple with, say, a 50% Ceremony going to be at the High Holy Day service. Whoops, sorry all you Initiates, but I messed up this important ritual and now you have all missed a POW gain roll and your crops will whither! A Priest should have to have at least a 80% Ceremony. That would also stop most commoners who are not devoted to becoming a Priest from becoming a Priest. 12) Regarding enchantments, since I have not read RQAiG, I cannot directly refernce St eve's suggestions against the new rules, but suffice to say this. Enchantments are the most important magic rules to fix and playtest, simply because they are permanent. If a battle magic spell is too strong or has loopholes, well at least it will go away in x melee rounds. If an enchantment is screwed up, it remains constantly screwed up in every minute of the game. Playtest them well and to the extremes and fix them!!!!!!!! David Dunham writes: ) Please no. I can't stand the bookkeeping of bleeding. To him and all of the other "Please no more bookkeepingers out there", don't your players keep track of anything?! As GM, I track the monsters. Bleeding does not really need to be tracked for monsters (read as NPC's, etc.). Once they are down and out of the combat, whether they are dead or just dying has little effect. Instead, when the battle is over, I retroactively roll the bleeding rolls only if the players state that they are seeking a prisoner. David also writes: ) [there are no horse training rules] What! Come on! Lunars use cavalry, Sartarites use cavalry, the entire Praxian nomad society IS cavalry. Then there are the Grazelanders and the Pentians. And you are going to have some of us people who have never even ridden a horse try to wing rules on this subject? Pulease! Andy Weill writes: ) Judging RQ:AIG without reading it and based solely on this ) forum is notfair to the product. Then get me a copy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whew! Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18658; Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:05:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21301; Wed, 23 Feb 94 03:05:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 3:05:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 3:04:54 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Several More Things Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 00:05:38 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C9B5701D29@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steven Barnes here, harping on stacking limits again. >Devin Cutler here commenting on Steve Mauer's comments: >4) I completely disagree with Steve on the stackability of battle magic and >divine magic. One of the most frustrating aspects of RQ2 was that defenses >totally outstripped offenses at higher levels. For example, a Humakti >Runelord with a bastard sword, D6 damage bonus, and bladesharp 4 (the >maximum) could do a max of 21 points on a regular hit. However, his opponents >could have iron plate (9 pts) heavy leather (2 pts) Protection 4 (4 pts) and >Shield 4 (8 pts) for a total of 23 points. This was ridiculous. Defense still outstrips offense. Go ahead, cast your Bladesharp 10; I'll cast my Protection 10. Oh yeah, I'll cast my Shield 10 too... The problem is, and was, that characters generally have two defense spells available (Protection and Shield), but only one offensive spell (Bladesharp or Bludgeon). The exception are cults like Zorak Zoran, which also provides a damage boosting Divine spell. Lack of stacking doesn't change anything, it just makes the stakes higher... You are even more screwed, if you don't have your spells up for some reason. >Stackable rune magic is also not broken. If someone has sacrificed 20 pts of >POW for shield, then more power (no pun intended) to them! If they use it all >in one battle, then heaven help them when 16 minutes later, the next attack >comes, and a lot of good that much shield is going to do if someone crits. In >any case, after a certain point, unless you are fighting the Bat, no one is >going to need to cast more than 5-6 pts at any one time. The point is, if I already have 4 points of Shield, and for roleplaying reasons, want some non-combat spells, I don't want to have to worry that I may get toasted in the next mondo fight, unless I dump all my POW into Shield. I want stacking limits (or something), so that I don't have to worry that the Other Guy might have more of something than I do. Likewise, if I have 8 points of Shield, I would like to keep half the points in reserve, and not worry whether I should cast it all now (after all, the points held in reserve won't help me if I am dead). Finally, God Learners like myself have noticed that combats often happen at discrete intervals. In many games, there will only be one big battle; afterwards, the PCs go home and roll checks. Sure, a good GM will keep their players on their toes, but others are just too lazy to bother penalizing players for casting all their spells in battle. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19784; Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:35:15 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23408; Wed, 23 Feb 94 03:35:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 3:35:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 3:34:55 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: POW Gains Date: 23 Feb 94 03:27:26 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3CA35821722@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. Ray said: > I'm for priests, shaman, and adepts get checks 10 times a year, > others five. ^^^^^^ !aaargh! Apart from that illiterate plural form, I agree. This is far simpler than arguing the toss over incremental stages. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21829; Wed, 23 Feb 94 03:36:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25538; Wed, 23 Feb 94 04:36:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 4:36:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 4:35:54 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Brian Maloneys Comments Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 04:35:19 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3CB39C766A6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here, breaking my 1 posting a day limit because I have a lot to say: Regarding Bryan Maloney's call for meat: I agree with his general philosophy that the core is important. One thing all the people on this net have to realize is that there are two widely different audiences for RQAiG out there. There is us, who generally know much of what there is to know about Glorantha, and who like to put on the role of scholars and muck about with the minutae and philisophical aspects of Glorantha, and then there are the masses. We are a secondary market. Why? We are probably going to purchase RQAiG no matter what it contains (unless it is complete crap). We have access to many of the old supplements, etc. We are also not a huge market. The masses are the first market. They play AD&D, Vampire, etc. While no one thinks we should co-opt the RQ system and sell out to gain these masses, the fact is that if we want to have a game that is played by more than a few highly intellectual probably approaching middle aged males, then we need to find a way to make certain that the rules offer as much access to the masses as we can stomach, without destroying the soul of the game. The masses want, as Bryan points out, a complete core system. If they buy the RQAiG rulebook and find out that they cannot run a good campaign without bu ying a whole bunch of other supplements, they'll chuck the game instantly. These new players really do not need to know everything about the past history of Glorantha. Only enough to tell them why things are the way they are now. Why does everyone hate Chaos? What is Time? Why do the Orlanthi and Lunars fight each other? I also agree with Bryan that when rules are couched into sociological frameworks, they often become more usable and self-limiting. HOWEVER, sociological moires should not become a subst itute for good, tight, no-loopholes rules. The problem is that PC's (who tend, especially wi th first time players and GM's, to be wanderers, drifters, outcasts, and adventurers) generally move along the edges of society or skirt them altogether. Sociological moires will have little effect on these people, except as obstacles to be avoided. Bad role-playing, maybe, but also the kind of role playing initially done by the newcomers to RQ. Let's give them the proper rules restrictions (i.e. limits on battle magic availability) and then explain why in sociological terms, so that as they are weaned away from AD&D type playing and become more sophisticated, they will have their framework and will have already been playing that way from the start.. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21835; Wed, 23 Feb 94 03:36:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25541; Wed, 23 Feb 94 04:36:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 4:36:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 4:36:15 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 04:35:44 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3CB3B49437F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here. Various people have been commenting on POW. My two clacks follow: I do not like the proposed "everyone increases POW at a uniform rate" system (i.e. Max POW/20 or Max POW/10). This seems to lead to everyone having the same general POW and the same general number of Divine Magic sp ells (especially within a given party of PC's). I have always viewed POW as a pseudo-skill, albeit one that can be spent to gain other things. It seems that most people agree that POW gain should be somehow tied to magical usage, and the above system basically ignores that. The two-part abstraction that all Initiates gain one level of POW per year and Rune levels gain another does not differentiate between an Initiate who specializes in spell casting and one who concentrates on something else (like fighting). I also do not particularly like the method of allowing people a certain amount of checks per year depending upon how magically active the GM feels the person has been (i.e. the discretionary system). First, players will constantly argue on behalf of their getting more checks. Over the course of play, I frankly cannot remember, and do not want to have to remember, whether Player A used more spells in relation to player B and C. Forget it! The main concern with the RQ2 and RQ3 system seems to be frivolous s pell casting, but isn't this a similar problem with all RQ skills? We are all aware of weapon caddies, but no one is suggesting that we drop skill checks and start handing out GM discretionary weapon dots based upon the Gm's impression of how much a weapon was used. The other problem with the 5 or 10 checks per year is that it rewards people for keeping their POW low. I know that the various disadvantages for low Powers have been pointed out, but with some Stored MP and some countermagic-type spells, these reasons become diminished. The RQ2/3 system of POW checks rewarded low Powers with easier POW gain rolls, but penalized them equally by making it harder to gain a POW check in the first place. Thus, a nice balance was maintained, and people decided upon their level of POW on more appropriate criterion (like how many Runespells they wanted). The problem of Weapon caddies and frivolous spell castings can be combatted by simply explaining to the GM that such checks are only allowed when a truly stressful situation has arisen. I do not give my players any checks , for example, once enemies begin to flee...the battle is essentially over. If the Pow check must be dropped, then I would be in favour of a system whereby POW is increased through attendance at holy day ceremonies (so far so good) and can be trained up by some sort of research system. At least this would allow those who truly wish to devote the time and energy to become adept spell casters. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23369; Wed, 23 Feb 94 04:17:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26140; Wed, 23 Feb 94 05:17:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 5:17:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 5:16:59 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: RQ:AiG game size and nails Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 01:42:44 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3CBE9135085@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here: Bryan J. Maloney writes: >Somebody (Robinson, I think) hit DEAD-ON one thing that was bothering the >edges of my mind regarding RQ:AiG. The package as presented provides a great >deal of erudition on Glorantha, but relatively nothing in the way of USEFUL >information. For example: We are regaled with an enormous tale of Arkat but >we are told NOTHING regarding the importance of initiation in Orlanthi or >Praxian culture. Sorry, but even if Arkat is important to the history of >Glorantha, I would favor jettisoning the story if it were necessary to have >space to point out that an Orlanthi without an initiation/membership in a >cult (which is PART OF a religion) has no standing in the community. >You serve us meringue when we starve for barley and meat. This is the most critical issue. We can argue for special interest changes, propose new rules but the key thing is that RQ:AiG does not stand alone. If someone unexposed to roleplaying or Glorantha buys RQ:AiG then they are lost. Mike Dawson writes: >This reminds me of the problems of (Guy Robinson?), who cruised right >through much of the book, but was stopped dead on the introduction. Even I found the introduction heavy going but the person who could not read a word of it was my step-son, who has only previously played in Warhammer 40K battles and the odd bit of Car Wars. He is 15 and is probably representative of the people who might think about buying RQ:AiG. Character generation for him? No problem. The background, probably not cool enough for him, but this was so poorly described that he did not grasp it's essential nature. He did however pick out the Divine Magic spells Create Skeleton and Worship so must have read the Divine Magic chapter pretty thoroughly. This demonstrates that RQ:AiG is essentially well written but does indeed lack meat in certain areas. David Dunham writes about Sartar background issues: >A Skilled character normally gets Magic 2. If you choose Divine Magic (i.e. >you're Sartarite), this makes you a "Low Initiate." So there's no need for >spending additional POW to become an initiate (in fact, the way the table's By jove you're right! There is a point of POW missing the table in respect to other magical backgrounds. I assumed previously that this was a game balance thing. >So technically you have no choice, if you're Sartarite, and old enough, >you're in a cult. The rules make it weird and unusual not to (although >they're not very explicit about this). The GM would have to make special >provisions (e.g. give back the point of POW and disallow learning most >spells). This is an excellent example of the kind of detail that is left out. >King of Sartar has a wealth of additional detail on the Orlanthi culture, >but unlike RQ2, RQ:AiG at least gives a reasonable feel for being Orlanthi. But still not enough. If it takes a page of key information to be included then this page should be written. If the alternative is to recommend purchasers of RQ:AiG buy King of Sartare before they start then I would suggest the extra page or two for each culture. >I agree there's a problem, we just disagree on the solution. Cult skills >are mentioned on p.22, but there should be an explicit pointer to the cult >listing. Having an index doesn't make up for cults scattered throughout the >book. The mention of Cult Skills on page 22 is one paragraph! I feel that a cultures cults are needed in a pre-digested format for character generation in the material meant to support character generation in that culture. There is a difference between cults from supported and unsupported cultures. Including unsupported cults is usefull, providing supported cults with culture background is key. Anyway between cultures the cult of a certain God can change in the manner in which the God is both whorshipped and perceived. I think the index will being together the cults effectively enough. That was a cheif complaint of my stepson: no index. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10053; Wed, 23 Feb 94 09:39:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12893; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:39:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:39:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:38:58 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Defending in Spirit Combat and other Maurer suggestions Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:15:40 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D1472636B3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Maurer suggests always using full MP to defend in spirit combat. I agree that a conscious character not chosing to concentrate his magical efforts on something else ought to be able to do so. Defending all out should allow to do so with POW instead of MP, attacking all out may well put one at zero MP for defense. Zero MP for defense seem appropriate if casting a spell while under spirit attack as well. Opinions? Spirit Block/Screen abuse: I have always ruled that these make interaction with the spirit in a beneficial sense impossible. (I would allow the abuse of using up to 10 points of bonus, i.e. one point of divine or ten points of spirit magic, if the spell is dispelled before interaction begins. I won't tell my players, though.) And a question: What keeps a spirit about to lose against an embodied opponent from simply breaking off? Does use of spirit block/shield etc make breaking off easier? Minimum POW for priests and Rune Lords: While I agree that priests and Lords ought to be on the POWerful side, POW 18 is ridiculous in the presence of non-reusable 5-point spells. _IF_ POW minima are to be reintroduced, lower both by three points compared to RQ2, i.e. min. POW 12 for acolytes and Lords, min POW 15 for priests. Another way to encourage priests etc. to keep their POW scores high would be a drastic increase in chance of failure for each reusable divine spell used up above current POW, say -20% per point. Interactions on the Spirit Plane: Steve mentions only combat. There ought to be other interactions possible, such as communication, trade, alliances... Probably to be detailed in a supplement "Spirit Encounters - the Way of the Shaman". -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10140; Wed, 23 Feb 94 09:40:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12993; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:40:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:40:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:39:39 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Example story Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:17:06 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D14A0D55AF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I think that Arlia, the example character, is fairly non-descript, more so than Cormac the Pict or Rurik the Feisty(?). When I try to remember what hooked me to Glorantha, I come back to Griselda. Oliver Dickinson's stories really fleshed out Gloranthan feel. Try and get a (new) Griselda story into the introduction, and newcomers will get the feel of it. Maybe a reminiscence of how she cheated at her initiation ceremony? A detailed "What My Father Told Me" would help, too, e.g. Arlia's background. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29017; Wed, 23 Feb 94 06:48:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02377; Wed, 23 Feb 94 07:48:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 7:48:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 7:47:57 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Shamans as healers vs. warriors. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:48:56 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3CE6D5101AB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> From: "Henk Langeveld" Bryan J. Maloney, , describes the current focus of RQ on Native American Shamanism, to the exclusion of Eurasian and African traditions, and continues: >African shamanism, by the by, tends to work via a VERY different path, >whereby the shaman gains power by being possessed BY benevolent spirits, >who then act through the shaman rather than having power by chasing down >and beating up spirits. The Loa of Voodoun are a Christianized version of >this principle. This tends to correspond with the Winti religion of the Afro-Surinam people. They have "witch doctors" who fit the description of RQ shamans nicely, except for the way in which they are initiated. Adding to that, it is very common for common people, "lay members/initiates", to become temporarily "possessed" by a Winti (god/spirit) during ceremonies. Another gripe I have with RQ shamanism is the extremely limited approach to a shaman's initiation. I've read some literature on the subject, and I've never seen a description of the Shaman's path that agrees with the RQ approach (encounter with the Horned Man and Bad Man). Some of my conclusions about Shamanism are: - Shamanism is a personal thing. - You cannot to become a shaman, you're called or predestined into/for the profession. I'd like to see some alternative rules for a shaman's initiation, like the dismemberment and reassembly in the spirit world often mentioned in literature. I think that most of this can be solved with good role-playing, but the current description is quite explicit, and I'd like to see a more relaxed attitude, and at least some hints to other procedures. -- 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10150; Wed, 23 Feb 94 09:40:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13018; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:40:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:40:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:40:11 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Instruct Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:21:56 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D14C423078@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > | 5] Being able to train others right up to your skill level is far too > | abusable (unrealistic too). You've got to lower this, or every GM > | will have to deal with constantly cross-training gross out monsters: > | "I'll trade you 175% Greatsword for 165% Enchant." > The simplest fix is to make the Instruction skill the limit for > training. If your Instruction skill is 40%, then that's the highest you > can train someone else with your 284% broadsword skill. To successfully > Instruct, you succeed at Instruction and simultaneously at the skill, > and the students gain 1d3/1d6/2d6 in the skill taught. A fumbled > Instruction would give them a 2d6/1d6/1d3 minus in the skill taught > (Why? Because it's Easy to misteach a Hard skill, Hard to misteach an > Easy one). At least make your own skill complementary to your instruct skill, and make sure that the lower takes the other as complementary. No Instruct master Lunar sergeants teaching Orlanthi stave poetry, please. > If players decide to research and practice their Instruction up to the > levels where this gets abusive, then they have too much time on their > hands and only the GM is to blame. Researching Instruct: How do I do this, except by taking my fellow characters and teaching them? Exactly this mechanic is going to lead to cross-teaching on a larger scale. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04943; Wed, 23 Feb 94 08:44:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08442; Wed, 23 Feb 94 09:44:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 9:44:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 9:44:04 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Steve Maurer on RAG Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:57:32 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D05CCA7607@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > | Spirit Plane - This is not really explained in gameworld terms. All I > | see is a bunch of tables for shaman abilities. Its done so well > | elsewhere, this really sticks out. > Agreed. I wouldn't make it a grey featureless fog though, I'd make it > like an alternate reality version of the local terrain, where everything > is closer to the *essential* or *ideal* version of itself. It would be > full of animal and plant spirits, and people wouldn't be there unless > they had hung out there a *long* time, in which case they could become > ghosts when they died. Spirits would have appearances consistent with > the section on visual effects of magic. A spell spirit of bladesharp > would look like a wickedly-sharp weapon flying past. You get the idea, I > think. I agree almost fully with Loren, although the "Spirit Plane needs getting used to" idea appeals to me. > | 3] There is still no way to intercept attacking spirits > I think that shamans should be able to do this with their fetch. I'm not > sure that anybody else should as a matter of course, but then VISIBLE > spirits exist in the physical plane and you should be able to interpose > your body between them and their victim (contest of Maneuvers). A non-embodied allied spirit, or a friendly ancestor accompanying the character ought to be able to intercept as well. [Visibility] > I propose a meta-rule, that it takes 1MP per 10 points of each > characteristic to manifest an otherworld creature in the physical plane. > Thus, a ghost with INT 13 and POW 16 requires 4MP worth of Visibility or > 4MP worth of Sorcerous or SpiritMagic Summon Ghost or 2POW of Divine > Summon Ghost. A Demon with 7 stats at 13 each requires 14MP or 7POW to > summon. Likewise, I'd extend these rules to the various Dominate and > Command and Control spells, since this makes Dominate/Control/Command > Human naturally much harder than the fairly ordinary spells to > Dominate/Control/Command . It also makes it pretty darn hard to > summon and/or control a god. I like this very much. Meta-rules are the way to go, anyway, since they keep the GM's need to memorize low. > | 1] There is no maximum on number of bound spirits like there was in > | RQ2. Anyone halfway enterprising can get more spirits (and MP, > | etc) than they can possibly handle. While I didn't think the RQ2 > | mechanic worked especially well, at least there was one. > Well, since APP is Appeal now, we can go back to the APP/3 rule. I think > this is a good fix. Could someone explain to me what Appeal or charisma has to do with a prisoners skill to keep prisoners in a cell, please? Would you limit the number of slaves a character may own by APP? If anything, a characters will power (no stat applicable) limits the number of captured spirits a character can actively employ, but what keeps a character from switching her attention between several prison cells (bindings)? But APP might limit the number of spirits actively employed. Although shamans tend to be ugly... [trapped spirits] > This is where I'd use the 1POW per 10 characteristic points trapped > meta-rule. Since this is the same as your proposal for visibility, I like it. > What happens when his luck runs out while he's finding and binding new > ghosts to go in his traps? I mean, they do leave for good when you > release them, don't they? Do they? Do they? If they are hostile, I somewhat imagine they linger around after their task is done, to take revenge. > Ranged targeting by spirits should require a use of Visibility (or a > spirit bound in a living body), and again we're back to the 1MP per 10 > Characteristic Points per characteristic meta-rule. Or extra POW to enable the object to perceive in a 10m/POW range. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10190; Wed, 23 Feb 94 09:41:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13089; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:40:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:41:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:40:32 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Bryan Maloney on RAG Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:17:36 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D14DC57D55@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren to Bryan J. Maloney > | Renown: Well, I'm a LITTLE less hostile to it than before, now that I've > | read its explanation, but I still think it's a bad idea, especially since > | the implementation is pretty much crap. The greatest weakness: It is not > | possible to gain or lose Renown during play. Guess what folks, the > | notoriety of a person CAN CHANGE OVER TIME!!!!!! > Further ranting deleted. I agree. That's why I proposed that Renown > (Aspect/Area) be scored as a percentile ability and increased by > experience (and political campaigning) just as if it were a skill... not > that it *is* a skill proper... but if the easiest and most consistent > way to use it is to treat it as a skill then I say "do it." Make it a characteristic, similar to CoC EDU. Thus by lowering the multiplier, Renown in neighbouring or more distant areas can be measured. > | POW gain rolls: I don't think there's any way to do this so that all will > | be pleased. > It would be a good trick to model them so that everybody likes them. If > "worship" is the way that people get more POW then you might get POW > checks at several types of situations. After a period of contemplation, > vaguely a week in which you can do your ordinary work, you get to make a > roll for POW increase and any POW checks you earned during that time are > wiped from the slate. Time to earn some more. > 1. You successfully led a dangerous expedition. People are likely to > offer hero-worship to someone who accomplishes daring feats. > 2. N people (where N is your current POW) came to you with requests for > aid and you satisfied their requests, without any payment being offered > or given. Note the aid could be "smite my enemies" as easily as "heal > me" and "instruct me" so this isn't a goody-two-shoes rule. People will > offer hero-worship to someone who helps them and their community. > 3. A descendant is born. Successful Ceremony roll needed, by the > birth-parents or someone else in attendance. Note that adoptees would > count as descendants, so their children would count as your descendants. > People will offer worship to ancestors. > 4. You preside over a public or private gathering as the primary > performer, where there are at least as many people present as POW**2. > Successful Ceremony roll needed. Note this is the genericized version of > priestly POW gain. > While I like the implications of this sort of mechanic for POW increase, > it trespasses on the territory of APP and Renown. I still prefer the > model that "Defeating tough enemies with magic makes you more POWerful." Still, it gives a sensible model. Leading a contingent of men into battle, or similar leadership tasks, would qualify, too. > This is where I'm going to re-launch my idea that you only check for > fatigue when you botch (or fumble). This allows high skill fighters to > "fight smart instead of hard" and not tire themselves. This is way too rare. One check per minute seems all right to me, but with weapon skill (etc) as complementary skill. In you model even a rookie with a 2% fumble chance won't be exhausted ~50% of the time from a 5 minutes fight. > I can send a pretty lengthy rant on the subject, in fact. RAG needs to > cover the difference between Religion and Cult in the rules. Lay > membership or Low Initiate status is a start. Unfortunately they aren't > well described in the rules. Please rant. > | I'm on the fence regarding duration and range. > I'm not, at least with Range. I think that Range should be exponential > as in RQ3, and it could easily be restricted by certain sorcerous > colleges in the east islands campaigns, et al. In every fantasy world > that I have read in which long-range magic worked it was true that a > ship with a wizard would always beat one without a wizard. This is true > from the Worm Ourouborous to Earthsea to the Black Company to the Wheel > of Time. I don't think that a good magic system should produce any other > result. Besides, if you don't allow sorcerous spells long range then > they'll get whipped by priests and shamans and dwarves (not to mention > waertagi). Range, as well as Duration, ought to be more intuitive. A range like Line of Sight/Horizon would be more helpful, and if visibillity modifiers make this very variable, so what? > As for duration, I like the idea of the Maintain skill, but I don't > think it should be rare. Without Maintain or something like it the > Regeneration spell is utterly worthless, and so are other spells that > require duration for any effect (like Immortality, a great carrot for PC > sorcerors to quest after). Up to here, I agree. > I have an idea. Make Maintain work just like > all the other sorcerous manipulations. You can have as many points of > spell Maintained as your Maintain/10. It doesn't reduce your MP or MP > regeneration. The trick to maintaining more spells is to get a huge > Maintain skill, and that's a tough job if you aren't Brithini or > otherwise immune to age. I dislike this. The current maintain skill pretty well reflects magical ecology as I view it. > Agreed. You *have* to list the sorcerous schools in/around Dragon Pass. I.e. you have to work them out. Hard stuff, actually, I have been tinkering on the Heortlending Aeolians for several months now, and haven't yet come to a real conclusion. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15974; Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:34:15 -0600 Return-Path: <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17978; Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:34:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:34:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:33:40 EST From: "Dennis Hoover (SMS)" <71736.77@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery and POW Checks Date: 23 Feb 94 11:30:46 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D23074758E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Dennis Hoover here. SORCERY Raymond D Turney writes: >>Consider making up a logarithmic table and using that for sorcery range and >>duration. Wrong math but maybe the right track. I don't have a big problem with the RQ:AiG ranges and durations (but then I haven't played them, either), but a R-D formula intermediate between linear and exponential might be a good idea. How about R-D = 10 times (manipulation squared)? The table would look like this: 1 10 2 40 3 90 4 160 5 250 6 360 7 490 10 1000 20 4000 30 9000 40 16000 Duration would be in minutes, range in meters. Blowing a point of power would convert duration to hours. I'm not sure what you would use for range -- kilometers? versts? stadii? furlongs? Maybe you could just drop the POW sacrifice for range. Good things about the table: 1) It is easy to calculate for single digit numbers -- squares and multiples of 10 are Jr. high school stuff. 2) Gives reasonable range with small manipulations. A sorcerer with 60% range can get the elf who's firing at him from long range. 3) Duration is relatively weaker than range (it was more of a problem), but reasonable. A 120% sorcerer can still put a spell up for a day by expending sufficient MP. This still leaves a place for Maintain. 4) Neither range nor duration get silly till very high percentages are reached. An ordinary sorcerer cannot Hinder Yelm on his daily ride across the sky dome, nor could he have every object in his possession Damage Boosted for a year. 5) POW-enhanced duration seems reasonable. A 40% sorcerer could put a spell up for a week -- a wimpy duration for a wimpy sorcerer. A 100% sorcerer could put a spell up for over 40 days -- a long enough time that she would have a reasonable chance to get the point of POW back via power gain roll. Problems with the table: 1) Range and duration of 1 is not free. This could be fixed by changing the forumula to use [(manipulation minus 1) squared], but this complicates the forumula. It could also be fixed by treating range and duration like intensity, but with a MP cost of 1 less than the manipulation. Both ways have problems. 2) You'll need a table or a calculator for manipulations over 10 (or maybe 16). POW CHECKS In watching the recent discussions on POW increases, I see a lack of concensus on the nature of POW. Without a common understanding of what POW is, I don't see how we're going to come to agreement on a good way for it to increase. So, I'd like to pose the question -- WHAT IS POWER? I don't have an answer for this, just a couple of thoughts on the nature of the rules governing power. 1) Rune level characters, especially priests, should have high powers. The rules should encourage this, but not force it (i.e. no arbitrary limits). 2) RQ has the power gain principles backwards -- it should be HARDER for a low POW character to increase than for a high POW character. RQ3 enforced this by making a low POW character less likely to get his disrupt off and less likely to overcome a target's MPs. Countering this was the (MAX-CUR)*5 roll that encouraged characters to carry a low power. RQ:AiG seems to have dropped the first and kept the second. I think this is a Bad Thing. However, the (MAX-CUR)*5 roll did set a ceiling and, if you were to do away with it, you would need some mechanism to keep POW from accelerating out of sight. Of course, the GM could be responsible for keeping this under control ("Yes, I know you were magically active this season, but with only a 9 POW, you weren't very effective. Sorry, but you only get 1 POW gain roll."), but this puts even more of a burden on the GM. If we're going to keep (MAX-CUR)*5 as the forumula for POW gains, I'd like to see a mechanism for high POW characters to get more gain rolls than low POW characters, i.e. the number of seasonal rolls is adjusted based on the character's POW. Dennis.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05018; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:08:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02514; Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:08:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:08:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:08:24 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Pow Recovery and Training Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:42:52 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C2C4092A85@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com writes: > > > Guy Robinson here: > > Steve Barnes writes: > > >Once again, I'll mention my radical idea to eliminate POW checks, and > >just make POW raisable by training. "Sacrificed" POW returns at > >a rate of POW/20 or POW/10 per season. This eliminates the problems > >of both arguments ("checks are bad" vs "GM arbitraryness is bad"). > > Power returning at a given rate after sacrifice weakens the value of > a point of POW in the 'POW ecology' and would probably cause inflation > of somekind. After all who would want MP in whorship when POW can > be recovered as well, albeit at a slower rate. POW can already be recovered under the current system quite easily and at a faster rate. The current POW gain mechanism in fact encourages those with low POW to sacrifice it because they are almost certain to get it back very quickly while those with high POW are discourage because it will take them much longer to regain what they have lost. I'd argue that this is the reverse of what most non RQ-ers would expect. Magically gifted individuals should gain POW at a faster rate not slower. The current system is far more open to abuse the Steve's suggested fix and has a variable value for POW which is the reverse of that desired. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05235; Tue, 22 Feb 94 19:14:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02879; Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:13:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:14:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 22 Feb 94 20:13:41 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: ENC; Fatigue Rules; POW; sorcery Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:13:21 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3C2DAA22937@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here: David Dunham writes: > Loren said > >For the GM it's very hard to keep track of things that happen every X > >number of rounds. The fatigue roll, if it is used, happens every X > >number of rounds. How about we change it, and combine it with another > >optional rule, the botch, to resolve both this problem and the problem > >we had with skilled characters getting fatigued as quickly as > >greenhorns. Every time you roll a botch in combat (or another physical > >action) you must check fatigue. > > Actually, your proposal probably brings about more bookkeeping. I agree > it's difficult to keep track of rounds, but most of the time, a battle > doesn't last that long, and nobody gets fatigued. Under your proposal, > people would, and this would have to be tracked. There is no extra bookeeping - the dice tell you when to roll, each character already has to monitor his/her fatigue level on their character sheet. What's the problem ? > Tim suggested [ regarding trainable POW system ] > >1. You don't lose a point of POW for joining a cult instead when you > >become an initiate or apprentice (for the first time) you gain 1D3 POW as > >part of your spiritual/magical awakening. > > So what's to prevent you from joining every cult in your pantheon? Nothing, but you only get the 1D3 for the first cult you join (i.e. when you become an initiate for the first time) maybe I should of made it clearer. > >Vary the amount of skill needed to produce a given Lunar sorcery effect by > >the phase of the moon. This is more elegant and easier to tailor to the > >phase of the moon rules. > > Which makes sense to me. On Full Moon (or Dark Moon) all manipulations > might be +25%, on Dark Moon -20%, on Crescents -10%, or some such. > I agree - but what happens for cult battle magic ? I don't like the suggested scheme of only being able to cast one point spells on dark moon days and double duration as a benefit on Full moon. Instant spells gain no benefit under this scheme. I suggested that this be changed so that only the magic point cost was affected. Magic point costs double on Dark moon days and halve on Full moon days. When I posted this last time it got no comment. Am I the only one bothered by this change ? Here is another alternative (though I prefer my earlier suggestion): The amount of magic points available to Lunars depends on the moon phase. e.g. plus 50% of magic points on full moon - 50% on dark and so on. The ability to resist spells is based on POW and is unaffected. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25434; Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:53:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24635; Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:53:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:53:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:52:59 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Bryan Maloney on RAG Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 09:52:48 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D383022C18@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney May I suggest we consider enchantments that make Range and Duration exponential? RQIV AiG current draft wants you to spend 1 POW for each casting you want exponential, which is a ridiculous reintroduction of 1 use magic. On the other hand the idea that a sorceror/wizard would have a wand or staff enchanted to allow exponential spellcasting is a lot more intuitive at least to me. Say for each particular spell you enchant Range, Duration at 1 pt each into the wand? This would make you have to decide if you really wanted an exponential effect. Assume Wands/Staves not transferable.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28147; Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:22:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27261; Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:22:49 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:22:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:22:31 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Special Tactics Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:22:13 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D400FC7E4F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I write to suggest the following changes. Special tactics are a separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills Special Combat Tactics have nothing to do with special hits, and are instead to be renamed Advanced Combat Tactics. If a character wants to, he may attempt an advanced combat tactic and get the result given for the existing special tactics. Note that the advanced combat tactic replaces the skill roll, being in effect an attempt to do something fancier than normal with a weapon. To miss the advanced combat tactic roll is to miss period, to fumble is to fumble, etc. This will attack several problems at once. By not replacing specials, the new rules deal with the problem of special tactics often being a questionable improvement over ordinary specials. By requiring a minimum weapon skill to begin, these rules deal with low level characters learning Feint as a specialized anti-high level move. By being a hard skill, anyone getting gross results from a 50% + skill in a special tactic {plus having to learn a weapon to 120} will have earned it. Finally, this gives an advantage to very high natural skill in a weapon {i.e. learning to over a hundred} that may be worth having without also giving it everybody a Yanafali casts a lot of Bladesharp for, or to berserkers. Under these rules, it is unlikely that anyone short of master will use a lot of special tactics, speeding beginning games no end. It is even intuitively plausible, since you can't do the advanced moves till you've got the basic ones cold. This way special tactics are likely to be primarily a means for masters to beat other masters, and secondarily a way for masters to speed up the destruction of somewhat experienced non-masters. I think this is what was wanted when these rules were introduced.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29038; Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:31:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28006; Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:31:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:31:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:30:57 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: POW Checks & training Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:30:45 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D424F34B9C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Mike Dawson here, not Kirsten Niemann I've just got to the Experience sections.Ugh. These sections are very open to abuse because of their arbitraryness. I don't understand why it is necessary to change the RQ 1/2/3 method of experience checks, just to eliminate the possibility of "weapon caddies" and other abuses. Instead of changing the rules, simply provide definite guidelines for the ref about what is and is not a checkable use of a skill. Explain to the players that a skill cannot be checked unless the GM says to do it. Then, run experience like it used to be. As it is, it reads an awful lot like the experience system for Champions. Very subjective, because the GM has to make decisions about how the character behaved across a whole scenario, rather than on a more cut-and-dried case by case basis. It really is easier for the GM to say "You don't get to check your Sword for that shot because the target was already 3/4 dead, and you weren't really in a dangerous situation because the tide of battle had turned." than to have to say "I think that your Storm Bull Lord was less active and useful in this scenario than the Gagarthi Bandit was, so he gets 5 checks, and you get 4." POW over species max------------ Somebody today or yesterday commented that there needed to be a way to "stretch" species max POW so magical heavy-hitters could get their POW up really high. On page 70: It is possible for a human to increase their POW beyond 21 with a roll of 01-05." That works for me. If you added a clause that this effect also raises that person's species max, the whole problem is fixed. -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information about Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" . ------------------------------------------------------/_\  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06310; Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:39:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04094; Wed, 23 Feb 94 14:39:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 14:39:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 14:38:46 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Various Comments Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:38:30 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D546677F32@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Whew, this rules digest is not for the faint of heart. :-) I'll try to put my comments into a single post. After reading 40+ posts, it is hard to follow a single thread. Sorcery: Add another person to the exponential range/duration side. What with both skills being unable to be increased by experience, I can't see them increasing rapidly at all. Yes it makes Brithini sorcerors damned dangerous, but they should be (especially after hearing Greg's reading on Arkat at the RQ-Con). Shamans: We should have mechanisms for all forms of Shamans, both spirit warriors and the more peaceful type. Most of my gaming experience with shamans was made without any guidelines. That's fine for experienced GMs, but new ones won't stand a chance. The spirit world should be a vibrant place, confusing for all but the skilled. Oh, Loren's '1 for 10' Meta-rule looks good. Story: Joerg mentioned that both RQ II and RQ III had underlying stories that helped to give good examples AND give a feeling for the world. This is EXACTLY what we need. CoP and CoT were excellent in this regard. We can also tie this into the need for more 'current' Gloranthan experience. Training: Your examples about training mention that someone with a 200% broadsword could countertrain with the sorceror with 200% enchant. Now how long would it take for them to receive all this training. In our games, we are always finding that there is too little time to do all the training we want, especially for our Rokari game. Countertraining goes on all the time in real life, especially at work in a skilled/complex environment. Yes there should be limits, but not just based on the instruct skill. I have a low-average instruct skill, I guess, so it may take me longer to get the information across, but I can still do it. POW Gain Rolls: The 5% gain chance for increasing POW over racial maximum (or 1.5xinitial value) is good if it increasing the POW ceiling as well. This ties in with the POW limit. In RQ II, your gain roll was based upon (25-POW)x5% for priests to show that they could move between 18 (their min) and 21 without too much trouble. I'm not sure if the 5% gain is enough to compensate for the loss of the RQ II priestly bonus. Skill Checks: The "GM hands out checks" is in GURPS/Champions. It works very well with an experienced GM and novice players (who don't have to keep track of as much information). However, a game with experienced players will not like it, and a new GM may have trouble making rulings. I like the 'check if successful' for combat in critical moments, with maybe a limitation like only two checks per combat. Face it, rules mongers will abuse any rules we set out anyway. Specials/Combat Options: Steve Maurer game a long list of comments about upgrading the combat system. We have similar house rules in one of our games, but I don't think that new gamers should have to deal with the added complexity. Elric (R) (tm) handled this better. I still prefer the "lower skill for addede damage/speed/reduce parry" option, but a 'special skill' system like Ki skills will work too. The Ki system works better than the proposed system (from what I have heard about it), IMHO. Success only on a special is a rule I don't like to add. Fatigue: I think the penalty should be to applied to the skill and not to the die roll. However, it should also at a +1 SR per level penalty that would see exhausted masters skill be able to kill members of a mob on each attack, but finally just find there is too many to deal with and his sword arm is gone. And yes, it should be based upon STR and CON. Enough babbling.... Neil ___________________________________________________________________________ Neil Robinson (nrobinso@sirius.uvic.ca) 2996 Dysart Rd, Victoria (604) 385-1642 B.C., Canada V9A 2K2 "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - Lazarus Long  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10657; Wed, 23 Feb 94 14:24:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07724; Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:24:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:24:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:24:30 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Various Comments Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:24:11 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D609825739@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brent Krupp here (for those with mailer difficulties)... I've stayed pretty quiet here, despite being on 'lurker' status for some months and reading all that has transpired. However, I feel that another set of opinions (insofar as it helps sway Oliver and the powers that be) can't hurt. Sorcery: Please, please, please let range and duration be exponential like in RQ3 with the sole limitation that skill/10 is maximum manipulation. This would work FINE. I have run and also played in *several* RQ3 campaigns (both Gloranthan and Fantasy Earth) since '84 and the only problem with sorcery if you take the time to carefully read the rules (yes, they could all be made more clear... something that the RQ4 apparently does) is excessive duration. This IS fixed by the above rule. The problem is not duration itself, it's the Free INT 18 sorceror casting extended *everything* on all his buddies (and himself) once a season or so. This *cannot* happen with the simple skill/10 limit. Duration skill of 100% (not common) gives a maximum of +10 duration or one *week*! That is not enough time for a sorceror to cast terribly many extended spells on people if he still wants time left to go *use* those spells before needing to recast them. In fact, even if he casts just a few duration spells on himself and his familiar (or his liege lord) each week, he'll be taking a good day or two to regenerate all the MPs he spends. I think the idea of a sorceror spening one to two days every week casting his spells and regaining MPs fits perfectly with the source material and also popular conceptions of how sorcerors act. In summary (of Sorcery): skill/10 maximum manipulation WITHOUT POW cost is FINE! It works well, so use it! Charging the point of POW simply ELIMINATES duration as a viable option -- in which case it should be removed from the rules, not left around all crippled. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) P.S. I lied about being done... note that with 50% duration the sorceror can only get up to 5 hours... quite balanced, and at 75% only 42 hours... barely long enough to recover the MPs spent... P.P.S. Range is even more unbroken and not in need of fixing... 100% range is 10 km (which just means line-of-sight except in odd circumstances), 75% means 2500 m (long but still... that's 8 MP per spell plus any intensity), 50% means a measly 320 m at a cost of 5+ MP... sure it beats divine magic or spirit magic range, but it costs enough to be balanced.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23558; Wed, 23 Feb 94 16:19:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09989; Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:57:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:57:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 15:57:00 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:57:45 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D694413C49@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Skill Checks: >The "GM hands out checks" is in GURPS/Champions. It works very well >with an experienced GM and novice players (who don't have to keep >track of as much information). However, a game with experienced >players will not like it, and a new GM may have trouble making >rulings. I like the 'check if successful' for combat in critical >moments, with maybe a limitation like only two checks per combat. >Face it, rules mongers will abuse any rules we set out anyway. As someone who plays Champions, I don't see anything wrong with "GM hands out checks". In fact, it is much superior to the old RQ system, provided the GM doesn't play favorites. Let me give an example: in the test game where I made a shaman, we were in a loud con open gaming room. I am a quiet person. Due to the noise, I refrained from saying much, since it would have been difficult to make myself heard. If, at the end of the game, checks had been awarded on basis of who "did the most" (i.e. spoke up most often), I would have been screwed. As another example, I can still remember a dungeon crawl in RQ2, in which the mondo tough character ended up making almost all the non-combat rolls for us, because he was better than anyone else. The end result was that he got checks in Spot Trap, Disarm, Lockpick, etc, and the rest of us got jack. Both of these cases are unfair, in my opinion. Both of these abuses will be more common with less experinced GMs, in addition to the infamous "weapon caddy" abuse. The system I use is to simply state "everybody gets X checks and a riding check" or something. I might supervise how the checks get allocated, to make sure they are placed in appropriate skills. Checks need to be divorced from actual dice rolls in the game; otherwise people will end up doing things just to get checks. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06680; Wed, 23 Feb 94 18:27:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24399; Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:27:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:27:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:26:58 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: POW, bookkeeping, magic Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 16:26:44 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3DA13F232DB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. On spirit limits: I don't have too much of a problem with spirits providing MP. It can get messy when you have the larger Spirit Traps that allow spirits to cast spells. It's probably worth letting the trapped spirit see through the owner's senses, and have a limit on the number of spirits that can share the owner's awareness. Devin hoped >11) I hope that the statement that RQAiG gives POW gain checks every week is >plain wrong. Otherwise, Priests become gods. As has been discussed, there are no POW gain checks in RQ:AiG. Priests (as super-active magicians) get POW gain _rolls_ (not checks) every 4 weeks. >If the Pow check must be dropped, then I would be in favour of a system >whereby POW is increased through attendance at holy day ceremonies (so far so >good) and can be trained up by some sort of research system. At least this >would allow those who truly wish to devote the time and energy to become >adept spell casters. Not so far so good. Glorantha is very theistic, true, but not everyone worships -- there are some shaman-only societies out there, as well as atheistic sorcerers (Third Eye Blue is listed as one such group). >If they buy the >RQAiG rulebook and find out that they cannot run a good campaign without bu >ying a whole bunch of other supplements, they'll chuck the game instantly. Given the number of Vampire supplements out there, I don't buy this. The basic game should give a good overall impression that a good GM could extrapolate from, but having supplements to provide detail seems to be acceptable in the marketplace. >David Dunham writes: > >) Please no. I can't stand the bookkeeping of bleeding. > >To him and all of the other "Please no more bookkeepingers out there", don't >your players keep track of anything?! Of course. That's not the problem. Players have 1 person to track, and can bookkeep anything. >As GM, I track the monsters. Bleeding does not really need to be tracked for >monsters (read as NPC's, etc.). Once they are down and out of the combat, >whether they are dead or just dying has little effect. Instead, when the >battle is over, I retroactively roll the bleeding rolls only if the players >state that they are seeking a prisoner. If you only run monsters, that's fine. Most of the time, the opponents are intelligent and can do things like First Aid, Heal, etc., in which case keeping track of bleeding is important. Also, players always expected me to remember that they'd impaled Sable Rider 4 in the leg, and do extra damage accordingly. Sorry, but I usually forgot. Steve Barnes commented on Steve Maurer: >what Steve is getting at is that 4 points of Shield should be >better than the best Protection spell possible. Instead, you can merely >aquire Protection 8 plus Countermagic 8, and get almost the same >effect. Likewise, he is stating that Divine magic is in desperate >need of stacking limits, something I wholeheartedly agree with. >You should not be able to make yourself immune to virtually all >non-critical attacks, simply by casting 20 points of shield. To >have magic that good should require major Heroquesting, not merely >loads of POW and/or spell trading. But 4 points of Shield _is_ better than the best Protection spell possible -- Protection 8 is about the practical maximum, and Shield also provides Countermagic that can't be knocked down. Your example is meaningless, because you're comparing Shield 4 to two different spells. You guys are in California, which from my experience plays the highest level RuneQuest. But most of us play in games where 20 points of Shield 1) don't exist; 2) would be so major an expense that you'd never cast them all at once; 3) we don't run into monsters that can do 40 points of damage at a time. I recently ran something like Shield 8 as the result of a Divine Intervention, and it was more than adequate to prevent damage -- except on criticals. Since it didn't prevent criticals, I'd say it's nowhere near as good as major heroquest magic. >I always get nervous when I see multipliers in game systems. With >your proposal, the Naiad who happened to roll 30 on her POW would >have a max POW of 45. This is hardly an improvement... Good point. >I want stacking limits (or something), so that I don't have to >worry that the Other Guy might have more of something than I do. Why does this remind me of Animal Farm? Or the Vonnegut story where athletes had to wear weights to bring them down to the level of everyone else? >Likewise, if I have 8 points of Shield, I would like to keep half the >points in reserve, and not worry whether I should cast it all now If there were no tradeoffs in the game, what would be the fun? Joerg suggested >Defending all out should allow to do so with POW instead of MP Then defending all out would be meaningless until you lost MP. >Steve mentions only combat. There ought to be other interactions >possible, such as communication, trade, alliances... > >Probably to be detailed in a supplement "Spirit Encounters - the Way of >the Shaman". This would be a good place to have even more detail on the Spirit Plane (though I agree with those who think it needs a _little_ description).  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06814; Wed, 23 Feb 94 18:29:22 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24459; Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:29:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:29:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:29:07 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 16:28:57 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3DA1D3134F9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> As one of the proposers, let me note that my primary motivation in suggesting the change in how checks should be awarded was to deal with a problem many people who don't play RQ complain about. "Where in D&D you have several character classes, in RQ you have only one, since most characters do about the same things they eventually become bery similar to each other." The new system allows a player to decide skills less often used in adventures but either crucial to his character conception or very important when they are asked for should be emphasized. Avoidance of Weapon Caddy and CheckQuest effects while important was a secondary reason for changing the experience system. In this regard I think the playtesters are a sample drawn largerly from those who don't mind the convergence. Since we're trying to expand the market, I favor fixing this problem even though many of us who play RQ do not think it is broken. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12602; Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:47:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27718; Wed, 23 Feb 94 20:45:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 20:47:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 20:44:57 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW, bookkeeping, magic Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:45:44 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3DB60C777C9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David writes: >Steve Barnes commented on Steve Maurer: >>what Steve is getting at is that 4 points of Shield should be >>better than the best Protection spell possible. Instead, you can merely >>aquire Protection 8 plus Countermagic 8, and get almost the same >>effect. Likewise, he is stating that Divine magic is in desperate >>need of stacking limits, something I wholeheartedly agree with. >>You should not be able to make yourself immune to virtually all >>non-critical attacks, simply by casting 20 points of shield. To >>have magic that good should require major Heroquesting, not merely >>loads of POW and/or spell trading. > >But 4 points of Shield _is_ better than the best Protection spell possible >-- Protection 8 is about the practical maximum, and Shield also provides >Countermagic that can't be knocked down. Your example is meaningless, >because you're comparing Shield 4 to two different spells. I am attempting to clairify what Steve M said; perhaps he has a better example. Anyway, the "practical maximium" for battle magic is much higher than 8. Don't forget doubling crystals, Lunar Sorcery, and the fact that a Shaman can load up with awesome spells so as to beat huge Spell spirits (with Magic Affinity, he can reduce the time necessary to find the spirit by 1/7). >You guys are in California, which from my experience plays the highest >level RuneQuest. But most of us play in games where 20 points of Shield 1) >don't exist; 2) would be so major an expense that you'd never cast them all >at once; 3) we don't run into monsters that can do 40 points of damage at a >time. I recently ran something like Shield 8 as the result of a Divine >Intervention, and it was more than adequate to prevent damage -- except on >criticals. Since it didn't prevent criticals, I'd say it's nowhere near as >good as major heroquest magic. Lets not get into which part of the world plays the grossest RQ. I'm simply pointing out that the lack of stacking limits is abusable. Simply because this would never happen in your campaign doesn't mean there is no problem. I too, have never seen a shield 20; that is because we use stacking limits from RQ2... >>I want stacking limits (or something), so that I don't have to >>worry that the Other Guy might have more of something than I do. > >Why does this remind me of Animal Farm? Or the Vonnegut story where >athletes had to wear weights to bring them down to the level of everyone >else? Let me state this another way: my character, the role-playing one, decides to invest my next 5 POW into non-combat magic. Scumbag, the powergamer, decides to put his POW into more shield. I have only 5 points, he has 10. The GM, suddenly noticing that his monsters can't hurt Scumbag, ups the power level of the campaign. Net result: I am now screwed. Things like this have happened in campaigns, run by otherwise intelligent people. Lack of stacking limits encourages powergamers to concentrate on single spells, so as to become gross. Sure, a good GM will come up with methods to stop this behaviour; inexperienced GMs may simply give up, assuming the game system is broken. >>Likewise, if I have 8 points of Shield, I would like to keep half the >>points in reserve, and not worry whether I should cast it all now > >If there were no tradeoffs in the game, what would be the fun? As I said before, many games are oriented towards having one big fight, then everyone goes home. Likewise, casting two shield 4s should be easier than casting one shield 8. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15756; Wed, 23 Feb 94 20:40:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01127; Wed, 23 Feb 94 21:39:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 21:40:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 21:39:41 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 18:39:28 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3DC4A536B7A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Wed, 23 Feb 1994, Raymond D Turney wrote: > As one of the proposers, let me note that my primary motivation in > suggesting the change in how checks should be awarded was to deal with a > problem many people who don't play RQ complain about. "Where in D&D you > have several character classes, in RQ you have only one, since most > characters do about the same things they eventually become bery similar to > each other." The new system allows a player to decide skills less often > used in adventures but either crucial to his character conception or very > important when they are asked for should be emphasized. While the "ref-hands-out-checks" system might have advantages, I really don't think this is a valid one. D&D may have character classes, but RQ has *cults*, and tons of them, and that makes characters in any decent campaign far more diverse than simple classes. Even if skills converge somewhat due to similar adventures, the cult, racial, and national distinctions in weapon preference and "rune-level requirements" (i.e. what *you* need at 50% or 90%) will provide variation. If people are getting identical characters its because they are all humans in the exact same cults *and* the players don't have any imagination... even a party of human, Orlanthi, Sartarites can have a spectrum of personalities, weapons, and interests. Ray says non-RQers complain about this supposed problem, but are we so sure these people would *ever* play RQ? If D&D is any kind of standard for them, I doubt it... > Avoidance of Weapon Caddy and CheckQuest effects while important was > a secondary reason for changing the experience system. In this regard I > think the playtesters are a sample drawn largerly from those who don't mind > the convergence. Since we're trying to expand the market, I favor fixing > this problem even though many of us who play RQ do not think it is broken. Another solution is one that can solve many other problems discussed on this list: EMPOWER THE REFEREE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE GAME! A few simple remarks about how CheckQuesting and Weapon Caddying is WRONG would certainly work. The problem is when the rules don't really say when there are exceptions to the "make-a-roll, get-a-check" rule and players protest any "GM fiat" that comes up. You could put these kind of "GM-has-the-final-word" caveats throughout the rules and only add about a 1/4 page to the final document *and* help with campaign and game balance to boot. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08232; Wed, 23 Feb 94 22:37:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06131; Wed, 23 Feb 94 23:37:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 23:37:39 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 23:37:06 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: D&D, RQ, Checks, etc. Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 23:36:45 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3DE3F5E03B8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Maybe I'm wierd, but I don't think of the character classes of D&D as being worth shit, especially not as a venue from which to evaluate RuneQuest. If D&D-style specialization is so god-damned important, why have GURPS and Hero sold so friggin' well?????? In the playtest campaign I ran (that had an overwhelmin majority of people who had NEVER played RQ before), the players liked the way that the 2nd draft handled experience--make a "check" after a successful roll and then the GM decided how many checks got rolled for. Furthermore, my campaign used training and had a good deal of non-hack-the-beastie time. Maybe I'm just wierd to run a non hack-and-slash RQ campaign... In any case, whatever method is used, those proposed in RQ:AiG are just plain the worst of all possible worlds. There is no practical way to differentiate among difficulty of skills with what RQ:AiG recommends. The best way I've found so far has been to have the check be recorded after a successful roll and then the GM tells players how many checks to roll for. I would usually use the rule of thumb given in the old draft. It WORKED! I did NOT encounter "check frenzy" or "weapon caddies". I didn't see ANYONE even beginning to slide into it! (There are really times when I would just like to get my hands on the "forces of grognardism" and SQUEEZE THE FRIGGIN LIFE OUT OF 'EM. Then I take a few whacks at something with my swords and feel better...)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14051; Thu, 24 Feb 94 00:00:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08511; Thu, 24 Feb 94 01:00:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 1:00:53 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 1:00:43 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: POW; combat tactics; checks Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 22:00:39 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3DFA448763F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Devin hoped >I hope that the statement that RQAiG gives POW gain checks every week is >plain wrong. Otherwise, Priests become gods. and I answered wrong before. Priests get a POW gain roll every Holy Day according to Worship (Deity). Now, I think Holy Day is only every season [not that RQ:AiG tells you], but this is still inconsistent with the (yucky) RQ:AiG POW gain rules. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. Mike Dawson said >Somebody today or yesterday commented that there needed to be a way >to "stretch" species max POW so magical heavy-hitters could get their >POW up really high. On page 70: >It is possible for a human to increase their POW beyond 21 with a roll >of 01-05." > >That works for me. If you added a clause that this effect also raises >that person's species max, the whole problem is fixed. A. This wouldn't make any difference, since they're still at species max and would still have a 5% chance of increase. B. Why have species max if it's not really a max for the species? Ray Turney suggested >the following changes. Special tactics are a >separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's >skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that >category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills >If a character wants to, he >may attempt an advanced combat tactic and get the result given for the >existing special tactics. Note that the advanced combat tactic replaces the >skill roll, being in effect an attempt to do something fancier than normal >with a weapon. To miss the advanced combat tactic roll is to miss period, >to fumble is to fumble, etc. I don't think the current effects are good enough to throw away 70% of your chance to hit, but the basic idea is interesting. It would be simpler if they weren't category-specific, but rather weapon-specific like now. >As one of the proposers, let me note that my primary motivation in >suggesting the change in how checks should be awarded was to deal with a >problem many people who don't play RQ complain about. "Where in D&D you >have several character classes, in RQ you have only one, since most >characters do about the same things they eventually become bery similar to >each other." The new system allows a player to decide skills less often >used in adventures but either crucial to his character conception or very >important when they are asked for should be emphasized. Not so. If you don't use a skill, you don't get a check in it. So there's no way to get "character conception" skills up. What makes you think people who don't play RQ know a whole lot about its problems? Bryan Maloney said >The best way I've found so far has been to have the check be recorded >after a successful roll and then the GM tells players how many checks to >roll for. I would usually use the rule of thumb given in the old >draft. It WORKED! I did NOT encounter "check frenzy" or "weapon caddies". >I didn't see ANYONE even beginning to slide into it! The previous draft didn't allow for check frenzy because you got far more checks than you could possibly roll for. Character sheets are forever filled with unrollable checks. This system encourages characters to only take combat experience (since that's what kept them alive), to the exclusion of more fun stuff (like Custom). Besides, I think having the entire sheet filled with checks makes a mockery of the whole idea. You can roll for a check two years later? Actually, I believe the previous draft provided for a check after ANY roll, whether or not successful.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24178; Thu, 24 Feb 94 02:42:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16404; Thu, 24 Feb 94 03:39:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 3:39:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 3:39:18 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcerers and lay sorcerers Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 00:38:47 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E2490244AF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Last Tuesday I attempted to generate two characters with a sorcerous background. This attempted higlighted some key matters. The first was that sorcerers are very difficult to generate. The sorcery magical table essentially only gives one manpulation, Intensity, and the choice of two Low Sorcery or one High Sorcery spell. This means that an experience sorcery must spend a lot of background options to gain his spells and the skills needed to manipulate those spells. Hence any sorcers are going to be very one-dimensional as players seek to construct something other than a one-spell wonder. I expect most roleplaying skills to be abandoned, quite sadly. This says nothing about the characters who are neither Sorcerers nor Nobles and hence are restricted to Low Magic. If the players agree I will probably have to discard this campaign idea for another setting that will test a more usable section of RQ:AiG. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24233; Thu, 24 Feb 94 02:43:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16498; Thu, 24 Feb 94 03:43:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 3:43:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 3:43:26 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 00:44:16 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E25AAB575E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > A suggestion: Steve Barnes objected to the idea of using original statx1.5 >as the limit to stats, citing the case of a POW 30 Niaid with a max of 45. >While I don't think this particular case is much of a problem, I can see >your objection when comparing a POW and POW 18 human. Right. Having a training limit of 1.5x starting stat only works for humans because it is also limited by species max. And it is important that the rules work for non-humans. Our old RQ campaign was mostly humans, but also had (at various times): elves, dryads, centuars, minotaurs, ducks, pixies, dragonewts, trolls (all types), and a griffin. > As an alternative, why not limit all stats to an increase by a fixed number? >To retain some sort of parity with the previous rules either +5 or +6: >the former is the total increase allowed with a stat of 10, the second with >a stat of 11 (x1.5 rounded up). This is in fact, the rule I am using. Note that this also removes the incentive to have all your stats be at least 14, so that they can potentially be trained to 21. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25776; Thu, 24 Feb 94 03:24:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17252; Thu, 24 Feb 94 04:24:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 4:24:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 4:23:59 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sartar Character Generation Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 01:23:07 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E307BA60FD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Finishing this segment of character generation taught me made me more confident about RQ:AiG. Here was a culture that almost worked. The big proviso that was with someone else culture, if we were attempting to keep to official(ish) Glorantha, was that everything had to be up front. I generated two character using the combined method, and improvised the rule that someone could reroll one attribute once. I came up with this as someone's face sunk as they rolled a 5 for Strength. Someone had generated character sheets, which were pretty good but I think they did provide a distraction in some ways. Worksheets designed for the RQ:AiG character generation process would have been more suitable. Then the players can copy their characters onto the character record sheets. While I_m on this subject a combat character sheet is also advisable onto which details that varying during combat and adventure are recorded. I found it really important during design that everything was up front. I explained all the details of Humakt to one player who was narrowing down on that cult and selected it. The second player picked Humakt as well for his warrior but I believe he was shocked when I revealed to him that he could not be resurrected. Imagine his face when I remembered that the Humakti had a geas and a gift to roll. He would not accept healing from Battle Magic Heal spells. As GoG was an earlier release than RQ:AiG I was in two minds as to whether he would accept healing from Divine Magic. I ruled that he could but prehaps that detracted from the purity of the chracter concept of someone who would accept no magical healing, something I felt he was preparing himself to accept. On a more practical note what shamantic traditions exist within Sartar? I think shamanism stands a better chance of being improved through playtest than sorcery for the simple reason that less needs changing. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA00804; Thu, 24 Feb 94 05:24:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19270; Thu, 24 Feb 94 06:24:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 6:24:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 6:23:48 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW, bookkeeping, magic Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:57:46 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E50703484E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to David. > Joerg suggested >>Defending all out should allow to do so with POW instead of MP > Then defending all out would be meaningless until you lost MP. Right. All Out Defense is an action noone but Chalana Arroy cultists ought to take as long as there is an alternative (e.g. run away). On the other hand, a character run low on MP will stand a fair chance to survive when all other options have run out. What I'd like to see are possibilities for a victim of spirit combat attacks to break off spirit combat, such as crossing flowing water or similar actions recorded in the myths. Spirit Plane: > (though I agree with those who think it needs a _little_ description). Of course it does. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20755; Thu, 24 Feb 94 19:58:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19347; Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:57:55 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:58:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:57:46 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 03:29:18 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F398582241@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brent Krupp writes: > Another solution is one that can solve many other problems discussed on > this list: EMPOWER THE REFEREE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE GAME! A few simple > remarks about how CheckQuesting and Weapon Caddying is WRONG would > certainly work. The problem is when the rules don't really say when there The problem is that this can easily lead to as many interminable arguments as the award X number of checks system and other game's experience point systems. All you need is a few players who don't absolutely trust your judgement, and this can turn into a pill; and tossing out people just because of things like this is not always a viable option; people who question your judgement on occasion can sometimes be very good players in other respects. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20994; Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:03:45 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19695; Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:03:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:03:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:03:36 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Solace; creating Masters Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 03:38:08 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F3B1306739@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > David here. > > Wayne Shaw responded to Guy Hoyle > >> If you try to cram every little thing into the rules, you end up bogging d > >> play. Glorantha needs more sourcebooks, not more rules. > >> (There. Bet THAT ticks some people off). > > > >If you want to play the dozens on this, the proper answer is, "If you > >want simple minded, stupid rules, play D&D." > > Cheap shot, Wayne. D&D is more complicated in most ways (but it features Of course it was a cheap shot. Just like "There. Bet THAT ticks some people off." I'm getting more than a bit tired of be stigmitized because I don't think dumbing down the rules is the best idea since sliced bread. > much faster combat than RQ and is also much more popular, wonder if there's > a correlation...). I once GMed an AD&D scenario at a convention (it was a > really good scenario I'd playtested). I'd never GMed AD&D before in my > life. At one point somebody wanted to grapple. This involved a completely > different rules mechanic than normal combat. I managed to convince the > players that it wasn't worth looking up the grapple rules. (Later they told > me I was the best GM they'd played with.) This is a good argument for having rules that have an underlaying structure so that you CAN fake them off the top if need be; it's NOT a good excuse for not bothering to come up with the specific rules for common issues people want to factor into their gaming. And frankly, if what we're trying to write these rules for is people who want the speed of D&D, I'm definitely in the wrong place here. One of RQ's virtues, the thing that made me move to it from D&D back in the dim times, was that while combat might take longer, it had a sense of realism and involvement that D&D didn't. This doesn't mean that there is no limit to how complex the system should be, but it DOES mean there's a limit to how much detailing should be sacrificed on the alter of simplicity as far as I'm concerned. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05927; Thu, 24 Feb 94 07:46:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26435; Thu, 24 Feb 94 08:46:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 8:46:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 8:46:21 EST From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Dunham on POW maxima Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 8:46:14 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E7675B0DEE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David dunham quoted me and responded: >It is possible for a human to increase their POW beyond 21 with a roll >of 01-05." > >That works for me. If you added a clause that this effect also raises >that person's species max, the whole problem is fixed. A. This wouldn't make any difference, since they're still at species max and would still have a 5% chance of increase." My response: If you make your 5% roll and your POW goes up to 22, later, if you sacrifice or lose POW, your species max stays at 22. That's what difference it makes. MIke Dawson -- ------- Gloranthophiles need to contact me at codexzine@aol.com for information about Codex Magazine. "Inquiries into the nature and secrets of Glorantha" . ------------------------------------------------------/_\  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21434; Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:52:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11245; Thu, 24 Feb 94 11:52:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 11:52:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 11:52:08 EST From: klyfix@ace.com (Klyfix) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The ongoing story Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:02:23 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EA80190F5D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> V.S.Greene {klyfix@ace.com} reporting... Jeorg beat me to noting the desirablity of having a storyline running through the rules as was done in RQ3 and RQ2. Let me just say that it would help in making the rules more "user friendly" and would provide a way of illustrating just what sort of life a Gloranthan character is coming from. I'd also suggest that while the story of Arlia is poteintially interesting, it might not be a bad idea to have a paralleling story with a Sartarite of some kind; perhaps one of those "Sartarite bandits" mentioned in the fatigue example on page 94. This so that new players don't automatically assume that the Lunars must be the good guys. :) Oh, also count me in as one of the folk who thinks the old Duration table wasn't broken if you used the skill/10 method. My wizard I created under RQ4 is unlikly to ever use duration above 1, and no way is he going to blow POW for long term spells! ============================================================================= V.S.Greene | klyfix@ace.com | Boston, Mass., sorta | Me as my PC sees an ice demon: "Is screaming an action?" GM: "No." My PC : "AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!"  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12340; Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:16:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02555; Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:16:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:16:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:16:05 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: 24 Feb 1994 10:14:06 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E8E63C293C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren here Brent Krupp writes: > On Wed, 23 Feb 1994, Raymond D Turney wrote: > > As one of the proposers, let me note that my primary motivation in > > suggesting the change in how checks should be awarded was to deal with a > > problem many people who don't play RQ complain about. "Where in D&D you > > have several character classes, in RQ you have only one, First off, I've heard this complaint exactly once, and the complainant was enamored of Chivalry and Sorcery for its "realism." It was also a *long* time ago, back in 1981. I've heard *more* complaints that RQ didn't have any mass killing spells like Cloudkill and Fireball, thereby making specialized magic-users impractical, and that it was too easy to get your character killed when any critical hit would do the trick. The correct response to this complaint is, "RuneQuest doesn't have one character class; it has no character classes. You can be a thief or a fighter or a mage or a barbarian thief with a mighty sword arm or a druid or a fighting mage or a ranger or a paladin or anything you want (except a warrior monk), but your character plays by the same rules as everybody else. Your character's abilities are determined by the initial rolls and what he does, not by the name you put on his profession." > While the "ref-hands-out-checks" system might have advantages, I really > don't think this is a valid one. D&D may have character classes, but RQ > has *cults*, and tons of them, and that makes characters in any decent > campaign far more diverse than simple classes. Brent's right: Society, religion, and cult are the "character class" dividers in RQ. Anyway, the only skills that I've seen converge are the ones that everybody needs in the campaign. In campaigns I've run the common skills have been Scan, First Aid, Climb, Ride and Jump (and various languages), plus everyone has some weapon skills. Maybe I'm an outlier (but I doubt it) but it seems only fair that if the style of a campaign emphasizes a certain group of skills then every character ought to get a chance to develop them equally, instead of being channeled into a few skills that are "in character." IMHO, what a character does should determine what is "in character," not some abstract concept of that character. Isn't that whole reason why we all like RuneQuest in the first place?! That's why I prefer the old RQ2 or RQ3 rules, with advice to the GM on how to avoid check questing and weapon caddying and so on. > Another solution is one that can solve many other problems discussed on > this list: EMPOWER THE REFEREE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE GAME! A few simple > remarks about how CheckQuesting and Weapon Caddying is WRONG would > certainly work. The problem is when the rules don't really say when there > are exceptions to the "make-a-roll, get-a-check" rule and players protest > any "GM fiat" that comes up. Right. Just add a paragraph, highlighted to emphasize it, to the experience section that says: Most of the time these experience rules work fine, but sometimes players will abuse them by attempting to use every skill on their sheets, or by switching weapons in the middle of a combat to get an experience check in a second weapon. It is the GM's right and duty to tell players that they do not get an experience check for a skill if they use that skill in order to get an experience check. Add something similar to the POW check rules and anything else that gets abused and you're ready to go. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29840; Wed, 23 Feb 94 17:32:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21646; Wed, 23 Feb 94 18:32:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Wed, 23 Feb 94 18:32:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Wed, 23 Feb 94 18:32:02 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: What is POW ? An answer Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:31:46 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3D929A24C61@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here: Here is my justification for the Steve Barnes POW gain system. Think of POW as spiritual blood or spiritual hit points. To gain rune magic you sacrifice this spiritual blood, but just as with physical damage or blood loss over time the body heals itself. Just as one can improve their physical body through proper diet and exercise one can do likewise with their spiritual body. Cheers, Tim ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13707; Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:34:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04185; Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:34:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:34:15 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:32:47 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Characteristic Max; sorcery; Sartarites Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:32:40 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E92D657567@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steven Barnes said >> As an alternative, why not limit all stats to an increase by a fixed number? >>To retain some sort of parity with the previous rules either +5 or +6: >>the former is the total increase allowed with a stat of 10, the second with >>a stat of 11 (x1.5 rounded up). > >This is in fact, the rule I am using. Note that this also removes the >incentive to have all your stats be at least 14, so that they can >potentially be trained to 21. You're absolutely right. But it adds the incentive to have all your stats be 15 so they can potentially trained to 21. Guy Robinson noted >This means that an experience sorcery must spend a lot >of background options to gain his spells and the skills >needed to manipulate those spells. Sounds right to me. That's to be expected from skill-based magic. But remember, character creation doesn't matter because you only do it once. In practice ,some of the same effect should be seen (since it takes more time to learn a sorcery spell than a battlemagic spell), but it should be lessened by the fact that money, as well as time, is a limiting factor. Battlemagic spells cost well over their time to learn, compared to sorcery. RQ3 sorcery has the property that at low levels, it's wimpy. At high levels, it's the most powerful magic around. That's the tradeoff. I wouldn't say that makes sorcery less playable, but it does give sorcerous cultures a different feel from the theistic ones: less magic. >Someone had generated character sheets, which were pretty >good but I think they did provide a distraction in some >ways. Worksheets designed for the RQ:AiG character >generation process would have been more suitable. Were they mine (with a "drd" near the figure)? Worksheets might be a good idea, but it makes character creation look more like, um, work. >As GoG was an earlier release than RQ:AiG I was in two >minds as to whether he would accept healing from Divine >Magic. I ruled that he could but prehaps that detracted >from the purity of the chracter concept of someone >who would accept no magical healing, something I felt >he was preparing himself to accept. No magical healing is a different geas (#10). >On a more practical note what shamantic traditions exist >within Sartar? I think shamanism stands a better chance >of being improved through playtest than sorcery for the >simple reason that less needs changing. I'd say it's almost exclusively Kolating, though this isn't stated anywhere. So far, I haven't noticed any special problems running an Expert shaman character (except that they're fairly powerful, as befits specialists). Mike Dawson responded: >If you make your 5% roll and your POW goes up to 22, later, if you >sacrifice or lose POW, your species max stays at 22. That's what >difference it makes. Well, if you drop more than 2 points it makes a difference. I see now, I was thinking about dropping only 1. It still grates that you call this "species max," since you haven't changed humanity's maximum. (Nor do I especially like the idea, it sounds like it could be abused by holding onto all your POW until you got quite high, then sacrificing 10 points in a burst and becoming an acolyte -- the new rules for recoverable initiate spells make it much more practical to sacrifice POW as you go, which is probably more culturally appropriate.)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23738; Thu, 24 Feb 94 11:15:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13020; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:15:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:15:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:15:07 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; checks Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 09:03 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EAE22C6730@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Roderick Here >David here. >>Devin hoped >>That works for me. If you added a clause that this effect also raises >>that person's species max, the whole problem is fixed. >A. This wouldn't make any difference, since they're still at species max >and would still have a 5% chance of increase. >B. Why have species max if it's not really a max for the species? Ah, but there *is* a difference. What happens when Mr. 22 Species Max Power drops a couple of points of POW into an enchantment/Rune Spell/ whatever? He has an EASIER time regaining POW than Mr. Average Human with 21 Species max. It *probably* won't crop up in many games (I've never had a character hoard POW that way, but that is my own style), but it is a nice 'High Power' game benefit. >>Ray Turney suggested >>the following changes. Special tactics are a >>separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's >>skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that >>category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills I'd personally give it a -50, or perhaps each tactic could have it's own modifier (Flurry requires 2 better DEX and STR than the weapon, and has a -30% modifier, Aim has no Stat modifiers, but is -50%, etc) Yeah, I know this adds complexity, it is a throwaway suggestion.. >What makes you think people who don't play RQ know a whole lot about its >problems? They read Murphy's Rules? Roderick Robertson@DElphi.intel.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23581; Thu, 24 Feb 94 11:13:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12883; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:13:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:13:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:13:17 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Some information on shamanism Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:13:06 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EADA510387@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I don't know if this is necessarily the most opportune time to post this, but I've been net surfing and came across the following: Newsgroups: soc.religion.shamanism,sci.anthropology,alt.out-of-body,alt.dreams.lucid,soc.a nswers,sci.answers,alt.answers,news.answers Path: newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!cornell!batcomputer!caen!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.m arcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus. edu!netcom.com!deane From: deane@netcom.com (Dean Edwards) Subject: Shamanism-General Overview-Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Message-ID: Followup-To: poster Summary: This FAQ contains a general overview on shamanism. It should be read by anyone interested in understanding the what is meant by shamanism and what differentiates shamanism form other forms of ecstatic experience Keywords: shaman, anthropology, ethnography, consciousness, spirit, oobe Reply-To: deane@netcom.com (Dean Edwards) Organization: La Casa del Paese Lontano Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:59:56 GMT Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu Expires: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 23:59:59 GMT Lines: 210 Xref: newsstand.cit.cornell.edu soc.religion.shamanism:304 sci.anthropology:6321 alt.out-of-body:2542 alt.dreams.lucid:1754 soc.answers:869 sci.answers:880 alt.answers:1796 news.answers:17836 Archive-name: shamanism/overview Last-modified: 12 November 1993 Version: 1.0.2 NOTE: The following general overview of shamanism is not intended to be the last word or the definitive work on this subject. Rather it is, as its title implies, intended to provide the participant or reader with a set of guidelines that will familiarize them with the general use of the terms shamanism, shaman and shamanic in the trends, study and practice of historic, traditional and contemporary shamanic experience. The word 'shaman comes to English from the Tungus language via Russian. Among the Tungus of Siberia it is both a noun and a verb. While the Tungus have no word for shamanism, it has come into usage by anthropologists, historians of religion and others in contemporary society to designate the experience and the practices of the shaman. Its usage has grown to include similar experiences and practices in cultures outside of the original Ural- Altaic cultures from which the term shaman originated. Thus shamanism is not the name of a religion or group of religions. Particular attention should be paid to the use of qualifying words such as "may" or "usually". They indicate examples or tendencies and are not, in any way, intended to represent rigid standards Please send comments to deane@netcom.com (Dean Edwards). Shamanism-General Overview-Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (c November, 1993 by Dean Edwards) This FAQ shall be posted monthly and is maintained by Dean Edwards (deane@netcom.com). It is intended for the private non-commercial use of Usenet users. Table of Contents: 1. Terms used in this FAQ 2. What is shamanism? 3. Shamanic Ecstasy 4. Becoming a shaman 5. The role of trauma in the development of a shaman 6. The relationship between shamanic traditions and culture 7. Shamanic Ecstasy 8. The origin of the term "shamanism" 9. Roles of the shaman 10. Reasons for this FAQ 1. Why were the terms used in this FAQ selected and do they have special meanings. There is an extensive literature about shamanism that has been compiled since the late Eighteenth Century. Like any field of study and religious practice, shamanism has developed a specialized vocabulary. Please note that some of the words used in the material that follows are drawn from scholars who have a solid background in shamanic studies and may have meanings that are specific and less general than is often the case in popular usage. Consulting a good dictionary should clear up any points of confusion. 2. What is Shamanism? Shamanism is classified by anthropologists as an archaic magico-religious phenomenon in which the shaman is the great master of ecstasy. Shamanism itself, was defined by the late Mircea Eliade as a technique of ecstasy. A shaman may exhibit a particular magical specialty (such as control over fire, wind or magical flight). When a specialization is present the most common is as a healer. The distinguishing characteristic of shamanism is its focus on an ecstatic trance state in which the soul of the shaman is believed to leave the body and ascend to the sky (heavens) or descend into the earth (underworld). The shaman makes use of spirit helpers, which he or she communicates with, all the while retaining control over his or her own consciousness. (Examples of possession occur, but are the exception, rather than the rule.) It is also important to note that while most shamans in traditional societies are men, either women or men may and have become shamans. 3. What is Shamanic Ecstasy and how does it compare with other forms of ecstasy? From the Greek 'ekstasis', ecstasy literally means to be placed outside, or to be placed.This is a state of exaltation in which a person stands outside of or transcends his or herself. Ecstasy may range from the seizure of the body by a spirit or the seizure of a person by the divine, from the magical transformation or flight of consciousness to psychiatric remedies of distress. Three types of Ecstasy are specified in the literature on the subject: 1. Shamanic Ecstasy 2. Prophetic Ecstasy 3. Mystical Ecstasy Shamanic ecstasy is provoked by the ascension of the soul of the shaman into the heavens or its descent into the underworld. These states of ecstatic exaltation are usually achieved after great and strenuous training and initiation, often under distressing circumstances. The resulting contact by the shaman with the higher or lower regions and their inhabitants, and also with nature spirits enables him or her to accomplish such tasks as accompanying the soul of a deceased into its proper place in the next world, affect the well-being of the sick and to convey the story of their inner travels upon their return to the mundane awareness. The utterances of the shaman are in contrast with those of prophetic and mystical ecstasy. The prophet literally speaks for God, while the mystic reports an overwhelming divine presence. In mysticism, the direct knowledge or experience of the divine ultimate reality, which is perceptible in two ways, emotional and intuitive. While these three varieties of ecstatic experience are useful for the purposes of analysis and discussion, it is not unusual for more than one form of ecstasy to be present in an individual's experience. However, it can be argued that, generally speaking, there are three perceptive levels of ecstasy. 1) The physiological response, in which the mind becomes absorbed in and focused on a dominant idea, the attention is withdrawn and the nervous system itself is in part cut off from physical sensory input. The body exhibits reflex inertia, involuntary nervous responses, frenzy. 2) Emotional perception of ecstasy refers to overwhelming feelings of awe, anxiety, joy, sadness, fear, astonishment, passion, etc. 3) Intuitive perception communicates a direct experience and understanding of the transpersonal experience of expanded states of awareness or consciousness. While the physiological response is always present, the emotional response may or may not be significant when intuition is the principal means of ecstatic perception. Some have argued that beyond the intuitive state there is a fourth condition in which the holistic perception exceeds mental and emotional limitations and understanding. The ecstatic experience of the shaman goes beyond a feeling or perception of the sacred, the demonic or of natural spirits. It involves the shaman directly and actively in transcendent realities or lower realms of being. 4. How does one become a shaman? One becomes a shaman by one of three methods: a) Hereditary transmission; b) Spontaneous selection or "call" or "election"; c) personal choice and quest. (This latter method is less frequent and traditionally such a shaman is considered less powerful than one selected by one of the two preceding methods.) The shaman is not recognized as legitimate without having undergone two types of training: 1) Ecstatic (dreams, trances, etc.) 2) Traditional ("shamanic techniques, names and functions of spirits,mythology and genealogy of the clan, secret language, etc.) The two-fold course of instruction, given by the spirits and the old master shamans is equivalent to an initiation." (Mircea Eliade, The Encyclopedia of Religion, v. 13 , p. 202; Mcmillian, N.Y., 1987.) It is also possible for the entire process to take place in the dream state or in ecstatic experience. Thus, there is more to becoming a shaman than a single experience. It requires training, perseverance and service. 5. What is the role of personal trauma or crisis in the selection or development of a shaman? A common experience of the call to shamanism is a psychic or spiritual crisis, which often accompanies a physical or even a medical crisis, and is cured by the shaman him or herself. This is a common occurrence for all three types of shamanic candidates described above. The shaman is often marked by eccentric behavior such as periods of melancholy, solitude, visions, singing in his or her sleep, etc. The inability of the traditional remedies to cure the condition of the shamanic candidate and the eventual self cure by the new shaman is a significant episode in development of the shaman. The underlying significant aspect of this experience, when it is present,is the ability of the shaman to manage and resolve periods of distress. 6. Does the presence of an active shamanic tradition necessarily mean that the society itself should be deemed "shamanic"? No, not at all. The presence of shamanism in a nation or a community does not mean that shamanism is central to the spiritual or religious life of the community or region. Shamanism often exists alongside and even in cooperation with the religious or healing practices of the community. 7. What is meant by shamanic ecstasy and what role does it actually play in shamanism? The ecstatic technique of shamanism does not involve itself in the broad range of ecstasy reported in the history of religion. It is specifically focused on the transpersonal movement of the consciousness of the shaman into higher or lower realms of consciousness and existence. Another aspect of shamanism is that compared to other spiritual traditions, it is a path that the individual walks alone. While much of the focus of shamanic studies has been on the shamanic complexes of north and central Asia, shamanism is a universal phenomenon, not confined to any particular region or culture. 8. What is the origin of the word "shaman"? Shaman comes from the language of the Tungus of North-Central Asia. It came into use in English via Russian. 9. What are the usual roles of a shaman? In contemporary, historical or traditional shamanic practice the shaman may at times fill the role of priest, magician, metaphysician or healer. Personal experience is the prime determinant of the status of a shaman. Knowledge of other realms of being and consciousness and the cosmology of those regions is the basis of the shamanic perspective and power. With this knowledge, the shaman is able to serve as a bridge between the mundane and the higher and lower states The shaman lives at the edge of reality as most people would recognize it and most commonly at the edge of society itself. Few indeed have the stamina to adventure into these realms and endure the outer hardships and personal crises that have been reported by or observed of many shamans. 10. Why was this FAQ written? This FAQ was originally written to support a new Usenet newsgroup, 'soc.religion.shamanism'. The purpose of this newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion and exchange of ideas, views and information about historic,traditional, tribal and contemporary shamanism. This FAQ is intended to provide a useful general overview of what 'shamanism' actually means and what it is in practice. End of FAQ Anyway, that's what I found. The only glaring error I saw in it is that it is too restricted to what Eliade calls a "shaman" and decides to completely ignore the African and southern Asian shamanic experience (in which the shaman does not send his or her spirit out but is possessed by other spirits in order to have power. The difference between the shaman and the victim in these traditions is that the shaman is still in control while possessed.). I wonder, should RQ:AiG take off, might there be interest in a Pamaltela supplemtn that presented THIS form of shamanism?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24407; Thu, 24 Feb 94 11:25:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13839; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:25:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:25:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:25:32 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sartar Character Generation Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 09:25:23 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EB0EA25C1C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Thu, 24 Feb 1994 Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com wrote: > > The second player picked Humakt as well for his warrior > but I believe he was shocked when I revealed to him > that he could not be resurrected. Imagine his face when > I remembered that the Humakti had a geas and a gift to > roll. He would not accept healing from Battle Magic > Heal spells. > Unless my gaming group got this one *really* wrong, Humakti PICK their geases from the list, which distinguishes them from Yelmalians (or whatever they're called this week) who do, in fact, roll. I think that this is specifically mentioned in Gods of Glorantha (GoG), but I know that Dorastor: Land of Doom backs me up on this because it has large numbers of Humakti that clearly picked which geas to take. Also, Lottery Swords require this concept. *My* recommendation as a long time Humakti is that the PC take Sense Assasin and save the other junk for when he's a Sword. Sense Assasin is the one geas that really makes you a Humakti, and not just any other warrior. As an aside, if not being resurrectable is *that* big of a problem, than either the player expects an over-deadly campaign OR too-easily available ressurect. Also, the new die at -HP rule helps alot here: your Huamkti doesn't have to fight "to-the-death" to show courage, just to unconsciousness. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02243; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:25:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18791; Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:24:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:24:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:24:24 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Characteristic Max; sorcery; Sartarites Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 18:45:50 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EC09D7245A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg, mostly to David Dunham But first let me say that Loren's proposal for experience rules ought to go into the finished rules! > Guy Robinson noted >>Someone had generated character sheets, which were pretty >>good but I think they did provide a distraction in some >>ways. Worksheets designed for the RQ:AiG character >>generation process would have been more suitable. > Worksheets might be a good idea, but it makes character creation look more > like, um, work. Call them design sheets, then. I agree they'd be of use, and might speed up character generation. >>On a more practical note what shamantic traditions exist >>within Sartar? I think shamanism stands a better chance >>of being improved through playtest than sorcery for the >>simple reason that less needs changing. > I'd say it's almost exclusively Kolating, though this isn't stated anywhere. I'd say native traditions would be Kolating and Umath shamans. Other shamans in Sartar include Telmori, Dehori, Grazer (not Feathered Horse, but Solar, e.g. among the Hyaloring Clans of the Colymar), Praxian (Pol Joni), and possibly even Aldryami. Most of these tend to be unfriendly (expensive). > Mike Dawson responded: >>If you make your 5% roll and your POW goes up to 22, later, if you >>sacrifice or lose POW, your species max stays at 22. That's what >>difference it makes. > Well, if you drop more than 2 points it makes a difference. I see now, I > was thinking about dropping only 1. It still grates that you call this > "species max," since you haven't changed humanity's maximum. (Nor do I > especially like the idea, it sounds like it could be abused by holding onto > all your POW until you got quite high, then sacrificing 10 points in a > burst and becoming an acolyte -- the new rules for recoverable initiate > spells make it much more practical to sacrifice POW as you go, which is > probably more culturally appropriate.) So call it personal max, and note it as original POW. I second Mike's proposal. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02382; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:26:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18809; Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:24:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:25:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:24:25 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments - SORCERY Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:25:57 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EC09E7297D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here. I have to make my position clear: I have no objection to exponential range coupled with proper targetting through similarity, contagion, etc. I kind of like linear range for battlefield quick magic and exponential range for ritual magic (with hours to days of casting time, not months and months as in the 2.0 draft.) I am soundly against exponential duration, whether limited by free INT or by skill. The reason for this is that the _important_ variable for a Wizard is the amount of magic he can have running at once. Exponential duration doubles this with each doubling of duration. Horrible. No matter how dinky sorcerers start out, they eventually become gross. Let's say you have a base duration of ten minutes and use the skill limit system: when your spells and duration skill get to 70%, you go from under a day top over a day of duration. Suddenly, with each 10% step, the number of spells you can have up at once doubles. (Higher intensity costs more.) POW expenditure does not solve this problem, only delays it. Now sorcerers go from incredibly weak to surprisingly strong when they get to the point where a spell lasts more than one "average time to recover lost POW" instead of the one day (time to recover lost MPs) point. Under RQ4 rules, a magically active sorcerer who keeps himself at around POW 14 will get POW back every 14 weeks or so. Once his Duration skill takes him past 14 weeks, he starts doubling the amount of magic he can have running with every 10% step. Aargh. Thus, exponential duration crocks the law of diminishing returns. Better to take the Maintain approach. More later, paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05741; Thu, 24 Feb 94 12:57:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21532; Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:57:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:57:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:56:38 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments - SORCERY Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 10:56:21 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EC935A3CA0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly says: > Better to take the Maintain approach. Paul, can you or someone else give me a quick rundown on how RQ:AiG handles maintain? Not all of us have the new rules. I am actually using a modified version of your 'twin' system posted a while back. Neil ___________________________________________________________________________ Neil Robinson (nrobinso@sirius.uvic.ca) 2996 Dysart Rd, Victoria (604) 385-1642 B.C., Canada V9A 2K2 "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" - Lazarus Long  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.25/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26957; Thu, 24 Mar 94 16:06:12 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11519; Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:05:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:06:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:08:01 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments - SORCERY Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:09:32 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3ECC3F71838@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Neil: >Paul, can you or someone else give me a quick rundown on how RQ:AiG If I don't see an objection from OJ by, say, Saturday I will post a summary of how it works and how I think it could be improved. It is a pretty good mechanic. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08182; Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:21:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22765; Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:20:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:20:24 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:19:44 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW, bookkeeping, magic Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:21:20 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3ECF60934F3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly, on stacking limits: Stacking limits can be interpreted in several ways, including: 1. Limits established by divine treaty in the Great Compromise (don't like it) 2. A hard limit established by natural law (hard limits are rare) 3. A recognition by the designers that the games system breaks down at high end 4. A crude modelling of the law of diminishing returns. Perhaps the last is the best. Should cost of casting overstacked Divine Magic be nonlinear? Steve writes: >As I said before, many games are oriented towards having one big >fight, then everyone goes home. Likewise, casting two shield 4s >should be easier than casting one shield 8. One could write a rule to this effect. I think that damage, STR, SIZ, armor, etc. are all non-linear and that the modelling breaks down when one tries to crudely add together disparate things. The trouble is that low end, near-linear things get mapped onto high-end things where nonlinearity is more obvious. The most glaring example I can think of (after Axe Trance) is Gift POW, where 'cheap' human-range POW can be added onto 'expensive' transhuman ancestor POW. More later.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10770; Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:45:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24828; Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:45:02 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:45:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:44:56 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:45:33 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3ED618D297D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: >Brent Krupp writes: >> On Wed, 23 Feb 1994, Raymond D Turney wrote: >> > As one of the proposers, let me note that my primary motivation in >> > suggesting the change in how checks should be awarded was to deal with a >> > problem many people who don't play RQ complain about. "Where in D&D you >> > have several character classes, in RQ you have only one, > >First off, I've heard this complaint exactly once, and the complainant This is exactly the complaint I've heard from my anti-RQ friends. That and the fact that everybody learns magic (we now have Sorcery and Shamanism which add a bit more diversity, plus tighter cult restrictions on Battle Magic). >Anyway, the only skills that I've seen converge are the ones that >everybody needs in the campaign. In campaigns I've run the common >skills have been Scan, First Aid, Climb, Ride and Jump (and various >languages), plus everyone has some weapon skills. Maybe I'm an outlier >(but I doubt it) but it seems only fair that if the style of a >campaign emphasizes a certain group of skills then every character >ought to get a chance to develop them equally, instead of being >channeled into a few skills that are "in character." In RQ2, this meant every skill on your sheet (that could be raised by experience). Given the nature of checks, there would be a certain amount of jostling to see who gets to make the skill roll. To reiterate: I feel that the GM should hand out a fixed amount of checks. These can be allocated to skills used in the game, or not, depending on the decision of the GM. If you only have five checks per game, then you are going to put them into areas important to your characters conception. >IMHO, what a character does should determine what is "in character," >not some abstract concept of that character. Isn't that whole reason >why we all like RuneQuest in the first place?! That's why I prefer the >old RQ2 or RQ3 rules, with advice to the GM on how to avoid check >questing and weapon caddying and so on. Except often I never get opportunities to earn checks. For example, one character had Sword at 95%, and Greatsword at 55%. In order to become a rune-lord, he would have to develop three weapon skills to 90%. But why is he going to risk his life in combat using his lesser weapon? (Admittedly, RQ3 reduced the need to get checks, with its more liberal training rules). The weapon caddy will freely switch weapons, as often as the GM will allow. There is also the issue of players with dominant personalities, or overpowering characters, who "hog all the checks". -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12206; Thu, 24 Feb 94 13:52:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25465; Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:52:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:52:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:52:24 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; checks Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:53:03 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3ED81544435@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Roderick Here >>>Ray Turney suggested >>>the following changes. Special tactics are a >>>separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's >>>skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that >>>category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills > > I'd personally give it a -50, or perhaps each tactic could have it's >own modifier (Flurry requires 2 better DEX and STR than the weapon, These just shift the point at which the combatants have a 100% success chance. (170% in Ray's method, 150% in yours). The advantage of using specials and criticals to resolve high level combat is that it will be highly unlikely anyone ever achieves 100% special chance (500%), and less likely for 100% crit chance (2000%). -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13355; Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:00:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26110; Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:59:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:00:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:59:41 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Characteristic Max; sorcery; Sartarites Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:00:23 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EDA06550B8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> From: David Dunham >Steven Barnes said >>> As an alternative, why not limit all stats to an increase by a fixed number? >>>To retain some sort of parity with the previous rules either +5 or +6: >>>the former is the total increase allowed with a stat of 10, the second with >>>a stat of 11 (x1.5 rounded up). >> >>This is in fact, the rule I am using. Note that this also removes the >>incentive to have all your stats be at least 14, so that they can >>potentially be trained to 21. > >You're absolutely right. But it adds the incentive to have all your stats >be 15 so they can potentially trained to 21. This comment was made under the assumption that species max rule would be eliminated; but I suspect it is too late for such a radical change. I can live with a training limit of +5, or species max, which ever is lower. >Guy Robinson noted >>This means that an experience sorcery must spend a lot >>of background options to gain his spells and the skills >>needed to manipulate those spells. > >Sounds right to me. That's to be expected from skill-based magic. I'm with Guy. It may be acceptable when making a beginning Sorceror, but an "expert" or "master" needs far more diversity. >RQ3 sorcery has the property that at low levels, it's wimpy. At high >levels, it's the most powerful magic around. That's the tradeoff. Sounds like D&D... -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16010; Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:19:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27339; Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:17:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:17:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:17:21 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Characteristic Max; sorcery; Sartarites Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:18:49 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EDEBD217D2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here. If one accepts the idea that stats are more logarithmic than linear, then the rule to limit stat training to a fixed number, say, +5, makes a lot of sense. This would mean that a given person could get x times stronger than his or her natural starting strength. Note that starting strength in a typical RQ society will be much closer to one's ultimate limit of strength than in our sedentary modern societies; most people would grow up in pretty good shape, as even nobles do riding, etc., in most cultures. Thus +5 sounds pretty reasonable. If a law of diminishing returns is put it perhaps the ultimate limit could be a bit higher. As someone who has done dancing and lifting, I would say that there might be some tradeoffs in training limits on STR and DEX. Properly done, you can train both at once for a while, but eventually muscle and flexibility will conflict. Not sure about CON, but I think that extreme strength training will cut into CON at some point. At low levels, you tend to do both at once - at least for a sedentary Westerner for whom any exercise counts as CON training. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA23838; Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:34:44 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02065; Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:15:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:26:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:14:57 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Duration Date: 24 Feb 94 15:20:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EEE1A13D90@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. Paul has identified the real problem with exponential Duration: > The _important_ variable for a Wizard is the amount of magic he can > have running at once. Exponential duration doubles this with each > doubling of duration. Horrible. No matter how dinky sorcerers start > out, they eventually become gross. Agreed. Hurting small sorcerers is wasted if their big brothers can beat the crap out of anyone, and supply constant heavy-duty spells to all their friends and customers. I think I identified a possible easy (i.e: not many rules changes needed) solution a while ago: keeping track of all those "1 POW" sacrifices now required by the RQ:AiG anti-sorcerer rules and using their total as a limit to the number of long-duration spells that can be maintained (or whatever manipulation is involved). Ray's idea of sticking these into wands, staves etc. sounds culturally appropriate. We could call these items "Vessels" and bring in chunks of Paul&Mike sorcery as well... Again, this is neat 'cos it gives Sorcerers something useful and character- building to do with their POW. BTW, accepting and modelling the accusation that Sorcery destroys the soul in the rules should only be allowed if we include mechanics showing Divine magic as leaving priests slaves of powerful inhuman entities, and Shamanic fetch-building as a wasteful form of fantastical self-indulgence. It doesn't belong in the "neutral" rulebook. I don't *like* sorcery, but that doesn't mean I believe the crap Storm Voices and Kolatings tell you about it. I think the new Divine Intervention guidelines are way too gross. Priests who successfully D.I. get the equivalent of at least thirty points of Rune magic to play around with. This is far more effective than any D.I. I've ever seen in a game, most of which probably ended up giving less value-for- POW than orthodox Rune magic. (If the priest is acting in an appropriate way, make that 40 points! And what good priest would ever do otherwise?). No way would I use these rules in a game. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17872; Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:40:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29146; Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:40:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:40:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:39:57 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: complaints; increase; tactics; sorcery Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:39:47 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EE4C537FBE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Loren's message brought to mind the idea of trying to determine what it is that non-RQ-players complain about. (I don't mean reasons why some people stuck with RQ2 instead of RQ3...) Unfortunately, the only one I can remember offhand is that someone thought Glorantha was silly... Loren also said >In campaigns I've run the common >skills have been Scan, First Aid, Climb, Ride and Jump (and various >languages), plus everyone has some weapon skills. Maybe I'm an outlier Hmm, I've never seen Jump increase greatly, Climb only seldom. Why in your campaign? Scan is certainly checked often (Awareness in Pendragon is also uniformly high), and First Aid often. > Most of the time these experience rules work fine, but sometimes > players will abuse them by attempting to use every skill on their > sheets, or by switching weapons in the middle of a combat to get an > experience check in a second weapon. It is the GM's right and duty > to tell players that they do not get an experience check for a > skill if they use that skill in order to get an experience check. > >Add something similar to the POW check rules and anything else that >gets abused and you're ready to go. I too would prefer this to what we've got now. RQ2/3 was subject to abuse, but it happened very seldom. I prefer Roderick Robertson's version of Ray Turney's tactics, where the maximum is skill-50% (though, as you might guess, I prefer his variant where all tactics have the same modifier and no special requirements). I don't like the various proposals that suggest these are ONLY for weapon masters. Joerg said >I'd say native traditions would be Kolating and Umath shamans. Other >shamans in Sartar include Telmori, Dehori, Grazer (not Feathered Horse, >but Solar, e.g. among the Hyaloring Clans of the Colymar), Praxian (Pol >Joni), and possibly even Aldryami. Most of these tend to be unfriendly >(expensive). But only the Kolating, Praxian, and Aldrya schools are actually described in RQ:AiG. Although the Pol Joni are technically Sartarite, they're created as if Praxian. And I don't see Aldrya as ever taking non-elves. So Sartarite shamans should follow the Kolating tradition. (I don't see the Solar shamans as for being for anybody who doesn't call themselves a horse nomad. The Hyalorings probably don't count.) Steve Barnes replied to me >>RQ3 sorcery has the property that at low levels, it's wimpy. At high >>levels, it's the most powerful magic around. That's the tradeoff. > >Sounds like D&D... And everything about D&D is bad? I don't like the game either, but a combat round plays quickly, and there are explicit guidelines so GMs can allocate experience. Oh, and it sells really well. Sorcery is different from the other magic systems. It's not just a different spell list. One of the ways it's different is a greater distribution of power between haves and have-notes. Sorcery cultures are closer to our own than the theistic cultures, and there's probably an intentional connection here. If you want your players to have reasonably powerful magic, don't run your campaign in a sorcery culture area. If you don't want them to, run with sorcery. Perhaps this should be explained somewhere.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21268; Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:10:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA01639; Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:09:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:09:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:09:30 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: There is "exponential", and there is "exponential"... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:09:23 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EECA556BD8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Uh, could somebody please cite me the law of physics that states that "exponential" MUST mean that something doubles at every step? I'm no math genius, but I was under the impression that "exponential" just meant that f(x)=ba^x. Now, if something doubles at every integral step, then b=1, a=2. However, I was under the impression that b and a were not constrained as to what they could be assigned (barring, possibly, complex quantities). Now, given my unprofessional understanding of "exponential", could not a system be worked out which is a compromise between too gross a gain and too little a gain? Maybe I'll throw some tables onto the list tonight.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26188; Thu, 24 Feb 94 15:47:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03780; Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:45:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:45:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:45:29 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: There is "exponential", and there is "exponential"... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:45:21 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3EF63E75931@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here, replying to someone whose name has just scrolled off this dinky terminal. You define an exponential correctly: f(x) = b* a^x. Indeed, you don't have to double at every step. However, for any exponential, there is some fixed value c such that when you add c to the argument x of the exponential, the value of the exponential function doubles: f(x+c) = b * a^(x+c) = 2 * f (x) (c is in fact just log_a(2).) It changes my argument little whether the number of n-point spells that can be maintained by a sorcerer doubles at every 10% skill increment or every 30%; you are still getting an exponential increase in power (spells maintained) for a quadratic investment (training time for skills). Better to make the amount of magic that can be maintained (say, in Intensity) the primary variable rather than something with this exponential dependence on skill Basically, it offends my sensibilities to have the Law of Increasing Returns. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05170; Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:44:13 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07141; Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:43:06 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:44:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:42:53 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: 24 Feb 1994 17:41:01 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F058E0593C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) writes: > This is exactly the complaint I've heard from my anti-RQ friends. If your anti-RQ friends don't like the fact that RQ doesn't have character classes, then I guess they're anti-GURPS and anti-HERO and anti-everything-else-that-isn't-D&D-or-Rolemaster, right? Do we really want to tailor RQ to them at the cost of alienating people who like a game with no character classes? in reply to me... > >Anyway, the only skills that I've seen converge are the ones that > >everybody needs in the campaign. In campaigns I've run the common > >skills have been Scan, First Aid, Climb, Ride and Jump (and various > >languages), plus everyone has some weapon skills. Maybe I'm an outlier > In RQ2, this meant every skill on your sheet (that could be > raised by experience). Given the nature of checks, there would > be a certain amount of jostling to see who gets to make the > skill roll. You're mixing two arguments, man. First, commonly used skills (survival skills) ought to be commonly mastered. Experienced adventurers ARE survivors. You shouldn't be forced to choose between survival skills and roleplay skills, because if you force that kind of choice people won't develop their roleplay skills AT ALL. That's the point I was making. Second, for the point you added, on pushy players. Once again, this is a spot for a warning to the GM. Add a section to the GM Advice chapter with advice on how to make sure that everyone gets enough attention so that you don't have pushy players whose characters do everything. > If you only have > five checks per game, then you are going to put them into areas > important to your characters conception. Wrong. If I were a powergamer, and I am on occasion, then I would put all my checks into survival skills. They affect the survivability of my character. "Concept" skills are only useful if you can live to use them. The only way that players will advance in Concept skills is if you don't make Concept skills compete with Survival skills. The best way I have ever seen of doing this is to make experience checks and rolls freely available for using skills. > >IMHO, what a character does should determine what is "in character," > >not some abstract concept of that character. Isn't that whole reason > >why we all like RuneQuest in the first place?! That's why I prefer the > >old RQ2 or RQ3 rules, with advice to the GM on how to avoid check > >questing and weapon caddying and so on. > > Except often I never get opportunities to earn checks. For example, > one character had Sword at 95%, and Greatsword at 55%. In order > to become a rune-lord, he would have to develop three weapon skills > to 90%. But why is he going to risk his life in combat using his > lesser weapon? Because his god told him to. This character didn't lack opportunity to develop his Greatsword skill, he was too cowardly to adventure with his greatsword and without his broadsword. I have no sympathy for this complaint. If you want to specialize in one weapon, don't choose a cult that forces you to learn several. > There is also the issue of players with dominant personalities, or > overpowering characters, who "hog all the checks". Both can be controlled better by GM advice than rules changes that open up a whole new can of worms. For instance, what happens with the dominant player who asks for special checks for all the skills that you forced him to use during the game, like riding and a language, and march, and scan (since he was an advance scout), and stealth (since he had to sneak into the enemy encampment)? Most experienced RQ GMs would grant the riding and language checks, but what about the others? And what other characters get them? What if the player is REALLY pushy and persuasive? Would you give him something just to shut him up? No matter what the rules are, you'll have the same problems. Attack the source, not the symptom, by advising the GM on how to handle common problems. 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20388; Thu, 24 Feb 94 01:01:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12478; Thu, 24 Feb 94 02:01:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 2:01:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 2:01:13 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:59:43 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3E0A6752DB0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Graeme Lindsell replying to David Dunham > B. Why have species max if it's not really a max for the species? Indeed, why have a species max at all? I think using the original stat as a base for how good you can get works better, and find the "species max" concept a pointless rule. Your suggestion that elves are more magical than humans is already born out in their POW roll of 2d6+6 vs 3d6. A suggestion: Steve Barnes objected to the idea of using original statx1.5 as the limit to stats, citing the case of a POW 30 Niaid with a max of 45. While I don't think this particular case is much of a problem, I can see your objection when comparing a POW and POW 18 human. As an alternative, why not limit all stats to an increase by a fixed number? To retain some sort of parity with the previous rules either +5 or +6: the former is the total increase allowed with a stat of 10, the second with a stat of 11 (x1.5 rounded up). Thus a character witha starting STR of 3 can train it to 9, 11 to 17 or 18 to 24. This actually makes some sense if the stats are logarithmic, as has been argued on this list before. It tends to break down with very high stats, such as giants strength, but then so do a lot of other rules. > > Ray Turney suggested > >the following changes. Special tactics are a > >separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's > >skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that > >category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills > > >If a character wants to, he > >may attempt an advanced combat tactic and get the result given for the > >existing special tactics. Note that the advanced combat tactic replaces the > >skill roll, being in effect an attempt to do something fancier than normal > >with a weapon. To miss the advanced combat tactic roll is to miss period, > >to fumble is to fumble, etc. > How about this as an alternative: these special effects take place _as well as_ the usual the usual critical and special results, on a roll that is less than the skill used - the difficulty of the tatic. The development of these tactics are considered part of the development of the normal skill in the weapon, and the difficulty will be different for different weapons. Only one may be used with each use of a skill. A example: the tactic "feint" has the effect of halving the AP of a parrying weapon. For a 1-H Sword its difficulty is (Sword Attack - 90). For a character with skill 95 who chooses to use a feint during his attack will halve the AP of a parrying weapon when he rolls 01-05 on his attacks: essentially he just does better criticals. A character with 110 skill will get a feint on an attack roll of 20 or less; with 185 skill all successful attacks. (Note all I've heard about the RQ:AiG draft has come from this list. I don't know what feint does now.) Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA17339; Thu, 24 Feb 94 19:03:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15712; Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:02:47 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:03:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:02:32 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 17:02:23 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F2ACA70B3C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney My quote comes specifically from someone who played in my games, likes Glorontha but not RQ, and has bought a number of Gloronthan supplements. Yes, Brent Krupp, there are people who are willing to play in Glorontha, but not willing to use RQ to do it. Furthermore, this is integral to the RQII/III experience system; the problem is not CheckQuest but the difficulty in getting checks for skills that are normally used in non-crisis situations; combined with legitmately gained checks for fighting. It is hard to prevent an RQII-III scholar {Lankhor Mhy} from becoming a very good fighter, almost as good as the Orlanthi, if both he and they get a check in every fight. Each player will roll, each character will go up at about the same rate, and eventually both will end up weaponmasters. Also, the advocates of RQII/III experience are singing the virtues of freedom from GM fiat. If we bring in anti-CheckQuest discretion, allowing a GM to decide what is and is not a legitimate use of a skill, we scrag the one real virtue of RQII/III experience and might as well go to experience points anyway. At least EP only require that experience arguments take place only once per game, whereas arguing over checks can take place in the middle of fighting {further slowing combat} under your proposal.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20877; Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:00:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19531; Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:00:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:00:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:00:26 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 18:01:14 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F3A3AF4B51@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> From: "Loren J. Miller" >akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) writes: >> This is exactly the complaint I've heard from my anti-RQ friends. > >If your anti-RQ friends don't like the fact that RQ doesn't have >character classes, then I guess they're anti-GURPS and anti-HERO and >anti-everything-else-that-isn't-D&D-or-Rolemaster, right? Do we really >want to tailor RQ to them at the cost of alienating people who like a >game with no character classes? Actually, said persons were fanatic Hero gamers. The problem isn't lack of classes, it is the fact that experience gain (checks) is directly tied to skill use; thus the more you use, the more you learn. Ray makes excellent points regarding this. They also thought Ducks were stupid. I think there is a kind of critical point, at which someone decides the game sucks; they then start harping about ducks, and how silly Glorantha is. They also had problems with the GM's style. >> If you only have >> five checks per game, then you are going to put them into areas >> important to your characters conception. > >Wrong. If I were a powergamer, and I am on occasion, then I would put >all my checks into survival skills. They affect the survivability of >my character. "Concept" skills are only useful if you can live to use >them. The only way that players will advance in Concept skills is if >you don't make Concept skills compete with Survival skills. The best >way I have ever seen of doing this is to make experience checks and >rolls freely available for using skills. This kind of arguement has been on the net for years, and I know you've read those threads. By your argument, the GURPS/Hero player would never spend points on a "non-survival" skill. Clearly, this is not the case. As you suggest, in your defense of the current system, guidlines to the GM can help solve this problem. Another method is assigned checks ("Everybody gets a climbing and swimming check; Grognard, you also get an Oratory check; everybody gets 4 more checks") > Except often I never get opportunities to earn checks. For example, > one character had Sword at 95%, and Greatsword at 55%. In order > to become a rune-lord, he would have to develop three weapon skills > to 90%. But why is he going to risk his life in combat using his > lesser weapon? >Because his god told him to. This character didn't lack opportunity to >develop his Greatsword skill, he was too cowardly to adventure with >his greatsword and without his broadsword. I have no sympathy for this >complaint. If you want to specialize in one weapon, don't choose a >cult that forces you to learn several. Come on, Loren... By this point, I was playing in games where a missed parry meant death; being a Humakti, that meant no ressurection. I didn't "specialize", that's just how the character evolved. Because I wasn't acting like a weapon caddy early in the character's career, I was screwed later on. Perhaps I should have gone on more easy Trollkin-killing expeditions, then Humakt would have "favored" him more? The entire idea that *anyone* would use a less effective weapon in combat is completely silly (not including strange codes of honor), yet RQ encourages this with the check system. Sorry for all the flaming, but your personal attack really bugged me. To be constructive, this is less of a problem in newer RQ versions. Also, reducting the extreme amount of weapon specialization produced by RQ rules would help. >No matter what the rules are, you'll have the same problems. Attack the >source, not the symptom, by advising the GM on how to handle common >problems. No argument here. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22321; Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:27:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20936; Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:26:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:26:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:26:32 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: There is "exponential", and there is "exponential"... Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:25:15 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F413171E5B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > It changes my argument little whether the number of n-point spells that > can be maintained by a sorcerer doubles at every 10% skill increment or > every 30%; you are still getting an exponential increase in power (spells > maintained) for a quadratic investment (training time for skills). Better > to make the amount of magic that can be maintained (say, in Intensity) > the primary variable rather than something with this exponential dependence > on skill > My basic counter to your argument, Paul, is that the exponential increase is not in power (intensity or spell casting ability) but in duration and range, which by no means are the most sensible measure of the power of a spell. Making my damage resistance last twice as long helps little if it still only stops weak dagger thrusts. It could be said that in a few small cases range is directly proportional to usefulness (communication and teleport spells frex) but targeting limitations tend to limit extreme range more than the range itself does. > Basically, it offends my sensibilities to have the Law of Increasing Returns. > The Law of diminishing returns is a rule of thumb, not a law. Quite often in real life it does not apply - but it usually applies where it really counts - and should apply for intensity, but not necessarily range. That said, Quadratic range and duration is not too bad an idea - it still sucks quite a bit (a 100% range guy still only gets a kilometer, a pretty small range for a teleport (considering sorcerous teleport is much more like Guided teleport (infinite range divine spell) than teleport)). But for duration it seems Ok - 100% duration gets you 1000 minutes, or about 17 hours. Not too bad. Certainly a better deal than 100% range getting you only an hour and a half. Maybe we could have range logarithmic and duration quadratic? Any reason why they should be the same. Cheers Dave > - Paul >  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24473; Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:53:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22228; Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:53:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:53:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:53:08 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sorcery Rules Reflecting Glorantha Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:52:07 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F484A4743D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul has definately identified the problem with Sorcery (regardless of what my last post said - well I still stand by exponential range, but not duration). T But I definately do not think that linear duration is an appropriate response. Some possible fixes for duration are - 1) ditch it all together and beef up maintain a little (say by allowing certain bound spirits to maintain spells - requiring a few permanent POW points each spell, and some vulnerability to magical attack, or by allowing something like the spirit vessel system). 2) change it to something not quite as useless as linear, but a bit less powerful than exponential, such as quadratic. With quadratic, master sorcerers cast spells that last around a day - so effectively they get extra spells for every bound pow spirit they use each day - which sounds reasonable, but not extreme. 3) Adopt the very simple fix proposed earlier of not allowing magic points to regenerate until spell duration ends. Has some problems, but is certainly the simplest solution. Has the added advantage that it fixes the possible grotesque extension abuses (which really bother me! Why don't big temples do this!). I am certainly making this a house rules for my campaign applied to divine magic only (no divine spell may be regained until after its spell duration finishes). Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28894; Fri, 25 Feb 94 01:20:52 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB03473; Fri, 25 Feb 94 02:20:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 2:20:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 2:20:18 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Various Comments... Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 23:20:13 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F8F8AE6B55@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brent Krupp here... ***Ray Turney says... >integral to the RQII/III experience system; the problem is not CheckQuest >but the difficulty in getting checks for skills that are normally used in >non-crisis situations; combined with legitmately gained checks for fighting. >It is hard to prevent an RQII-III scholar {Lankhor Mhy} from becoming a very >good fighter, almost as good as the Orlanthi, if both he and they get a >check in every fight. Each player will roll, each character will go up at >about the same rate, and eventually both will end up weaponmasters. ***end quote While the above is a real complaint, the actual problem is that the scholar character is playing in the wrong campaign or in the wrong manner. What is a Lhankor Mhy doing fighting as much as an Orlanthi? If he does fight that much, he *deserves* to be as good, but he should be using those scholarly skills to get checks and improve. If the adventure does not allow a Lhankor Mhy character to get skill checks in skills relevant to him, THEN WHY IS HE ON THE ADVENTURE? I understand that the complaint is a real one -- but the rules should not be changed because of campaign or referee failures. The rules ARE good at letting Lhankor Mhy-types train up their skills out-of-combat. Then leave the guy at home except when he is needed on an adventure to use those scholarly skills. Is it really a better solution to have a Lhankor Mhy go out on combat-heavy adventures and then funnel all the checks into scholarly skills that he may have used only incidentally? Perhaps I'm totally off-base, but it seemed that the idea of RQ:AiG was to *revise* and *improve* RQ and thereby one's ability to game Glorantha. Wholesale alteration of fundamental game mechanics seems to be beyond the scope of the new draft. One may dislike skill checks and prefer an experience-point-like system, but *my god*, skill checks are one of the fundamental aspects of what makes any RQ-like game an RQ-like game. To hand out checks by GM fiat and then use a "funny die roll mechanic to determine how many points the skill went up" is tantamount to simply handing out XP, ala Hero/GURPS/AD&D... At this late date (playtest copies expensively distributed to a select few and many of us not able to access them), perhaps rules that *are actually going to be changed* should be discussed. Is Oliver *really* going make such major changes now? And then playtest them and thereby delay the release or worse yet, not playtest these major changes at all? Something like the Sorcery Duration/Range debate is at least between the new rule which is being playtested, and the old rule (more-or-less) which has years of game experience behind it... Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06267; Fri, 25 Feb 94 04:26:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07537; Fri, 25 Feb 94 05:25:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:25:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:25:47 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 08:29:26 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FC10403273@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. Sorry to pick on Steve, too, but I fully side with Loren. > Actually, said persons were fanatic Hero gamers. The problem isn't > lack of classes, it is the fact that experience gain (checks) is > directly tied to skill use; thus the more you use, the more you > learn. Ray makes excellent points regarding this. Count this as a Storm Bull rage shout: I don't want to see any form of experience that allows to apply combat experience on poetry! i.e. *_NO_* experience points! And I (as GM) have better things to do than assign experience, e.g. tell the story and bring around NPCs and their motivations. Skill increase by stress experience or practice is the way to learn, as I experienced myself. If we limit the number of stress experience rolls, we might as well leave them out, and use practise rolls only. (Thanks, Chalana...) Stress experience is unlikely in some skills. So what? If the character regularly employs them in adventure, she'll gain practise. I have no problem with the speed characters increase some of their skills. If think these are too high, I'll confront them with other challenges, where their skills don't amount to much. You have a master archer? Let him participate in a biathlon contest, and he maybe still hits the target better, but what about his skiing? > They also thought Ducks were stupid. I think there is a kind of > critical point, at which someone decides the game sucks; they then > start harping about ducks, and how silly Glorantha is. They also > had problems with the GM's style. Ducks are hard to accept. So are some of the underlying concepts of Glorantha. IMO, this is a reason why RuneQuest ought to be usable for non-Glorantha purposes as well. In Free INT and the Dailies I try to do this by stressing similarities between Gloranthan and historical settings. If newcomers don't like Glorantha on first glance, give them (like me) the chance to slowly be introduced and intrigued by the background. > This kind of arguement has been on the net for years, and I know > you've read those threads. By your argument, the GURPS/Hero player > would never spend points on a "non-survival" skill. Clearly, this is > not the case. As you suggest, in your defense of the current system, > guidlines to the GM can help solve this problem. Another method is > assigned checks ("Everybody gets a climbing and swimming check; Grognard, > you also get an Oratory check; everybody gets 4 more checks") Face it: Some players won't tolerate any weakness of their character they can avoid. Some people don't in real life, either. They expect themselves to be all-round specialists, and given any experience system, will develop that way. Ever wondered why so many AD&D Fighter/Thief/Magic User elfs run around? Are these the people who complain that anyone can use magic? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29274; Fri, 25 Feb 94 01:30:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB03780; Fri, 25 Feb 94 02:29:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 2:30:06 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 2:29:43 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: checks; stigmata Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 23:29:34 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F920DA33C6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Given that Duration is a skill you have to _train_ (no experience checks), and the various other limitations on "manipulations," I have no qualms about giving high level sorcerers long spells. They have to be amazingly good to have powerful spells up for long. Ray Turney said >Yes, Brent Krupp, there are people who are willing to play in >Glorontha, but not willing to use RQ to do it I'm close to being one of them...I definitely prefer using Pendragon because it's simpler and faster. On your point (checks, though I've lost the thread), I've never seen an argument about checks in the PenDragon Pass games I've run. And in Pendragon, checks are only given out by the GM (I do let players check their weapons and haven't yet had the occasion to tell them not to). I suppose this requires a more confident (i.e. non-beginner) GM than RQ3's simple system, but it can't be any worse in that respect than the subjectivity of various RQ4 drafts (including AiG). And from my experience both ways, GM-awarded checks are easiest on the GM. Wayne Shaw said >I'm getting more than a bit tired of be stigmitized because >I don't think dumbing down the rules is the best idea since sliced bread. If I've stigmatized you (instead of merely opposing your position), I apologize.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06704; Fri, 25 Feb 94 04:39:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07775; Fri, 25 Feb 94 05:39:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:39:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:39:19 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; checks Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 08:35:28 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FC4A000988@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Steven again: > >Roderick Here > >>>Ray Turney suggested > >>>the following changes. Special tactics are a > >>>separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's > >>>skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that > >>>category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills > > I'd personally give it a -50, or perhaps each tactic could have it's > >own modifier (Flurry requires 2 better DEX and STR than the weapon, > These just shift the point at which the combatants have a 100% success > chance. (170% in Ray's method, 150% in yours). The advantage of using > specials and criticals to resolve high level combat is that it will be > highly unlikely anyone ever achieves 100% special chance (500%), and > less likely for 100% crit chance (2000%). Is this what we want, that high level combat depends on luck only? I'd rather see high hitters use oodles of special options, finely tuned to block the other's special tactics. Let the "normal" guys around stand and guffaw when heroes let their weapons speak, and don't make the outcome a matter of luck, but a matter of tactics (assumed skills are roughly equal). -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01727; Fri, 25 Feb 94 02:24:14 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05174; Fri, 25 Feb 94 03:24:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 3:24:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 3:23:57 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Wayne's World Date: 25 Feb 94 03:20:25 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FA0844116C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. David Dunham said: > Ray Turney said: >> Yes, Brent Krupp, there are people who are willing to play in >> Glorontha, but not willing to use RQ to do it ?^? > I'm close to being one of them...I definitely prefer using Pendragon > because it's simpler and faster. Seconded. Our regular Gloranthan game is now played with an evolving set of Pendragon/RuneQuest hybrid rules. They Work. Wayne Shaw said: > And frankly, if what we're trying to write these rules for is people > who want the speed of D&D, I'm definitely in the wrong place here. I want more speed than RQ currently allows. Start one significant combat, and you might as well scratch the rest of the evening's role-playing in favour of a dice-and-rules wargame-fest. When you only get an evening every month or so, that's wasteful. *That's* why I prefer the Pendragon rules. A muse... Is this a big difference between UK and US gamers? All the suggestions for much more complex rules, "reference sheets" to tell you which rules a given GM plays by and so on, seem (from here) to come from Over There. Maybe it's something to do with a gaming culture which includes competitive convention tournaments, etc. where knowing the rules saves lives. Here, I'm simply not bothered by the rules system or local variants a GM uses, and delighted to assist in experiments with new systems. The question then is not, "Is it RuneQuest?", but, "Does it do what we want it to for Glorantha?". Often, with RQ2 and RQ3 both, the answer is "No". RQ:AiG is a lot better; and, as I keep saying, you don't HAVE to use the bits you don't like. In this respect, Wayne's call for more detailed/ complex/time-consuming rules doesn't bother me: like Strike Ranks and RQ3 Fatigue, I can simply ignore those parts of the book. There are more important things I'd like to see in their place, but after a certain point, why worry? We can fit enough important background stuff into the rules to validate them. It's people who want Gloranthan elements of RuneQuest to be "toned down" so they can more easily pillage the walking corpse of Generic RuneQuest that really get my goat. (A lot of them liked RQ3 sorcery. Ever wonder why?). ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03039; Fri, 25 Feb 94 02:51:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05838; Fri, 25 Feb 94 03:51:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 3:51:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 3:50:58 EST From: Brian Jackson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 8:51:42 WET Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FA7BAB557B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Loren Miller writes: > Right. Just add a paragraph, highlighted to emphasize it, to the > experience section that says: > > Most of the time these experience rules work fine, but sometimes > players will abuse them by attempting to use every skill on their > sheets, or by switching weapons in the middle of a combat to get an > experience check in a second weapon. It is the GM's right and duty > to tell players that they do not get an experience check for a > skill if they use that skill in order to get an experience check. > > Add something similar to the POW check rules and anything else that > gets abused and you're ready to go. It's been a while since I read the RQ3 rules, but didn't that say something along the lines of 'an experience check should only be awarded if the GM feels the character learned by the experience'. Which I took to mean, don't give out checks for dumb moves like swapping weapons in mid combat. Or as I said to a player who tried it on me in the middle of a hectic battle 'you can have your exp. check if you reduce our INT by 1 for pulling such a dumb stunt'. Anyway, I agree with Loren. Something like this should be included for the befit of novice GMs. Brian Jackson.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03158; Fri, 25 Feb 94 02:58:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05941; Fri, 25 Feb 94 03:57:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 3:57:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 3:57:35 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Miscellaneous POW issues Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 00:57:03 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FA97E32D01@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson on miscellaneous POW issues: Those POW maximums and gain rolls. The way I percieve POW is that it`s someone`s share of the magical life of Glorantha. Humans only have so much capacity for acquiring POW although up to certain point they gain POW at a reasonable rate therefore allowing cults to be a reasonable concern. To exceed human maximums easier I recommend that characters first have to master a Rune, and thus give bond themselves closer into the mythological backbone of Glorantha. For mortals may fade and die but those that work towards Hero-Questing can retire as an immortal out beyond the sky, like Akarti. Rune Lords master the Mastery rune, Priests master the Magic rune and Shaman master the Spirit rune. To complete this pattern and prehaps give Sorcery the break it deserves, prehaps Adept sorcerers master the Law rune but not in a manner they would wish to make public or acknowledge any similarity with their barbarian peers. One someone masters, or gain an affinity with a Rune, then I think that Power accumilation should shift from mortal accumilation to another mechanism. After all these are the people who will be expect to sacrifice POW on a far more common basis than humans who have not yet forged their links with the Rune archetypes. Whatever the mechanism is mortals without Runic mastery should meet diminishing returns as refelected by the standard POW gain roll. If they sacrifice POW then they loose it seriously. Prehaps if someone sacrifices POW down to 8 they the new personal POW maximum should be 12, 8 * 1.5! That is untill they gain mastery with a Rune. This should stop people trying to lower their POW to make advantage of faster POW gain rolls. It is also not too draconian if you consider that there is no POW limit to achieve mastery with a Rune as there was in RQ2. I will attempt to playest this mechanism. I support Loren Miller`s suggestion about gaining POW through whorship. It further encourages people to be social and I feel that advancing personally through social actions is an excellent idea that I strongly associate with RuneQuest. I fact I believe that this is probably RuneQuest`s Big Concept, just as Vampire has modern day Goth vampires and Werewolf has eco-guerilla werewolves. Add to this the good old Gloranthan ambiguity where there even the most commonly acclaimed Evil, Chaos, is just trying to roll back Glorantha back to it`s natural and natal state of Chaos and you have a clasic game. Paul Reilly writes: >I think that damage, STR, SIZ, armor, etc. are all >non-linear and that the modelling breaks down when one tries to crudely >add together disparate things. The trouble is that low end, near-linear >things get mapped onto high-end things where nonlinearity is more obvious. >The most glaring example I can think of (after Axe Trance) is Gift POW, where >'cheap' human-range POW can be added onto 'expensive' transhuman ancestor >POW. Well the POW Gift I view not as a glaring case of non-linearity but of an example of someone, in this case the transhuman ancestor, making a profit in the POW economy and ecology. As far as Axe Trance goes if we ground everything down to clean, clear objective fairness then Glorantha would be a dull place. Some ideas and/or spells will have more power as they are more in harmony with the Runes, or archetypes, which are the corner stones of Gloranthan magic and, therefore, life. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05942; Fri, 25 Feb 94 04:10:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07223; Fri, 25 Feb 94 05:09:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:10:00 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:09:37 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Character and Design Sheets + added Sartarites Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 01:59:19 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FBCB4026F7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I now have David Dunhams character sheet and the one produced by a friend, Jez Hildred, who I may have refered to earlier as my source of RuneQuest publications. Jez based his partially on a sheet of A4 on which I wrote up a character sheet sufficent for character design. I must say that either sheet is a bit confusing for character generation. Let me provide some examples. Working from David's sheet there is no space for Magic level, which is only relevent during character generation, and there are lots of details that I believe RQ:AiG provides no mechanism for generating like birthdays and parents proffession. I think Jez's sheet is good basis for a design sheet and David`s for transcribing the finished character onto. The design sheet should take you through character generation as simply as possible. On such a sheet you include what dice are rolled and the calculations that are made from those dice in such a manner that the more aritmetically competent can work out the maths for themselves leaving the GM to aid the more challenged players. The next step is to indoctrinate the players and introduce them to the major life choices their characters will make. This includes explaining the skills and at this point skills should be available grouped both by alphabetical order and category. For this reason at some point show your players the final character sheet they will be using so they can benefit from the other prespective. I find the best order after generating attributes was having players examine professions and skills, choose a possession, think about a cult, make intial skill selection, choose the cult, finish off skill selections and then pick magic. Then it`s a matter of narrowing skills like Attack or Parry and then Possesions generally fall into place. Wealth 2 allows for the acquisition of a riding horse, armour and a weapon or two, for example. Im summary the purpose of Design sheet is seperate from the purpose of a Character sheet. A good design sheet speeds up design by having simple aspects available to the players so these can be generated in parallel. Introducing the Character sheet during design works wonders. There is more to be said on these issues but this will do for now. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10154; Fri, 25 Feb 94 05:54:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08890; Fri, 25 Feb 94 06:54:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 6:54:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 6:54:02 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 02:11:02 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FD88C541D8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Raymond D Turney writes: > It is hard to prevent an RQII-III scholar {Lankhor Mhy} from becoming a very > good fighter, almost as good as the Orlanthi, if both he and they get a > check in every fight. Each player will roll, each character will go up at > about the same rate, and eventually both will end up weaponmasters. > One could legitimately ask, "If they're both doing the same amount of fighting, why shouldn't they be approximately equally good fighters? Because of what appears on one's union card?" ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06723; Fri, 25 Feb 94 04:41:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07851; Fri, 25 Feb 94 05:40:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:40:57 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:40:49 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Miscellaneous POW issues Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:39:49 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FC506A7545@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > As far as Axe Trance goes if we ground everything down to clean, clear > objective fairness then Glorantha would be a dull place. Some ideas > and/or spells will have more power as they are more in harmony with > the Runes, or archetypes, which are the corner stones of Gloranthan > magic and, therefore, life. > Yes, of course, I am wrong. Play balance is a stupid out-moded concept that just makes the world boring. In fact, it has occurred to me that Humakt has at least a strong (at least) a relationship with swords as BG does with axes, and has no weapon skill enhancement Rune magic (except the regiment level Morale). Instead of taking Axe trance away from BG we should give Humakt Sword Trance!! Much better idea! I can't see any reason not to do so! After all, the great heroic image of the grim warrior chopping hundreds of numbies to bits with his sword is very compelling (just look at Conan). Of course, it will completely destroy play balance, but who cares, it makes Glorantha more interesting. And of course Humakt is very in harmony with the death rune, so it is only right that they should get to kill every body with ease - hell, why should Sever spirit have a POW vs POW - it is 'in harmony with the runes', people should just die whenever Humakti look at them funny. Sorry if anyone is offended by the sarcasm, but if you want a system that is not intended to have any game balance whatsoever either play Vampire or something or make up your own optional rules, don't try and tell us that the best games ignore game balance because it is boring. When I complained about Axe Trance the last thing I expected was hordes of people telling me that Babeestor Gor was supposed to be more dangerous than all the other fighting cults by a mile, and play balance was a stupid idea. I won't even talk about Gorakiki Beetle! > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07672; Fri, 25 Feb 94 04:48:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07934; Fri, 25 Feb 94 05:48:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:48:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 5:48:15 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Wayne's World Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:47:17 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FC70230731@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > It's people who want Gloranthan elements of RuneQuest to be "toned down" so > they can more easily pillage the walking corpse of Generic RuneQuest that > really get my goat. (A lot of them liked RQ3 sorcery. Ever wonder why?). > Ermm... Nick, I hate to interrupt your tirade (I know that I hate it when people interrupt mine) but some of us like generic RuneQuest because we thought that supplements like Vikings and Land of Ninja where the first signs of a game that was genuinely interested in real world myth, and a genuine exploration rather than a trite rehashing of crap fantasy cliches. There may not be many of us (and I am happy to stick with Glorantha on the basis of simple economics - it didn't sell well enough, despite quality) but liking the Generic RuneQuest does not mean that you suffer from munchkinitis. And for the record, I thought that RQ3 sorcery was deeply flawed - and that much of the rewriting has focused on the wrong problems. > ==== > Nick > ==== > Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10575; Fri, 25 Feb 94 06:14:29 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12642; Fri, 25 Feb 94 07:14:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 7:14:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 7:14:19 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Wayne's World Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:55:38 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FDDF5923CF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Nick: > Wayne Shaw said: >> And frankly, if what we're trying to write these rules for is people >> who want the speed of D&D, I'm definitely in the wrong place here. > I want more speed than RQ currently allows. Start one significant combat, > and you might as well scratch the rest of the evening's role-playing in > favour of a dice-and-rules wargame-fest. When you only get an evening every > month or so, that's wasteful. *That's* why I prefer the Pendragon rules. Nothing against more speed, but I hate to see characters die within three rounds of combat without having a chance to do something about it. Speaking as GM; the same goes for NPCs. > A muse... > Is this a big difference between UK and US gamers? All the suggestions for > much more complex rules, "reference sheets" to tell you which rules a given > GM plays by and so on, seem (from here) to come from Over There. Maybe it's > something to do with a gaming culture which includes competitive convention > tournaments, etc. where knowing the rules saves lives. Here, I'm simply not > bothered by the rules system or local variants a GM uses, and delighted to > assist in experiments with new systems. The question then is not, "Is it > RuneQuest?", but, "Does it do what we want it to for Glorantha?". Often, > with RQ2 and RQ3 both, the answer is "No". I think the main difference is the Glorantha tradition. UK seems to be the Whitewall of Glorantha, fallen in 1621, but freeing Orlanth a year later. From there the flame was carried to all Orlanthi to fight the encroaching evil Empire (T$R? ) and its minions like Vampire(s) . Without smiley: the oral tradition Guy mentioned seems to have existed only in Britain, and possibly not everywhere else. > RQ:AiG is a lot better; and, as I keep saying, you don't HAVE to use the > bits you don't like. In this respect, Wayne's call for more detailed/ > complex/time-consuming rules doesn't bother me: like Strike Ranks and RQ3 > Fatigue, I can simply ignore those parts of the book. There are more > important things I'd like to see in their place, but after a certain point, > why worry? We can fit enough important background stuff into the rules to > validate them. The background needs to be so fascinating all newcomers want to see all of it. A gripping prose within the text will do the trick. Bring back the life characters like Biturian, Paulis and most of all Griselda brought into RQ! (Had Griffin Mountain had such a story, I might elect it "best frp supplement ever", but lacking one, something is missing.) > It's people who want Gloranthan elements of RuneQuest to be "toned down" so > they can more easily pillage the walking corpse of Generic RuneQuest that ^^^^? > really get my goat. (A lot of them liked RQ3 sorcery. Ever wonder why?). This is a God Learner technique, and thus more Gloranthan than they realize... To me RuneQuest is my favourite system because of several reasons: - no experience points, no character classes, no artificial restrictions to roleplaying - the realism of the rules - the elegant system of meta-rules which allow consequent spot ruling - the rich background material and choices offered - the treatment of religions and cults (not covered nearly as well in any other system) Glorantha is definitely not the reason why I changed to RuneQuest. I like world-building and evolving new or own concepts too much to subjugate myself under a very complex set of rules only, I need some freedom. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10582; Fri, 25 Feb 94 06:14:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12647; Fri, 25 Feb 94 07:14:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 7:14:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 7:14:40 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Mastering a Rune, Stats and linearity Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:37:06 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3FDE0DD7AA2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg replying to > Guy Robinson on miscellaneous POW issues: > The way I percieve POW is that it`s someone`s share of the magical > life of Glorantha. Humans only have so much capacity for acquiring > POW although up to certain point they gain POW at a reasonable > rate therefore allowing cults to be a reasonable concern. One of the best definitions I've read so far. > To exceed human maximums easier I recommend that characters first > have to master a Rune, and thus give bond themselves closer into > the mythological backbone of Glorantha. For mortals may fade and > die but those that work towards Hero-Questing can retire as an > immortal out beyond the sky, like Akarti. > Rune Lords master the Mastery rune, Priests master the Magic rune > and Shaman master the Spirit rune. To complete this pattern and > prehaps give Sorcery the break it deserves, prehaps Adept sorcerers > master the Law rune but not in a manner they would wish to make > public or acknowledge any similarity with their barbarian peers. I have to ask you again where you get this mastering a Rune stuff from. The only source I have seen for this are Steve Maurer's Heroquest rules, which don't seem to be universally accepted. I couldn't find this in RQ2, although looking real hard. What is the mechanic for mastering a Rune? Is a Rune a skill (if so, which category), or a characteristic? Do you increase it by experience, by training, or how? > One someone masters, or gain an affinity with a Rune, then I think > that Power accumilation should shift from mortal accumilation to > another mechanism. After all these are the people who will be > expect to sacrifice POW on a far more common basis than humans > who have not yet forged their links with the Rune archetypes. That's back to RQ2 priest POW gain. Not a bad thing per se, but with the non-theistic cultures present on Glorantha, and the apparent superiority of the Western culture over theist culture in the West of Genertela (the Theyalans in Fronela, Ralios and western Maniria and Peloria accepted Western overlords, and a lot of the most ambitious converted to their creed) tells us that the theists are not superior to their way of life, at least not everywhere on Glorantha. You didn't say which Rune a sorcerer would have to master, but I guess you'd assign Law. > Whatever the mechanism is mortals without Runic mastery should > meet diminishing returns as refelected by the standard POW > gain roll. If they sacrifice POW then they loose it seriously. Without any rules for Runic mastery, this proposal is Void. > Prehaps if someone sacrifices POW down to 8 they the new > personal POW maximum should be 12, 8 * 1.5! That is untill > they gain mastery with a Rune. This should stop people > trying to lower their POW to make advantage of faster > POW gain rolls. Are you saying that any chance for POW gain ought to be calculated from current POW times 1.5 or previous max POW, what ever is lower, with beginning max POW either 21 or POW times 1.5, whichever is lower? > It is also not too draconian if you consider that there > is no POW limit to achieve mastery with a Rune as there > was in RQ2. I will attempt to playest this mechanism. Huh? Do I gain mastery of a Rune by becoming priest, or do I become priest by astering a Rune? > I support Loren Miller`s suggestion about gaining POW through > whorship. It further encourages people to be social and I > feel that advancing personally through social actions is an > excellent idea that I strongly associate with RuneQuest. > I fact I believe that this is probably RuneQuest`s Big Concept, > just as Vampire has modern day Goth vampires and Werewolf has > eco-guerilla werewolves. Add to this the good old Gloranthan > ambiguity where there even the most commonly acclaimed Evil, > Chaos, is just trying to roll back Glorantha back to it`s > natural and natal state of Chaos and you have a clasic game. We only need to get this across to a newcomer, e.g. your fifteen year old son. > Paul Reilly writes: >>I think that damage, STR, SIZ, armor, etc. are all >>non-linear and that the modelling breaks down when one tries to crudely >>add together disparate things. [...] >>The most glaring example I can think of (after Axe Trance) is Gift POW, where >>'cheap' human-range POW can be added onto 'expensive' transhuman ancestor >>POW. > Well the POW Gift I view not as a glaring case of non-linearity but of > an example of someone, in this case the transhuman ancestor, making a > profit in the POW economy and ecology. I side with Guy: To an ancestor spirit, even a tiny bit of fresh life is much more valuable than any large amount of Otherworld POW. This is not a simple addition, even if I accept the concept of a logarithmic scale for stats. Right now the stats seem to be linear within a certain class on a logarithmic scale, if we visit the SIZ table. That the SIZ table is broken, shows my example. The Stormbringer 3rd Edition SIZ table worked better. I'm willing to sacrifice the Hit Point and damage advantages high SIZ brings for skinny types (e.g. reduce effective SIZ by 2), but the reach and stride advantages is there, and very real. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18619; Fri, 25 Feb 94 08:50:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19206; Fri, 25 Feb 94 09:46:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 9:47:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 9:46:32 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Mastering a Rune, Stats and linearity Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 06:45:57 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40068E278A8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson seeking to explain the issues Joerg eruditely exposed: Note that I am attempting to provide clarification to my previous mail note entitled Miscellaneous POW issues. >I have to ask you again where you get this mastering a Rune stuff from. >The only source I have seen for this are Steve Maurer's Heroquest >rules, which don't seem to be universally accepted. I couldn't find >this in RQ2, although looking real hard. >What is the mechanic for mastering a Rune? Is a Rune a skill (if so, >which category), or a characteristic? Do you increase it by experience, >by training, or how? My source is RQ2, as people might expect from me. My interpretation is that you master a Rune through a rite of passage. RQ2 is pretty vague about Runes but it does state the Runes that Rune Lords, Priests and Shamans have mastered or have an affinity to (both terms are used) near the Runes description. Further more it states how a you become assume each of the those roles, which in the case of Cult positions involves qualifying for a role and being sponsored whole-hearted by the Cult heirachy and therefore the God by poxy. For a shaman you disembody and fight the spirit that will become your fetch? (RQ2 is not to hand) Putting this together the rite of passage into such a role gains you mastery or an affinity with the related Rune. As most people on this list have displayed a core knowledge of Anthropology I will not shirk from using this term. Hopefully this explains my concept of, and a mechanic for, aquiring an affinity for a Rune. >> Prehaps if someone sacrifices POW down to 8 they the new >> personal POW maximum should be 12, 8 * 1.5! That is untill >> they gain mastery with a Rune. This should stop people >> trying to lower their POW to make advantage of faster >> POW gain rolls. >Are you saying that any chance for POW gain ought to be calculated from >current POW times 1.5 or previous max POW, what ever is lower, with >beginning max POW either 21 or POW times 1.5, whichever is lower? Beginning max POW either 21 or original POW times 1.5, whichever is lower. If you scarifice POW below original POW then your POW max drops to a possibly lower POW * 1.5. I would suggest that gaining in POW above your max POW without Runic mastery is possible but should be at a slower pace. This is an example, a straw person, feel free to criticize. >> One someone masters, or gain an affinity with a Rune, then I think >> that Power accumilation should shift from mortal accumilation to >> another mechanism. After all these are the people who will be >> expect to sacrifice POW on a far more common basis than humans >> who have not yet forged their links with the Rune archetypes. >That's back to RQ2 priest POW gain. Not a bad thing per se, but with >the non-theistic cultures present on Glorantha, and the apparent >superiority of the Western culture over theist culture in the West of >Genertela (the Theyalans in Fronela, Ralios and western Maniria and >Peloria accepted Western overlords, and a lot of the most ambitious >converted to their creed) tells us that the theists are not superior to >their way of life, at least not everywhere on Glorantha. I would say that mastering a Rune buys you the advantage of something like RQ2 Priest POW gain but note that I am carefull to suggest that Rune Lords, Shamans and Sorcerers can use this advantage too. Temper this Loren Miller's expressing the mechanic of POW gain through whorship in a social context and you something amounting to a workable, conceptual system. >You didn't say which Rune a sorcerer would have to master, but I guess >you'd assign Law. Correct. Law is the Rune owned by the Invisible God and is the prime candidate in my books. In fact I would guess that followers of the Invisible God would believe that no other Runes are significant. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19241; Fri, 25 Feb 94 08:57:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20079; Fri, 25 Feb 94 09:57:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 9:57:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 9:57:17 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: crudely adding disparate things Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 08:50:55 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40096B11956@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton responding to Paul Reilly's note about logarithmic stats: Gift POW is fairly horrid (adding human-scale POW to an ancestor's much higher POW) but the worst example is the shaman who not only plays the same game giving his fetch points of POW, but when defend- ing in spirit combat adds his fetch's POW to his own.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21417; Fri, 25 Feb 94 09:23:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22217; Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:22:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:23:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:22:37 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Miscellaneous POW issues Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:19:55 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40102DB2421@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> DC regretting all the commotion about this: David Cake says: # When I complained about Axe Trance the last thing I expected was # hordes of people telling me that Babeestor Gor was supposed to be more # dangerous than all the other fighting cults by a mile, and play balance was # a stupid idea. To summarize my views: This is not a _play_ balance issue, it is a _cultural_ balance issue. 1) My best guess is that there are not more than 200 Babeester Gor worshippers in all of Dragon Pass. Probably not more than 100 if you discount the Tarsh Exile lands. 2) Babeester Gor worshippers make terrible sacrifices in order to get the power they have. This has not been made explicitly clear only because BG has never enjoyed a complete cult write-up, as far as I can remember. My interpretation is that the "ritual scarring" referred to previously only _begins_ with the face. It is obvious (to me at least) that a BG worshipper savages her reproductive organs as part of her initiation. This act symbolizes a refutation of the strength of the 'feminine' way: "Society says we should act like women. We did, and look what happened. Well, if femininity doesn't work, let's show society what _other_ strengths a woman can draw upon to see that justice is done..." Resultingly, BGs, to a degree far greater than Storm Bulls or Humakti, distance themselves from society. * They're not women any more; they're not even people. They sacrifice themselves up to become monsters. * Now, who wants to associate with a monster? Certainly not most average folk. The Earth priestesses (Ernalda, most prominently) shelter and support the handful of BGs, but only because it is part of their role. As women who embody fertility, they mourn the pain of their protectors/avengers more than anyone else. (Well, I'm sure the parents of the BG savage would feel pretty bad too. "Where did we go wrong?...") Babeester Gor is not just a religion, it is an entire way of life. There is no 'normal' life for these women, cursed with the rage. 3) Arguments like "Well, what if some Issaries guy does Spelltrading to get Axe Trance . . ?" just smack of power-gaming-munchkinism. See my Rune Power material for possible confounds. Worshipper: "Hey, Babeester Gor. I want my use of Axe Trance back." BG: "Well daughter, how did you use the last one to rend the defilers of the sacred earth?" Worshipper: "Well, I didn't really, this time. I traded it to some Goldentongue for this neat Sunlight spell..." BG: "You dare 'barter' with the divine fury I have helped you discover???!!!???!!!..." Get the picture? I will cross list this to the Daily. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28389; Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:32:17 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27554; Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:31:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:32:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:31:48 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments... Date: 25 Feb 1994 11:31:19 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4022A1D76AD@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brent Krupp writes: > While the above is a real complaint, the actual problem is that the > scholar character is playing in the wrong campaign or in the wrong manner. > What is a Lhankor Mhy doing fighting as much as an Orlanthi? I agree, and further I would ask if Ray or anybody else has actually seen a campaign (run by a semi-competent GM or better) in which a Lhankor Mhy scholar (or even an Issaries trader) was as tough in a fight as equally experienced Humakti, Orlanthi Warriors, or Storm Bulls. I don't even care that the Lhankor Mhy has mastered his "weapon," since it's probably a staff or some other peasant weapon. If he bashes feral broos over the head to survive while the Humakti goes after the broo shaman then bully for him. While the Lhankor Mhy "masters" his "weapon," the combat specialist character will have mastered a primary attach/parry combo that does more damage and has better AP, a backup weapon, will have combat enhancing magic, will be able to maneuver, and will have ranged and melee weapons. I have always run campaigns with an emphasis on enemy-bashing, and never noticed that scholarly characters (always had several, despite the combat) outstripped or even equalled the combat-specialists in their combat ability. True, they were tough compared to more sedentary scholars, but they weren't even in the same league as the warriors, and their ability to develop survival skills let them go on the same adventures. Raymond D Turney writes: | Furthermore, this is | integral to the RQII/III experience system; the problem is not CheckQuest | but the difficulty in getting checks for skills that are normally used in | non-crisis situations; combined with legitmately gained checks for fighting. Now this is another problem. There would certainly be problems with an experience system that only grants checks when in combat. I have liberalized experience for several reasons, and have come to grant checks every time a character *uses* a skill in a non-trivial way. Here is why: 1. I wanted to make the game run faster, and so I don't make the characters roll dice unless it's a chancy situation. Every time I call for players to roll the dice it slows down the game. Instead, I use the character's skill as an indicator of whether or not they can complete the task, but don't make them roll. But if it was a non-trivial use of the skill then it deserves a mark. It was a short leap from here to rule that any non-trivial use of a skill, whether it's an auto-success, success, failure, or auto-failure, earns a check. 2. We've played GURPS and Hero and Torg and a few other games for a while, and became used to the rate of advancement in those games, which is much greater than D&D, and commensurately even faster than RQ's. For instance, in a Hero game we would collect from 5-10 points per adventure (3-5 sessions), and with 1 point you could start a new skill at about 25% in RQ terms. Every point over that (until you have passed 90% success rate around 15) would increase a skill by about 10%. Compare that with RQ, where beginning skills are around 5%, and the average increase from experience is less than 4%, assuming you make your experience roll. The GURPS system is similar, and the starting percentages are even higher. With these systems it's possible to reach 100% rates of success in a skill in two or three adventures. Torg is even more so, being one of the most cinematically scaled games in the world. The point is that these games have generous and predictable experience rules, and this makes it easy to develop concept skills in parallel with survival skills. RQ2 experience rules are less generous, RQ3 even stingier, all RQ experience rules have unpredictable effects, and with the RQ4 changes experience has become absolutely miserly. | Also, the advocates of RQII/III experience are singing the virtues | of freedom from GM fiat. I'm not sure where you get this idea. I heard such complaints about the (inconsistent) POW check rules, and about the current easy/med/hard computation that GMs have to do, but I don't think you like those systems either. But I think that GM fiat is a good thing. See the bottom of this message for my latest insight on it. | If we bring in anti-CheckQuest discretion, | allowing a GM to decide what is and is not a legitimate use of a skill, we | scrag the one real virtue of RQII/III experience and might as well go to | experience points anyway. The GM has to decide which skills are used legitimately already. "Can I use oratory on the stones, to convince them to stop cutting our bare feet?" "Can I scan the scarred man to look for suspicious bulges in his pockets?" "Can I try to pick the lock for the 15th time?" The GM gets a feel for which skill uses are in the spirit of the game and roleplaying, and which are dice rolling for its own sake. The latter should not get checks. It's the work of a second for the GM to tell a player "check that skill" or "don't check that skill". I speak from experience. | At least EP only require that experience | arguments take place only once per game, whereas arguing over checks can | take place in the middle of fighting {further slowing combat} under your | proposal. Any game slowdown is a game slowdown, and sometimes the arguments are right. So I would prefer to keep those disputes within the game, when we remember what happened because it is fresh in our memories. akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) | They also | had problems with the GM's style. This can ruin any game. I must say that I didn't much enjoy the Mark Wallace penned game I played at RQ-Con, mostly because of the GMs' style, but also because of the heavy-handed moral "lessons" in the story. And the game was RuneQuest, which I like a LOT most of the time. | >> If you only have | >> five checks per game, then you are going to put them into areas | >> important to your characters conception. | > | >Wrong. If I were a powergamer, and I am on occasion, then I would put | >all my checks into survival skills. | | By your argument, the GURPS/Hero player | would never spend points on a "non-survival" skill. Clearly, this is | not the case. As I showed above, the GURPS and Hero experience systems are much more generous than RQ's. If a GURPS or Hero character was almost killed in every adventure as a consequence of an intrinsically deadly combat system (one of RQ's features which neither GURPS nor Hero shares) and at the end of a 3-5 session adventure only had a shot at increasing 2-3 skills (5 rolls, average of 2 or 3 successes) by 3-4%, then the player of that character *would* always spend points on survival skills at the cost of concept skills. One more thing, if anybody is still with me. As I was speaking to my insurance agent last night (a horrible task, and I recommend to everyone that you don't get automobile insurance in pennsylvania if you can avoid it) a phrase kept popping into my mind... "TOOL OF THE SYSTEM. She's just a TOOL OF THE SYSTEM. She has to try to scare me into paying more money. She's a TOOL OF THE SYSTEM." Suddenly a light dawned on me. IMPORTANT NOTICE TO RUNEQUEST GAME-MASTERS YOU ARE NOT A TOOL OF THE SYSTEM! RuneQuest is not a bureaucratic game system that requires you to follow every procedure like a will-less drone. The RuneQuest game-system is your tool, intended to help you and your players to do what you want in a way consistent with the fictional reality of the game world. If at any time the system makes it hard to do this, or makes it hard to have fun, then it is your right and privilege to ignore it and do the fun and right thing. Only the GM can throw the system aside like this, and that is the source of the GM's power and responsibility. Use your power wisely, and remember that you are not the tool. The system is YOUR tool. If people take this to heart then they realize that they have the power to make the game whatever they want it to be, and if this is clear to the players as well as the GM, then they can avoid a lot of the destructive browbeating and arguing that mars a lot of games. 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 (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05277; Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:31:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02273; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:31:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:31:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:31:04 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; checks Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 08:59 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40326FA03A0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Roderick joining in: >Joerg to Steven again: >> >Roderick Here >> >>>Ray Turney suggested >> >>>the following changes. Special tactics are a >> >>>separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's >> >>>skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that >> >>>category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills >> > I'd personally give it a -50, or perhaps each tactic could have it's >> >own modifier (Flurry requires 2 better DEX and STR than the weapon, >> These just shift the point at which the combatants have a 100% success >> chance. (170% in Ray's method, 150% in yours). The advantage of using >> specials and criticals to resolve high level combat is that it will be >> highly unlikely anyone ever achieves 100% special chance (500%), and >> less likely for 100% crit chance (2000%). >Is this what we want, that high level combat depends on luck only? >I'd rather see high hitters use oodles of special options, finely tuned >to block the other's special tactics. Let the "normal" guys around stand >and guffaw when heroes let their weapons speak, and don't make the outcome >a matter of luck, but a matter of tactics (assumed skills are roughly >equal). The reason I dropped the modifier for special actions was to allow those in the 80%+ level have a good chance of using them. Sure, they only have a 30%+ chance of hitting at that level, but they are now on the path of Herodom, and this starts them out at "low" level. The special action should be a definite advantage over a normal attack. Ray's -70% just raises the point at which a character will start to use them. I'd just like to see them come into play sooner. I'm trying to make high-level combat *NOT* dependant on 'mere luck' (Crits and Spercials). Heros should win by their wits when their skill is countered by their opponents, not Luck. After a certain point, heros should gain Heroquest style abilities ('Surfing' on a Javelin, Killing with a look, whatever). Special tactics are a very minor form of these. Okay, just to throw oil on the fire: How do you feel about multiple special actions in combat? Flurry-Feint (-100%, Multiple attacks against lowered defense...) Roderick  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03185; Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:13:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00943; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:12:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:13:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:12:44 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: There is "exponential", and there is "exponential"... Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:12:33 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <402D8CB75F9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul replying to Dave: Once the duration of a spell exceeds the recovery time of whatever is spent to cast the spell, be it MPs or POW, the number of spells you can have up at once (of a given intensity) goes up linearly with duration. Thus if duration grows exponentially with skill (or Free INT) then the number of spells of a given intensity that you can maintain also grow exponentially with skill (or Free Int). If I am designing a Seshnelan lord's castle, with resident Wizard, what I want to know is how much magic he can maintain on a regular basis, plus his capability in battle. I'd rather have these as the main variables, out where I can see them, than hidden under Duration and MP recovery rate (ort # POW gain rolls per year). If I play the Wizard for a group of PC's I want to know the same things: how much magic can I keep up for the group at once on a regular basis (if any) and what are my short-term \spellcasting abilities. More later, paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13705; Sat, 26 Feb 94 05:24:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19190; Sat, 26 Feb 94 06:24:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 6:24:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 6:23:53 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Mastering a Rune, Stats and linearity Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 18:38:16 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41508DF51B0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg in reply to Guy: [Me:] >>I have to ask you again where you get this mastering a Rune stuff from. >>The only source I have seen for this are Steve Maurer's Heroquest >>rules, which don't seem to be universally accepted. I couldn't find >>this in RQ2, although looking real hard. >>What is the mechanic for mastering a Rune? Is a Rune a skill (if so, >>which category), or a characteristic? Do you increase it by experience, >>by training, or how? > My source is RQ2, as people might expect from me. > My interpretation is that you master a Rune through a rite of passage. This is very nice, but a rite of passage can occur outside of a religion. In Hrestoli society, to become a knight you have to master similar skills as a Wind Lord. Hrestoli Knights ought to be the equivalent to a Rune Lord, don't you think? Now we have Rokari society where your caste is hereditary, and anyone from the knight caste who becomes an adult (rite of passage) is promoted to knighthood. So ordinary Rokari knights do qualify? I give these examples to show that rite of passage is not sufficient IMO. > RQ2 is pretty vague about Runes but it does state the Runes that > Rune Lords, Priests and Shamans have mastered or have an affinity > to (both terms are used) near the Runes description. So vague that I couldn't find it searching about 2 hours for it. Unless pointed to the page and paragraph, I'd say RQ2 doesn't say so. > Further more it states how a you become assume each of the those > roles, which in the case of Cult positions involves qualifying for > a role and being sponsored whole-hearted by the Cult heirachy and > therefore the God by poxy. For a shaman you disembody and fight > the spirit that will become your fetch? (RQ2 is not to hand) A Shaman fights off the Bad Man. A knight holds vigil and possibly accepts a quest, read Pendragon for details. A Wind Lord has to prove mastery of a couple of cult skills before examiners, but this is hardly better than a journeyman proving his skill before a guild. Does this make master crafters the equivalent of a Rune Lord or priest? Do secret societies (like the Bullocks) parallel cults? > Putting this together the rite of passage into such a role gains > you mastery or an affinity with the related Rune. As most people > on this list have displayed a core knowledge of Anthropology I > will not shirk from using this term. I just fail to see the conection between the Runes and the rites. > Hopefully this explains my concept of, and a mechanic for, > aquiring an affinity for a Rune. >>Are you saying that any chance for POW gain ought to be calculated from >>current POW times 1.5 or previous max POW, what ever is lower, with >>beginning max POW either 21 or POW times 1.5, whichever is lower? > Beginning max POW either 21 or original POW times 1.5, whichever is > lower. If you scarifice POW below original POW then your POW > max drops to a possibly lower POW * 1.5. I would suggest that gaining > in POW above your max POW without Runic mastery is possible but should > be at a slower pace. > This is an example, a straw person, feel free to criticize. You bet. Lets assume a Khan of Waha, original POW 13, who managed to raise his personal max POW to 22, but due to aquiring for several divine spells now is at POW 18, sacrifices for one use of Call Founder, cost 6 POW. This would bring him down to POW 12. Does this lower his POW max to 18? POW 18 is very reasonable for a leader, and sacrificing for either a powerful divine spell or a good enchantment can easily cost 5 to 6 POW. I think any character who had a career similar to my example, be she Rune level or simply very powerful, doesn't deserve this punishment. Drop this mechanic, if you considered it. > I would say that mastering a Rune buys you the advantage of something > like RQ2 Priest POW gain but note that I am carefull to suggest that > Rune Lords, Shamans and Sorcerers can use this advantage too. What about knights, or people who mastered a Rune outside of known cults (e.g. Sartar and Dormal)? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA06215; Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:42:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03204; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:41:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:42:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:41:39 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Various Comments... Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:41:26 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40354234081@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney here - Brent, I made this observation in a context where everyone was discussing the Experience system solely in the context of CheckQuest, and claiming that it was clearly possible to live with the RQII-III like system. I wished to point out that there were other aspects of the problem not then being considered, and viewpoints which were not represented in this discussion. I value my friend's judgement in these matters, and frankly I agree with her. As a co-author of the RQII experience system, I can state that had I known then what I know now, the RQII system would never have been published. I would have pressed for a Warhammer like five checks at the end of each weekly session, two of them experience and three of them practice or training as appropriate. Furthermore, fifteen years have gone by and no game not published by Chaosium has stolen the check system. This in an industry where worthwhile ideas are often adapted to other systems the very next year. Maybe the other designers are trying to tell us something? Checks and the RQ experience system are not entirely worthless. They are a convenient way of encouraging characters to have a number of mediocre skills, even if they are quite high level. They are also a convenient way to implement the law of diminishing returns that is more intuitive than increasing the number of experience points needed to go up a level. On the other hand, we're having a lot of trouble cleanly modeling all essential aspects of combat in an easy to understand and use manner, and human learning makes combat look simple. It is worth considering a lot of arbitrariness in the experience system, even if it reminds people of EP. In conclusion, it is reasonable to look at fifteen years of experience and conclude that the RQII experience system was less than a stunning success. You may not favor the idea of revising the RQII experience check system, but a case can be made for it. Indeed, I am advocating it precisely because it will improve the playability of Glorontha.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08149; Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:56:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04460; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:56:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:56:34 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:56:20 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; checks Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:56:05 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40392D67A40@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I would like to point out on the subject of combat tactics that if we can move the break point to decision by pure luck from 100% to 150% by messing with the special combat tactics rules we are ahead of the game. A lot of people reach 100% and feel cheated that their scarce checks net only a small increase in special and less than 1% per two checks critical. Combine that with how hard it is to go up and a lot of people will get very annoyed with the rules. Many fewer reach 150% to feel similarly annoyed. After all, I ran Juliette for ten real years and she only got to 150 as a heroic ability in Steve's game. In short, Steve, your argument while valid against using this as the only difference between say Juliette and Rolf, is not valid as an argument that making my proposed change {either Joerg's or mine} would not improve the rules.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12741; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:32:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07017; Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:32:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:32:50 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:32:27 EST From: Neil Robinson To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments... Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 10:32:16 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4042CFD1571@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Neil Robinson here: Loren is talking about a Lhankor Mhy 'warrior' >I agree, and further I would ask if Ray or anybody else has actually >seen a campaign (run by a semi-competent GM or better) in which a >Lhankor Mhy scholar (or even an Issaries trader) was as tough in a >fight as equally experienced Humakti, Orlanthi Warriors, or Storm >Bulls. I have. My Lhankor Mhy scholar could easily match the Orlanthi warrior in our party blow for blow. Sure he doesn't have as good spells (BS 2 versus BS 4), but his great INT made him learn faster than anyone else. That was a high combat game though, and I was gearing him to be an Indiana Jones character (with less luck with women). Loren then moves to experience checks: I hand out experience checks for my novice game, and we (the players) make them ourselves with our long-running group. The amount of checks we make, and the frequency we get them is based upon the style of game we are playing. Both systems seem to work for me, but you need to tell new GMs what to expect with each system. Loren comments about GM style: ------------------------------ >This can ruin any game. I must say that I didn't much enjoy the Mark >Wallace penned game I played at RQ-Con, mostly because of the GMs' >style, but also because of the heavy-handed moral "lessons" in the >story. And the game was RuneQuest, which I like a LOT most of the >time. I liked the Mark Wallace game I was in (Blood of the Earth), but heard similar complaints from people playing his other game. But then again, I have had to leave role-playing games because I just didn't agree with the style. And lastly.. ------------ > IMPORTANT NOTICE TO RUNEQUEST GAME-MASTERS >If people take this to heart then they realize that they have the >power to make the game whatever they want it to be, and if this is >clear to the players as well as the GM, then they can avoid a lot of >the destructive browbeating and arguing that mars a lot of games. Amen! Neil  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.22/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA22864; Thu, 24 Feb 94 20:35:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21389; Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:35:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:35:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Thu, 24 Feb 94 21:35:08 EST From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sorcery Rules Reflecting Glorantha Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:33:54 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <3F437C1022B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Graeme here. > Nick here. > > Paul has identified the real problem with exponential Duration: > > > The _important_ variable for a Wizard is the amount of magic he can > > have running at once. Exponential duration doubles this with each > > doubling of duration. Horrible. No matter how dinky sorcerers start > > out, they eventually become gross. > > Agreed. Hurting small sorcerers is wasted if their big brothers can beat > the crap out of anyone, and supply constant heavy-duty spells to all their > friends and customers. > But from what I've heard of the RQ:AiG system, the solution is to make starting sorcerers dinky, and long term sorcerers dinky as well. > I think I identified a possible easy (i.e: not many rules changes needed) > solution a while ago: keeping track of all those "1 POW" sacrifices now > required by the RQ:AiG anti-sorcerer rules and using their total as a limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Strong words! Someone (I think it was Loren Miller) once wrote that the RQ4 Draft 1.0 sorcery rules "Cut off sorcerer's arms when they were born". In RQ3, becoming a sorcerer was harder than any other type of magician (I include the Lunar magician: in the central Empire, I doubt getting Illuminated is very hard). The advantage was that after you'd put in the time and effort of building up your skills, to the exclusion of most other skills, so that the sorcerer was the most specialized of characters, you'd be able to cast long range, long duration spells. This advantage has now been removed unless you'd like to destroy your soul as well, but all the disadvantages, the _very many_ skills you need to learn to get any sort of flexibility, have been retained. The end aim appears to be to stop anyone from wanting to play sorcerers. > BTW, accepting and modelling the accusation that Sorcery destroys the soul > in the rules should only be allowed if we include mechanics showing Divine > magic as leaving priests slaves of powerful inhuman entities, and Shamanic > fetch-building as a wasteful form of fantastical self-indulgence. It > doesn't belong in the "neutral" rulebook. I don't *like* sorcery, but that > doesn't mean I believe the crap Storm Voices and Kolatings tell you about > it. Agreed: if we want the Sorcery rules to reflect what the sorcery using Gloranthans think, it should be dangerous for non-specialists to use sorcery above 1 or 2 point spells. That's what the Malkionists think, and that's why they have a professional Wizard caste. The Mostali tend to have castes each of which are very well trained in their correct spells, so I don't think that they are an argument against the idea. We know little about how the Kralorelans and Easterners use sorcery (and I agree that should be a Kralorelan mystic style of magic instead). > ==== > Nick > ==== Graeme Lindsell a.k.a graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13669; Fri, 25 Feb 94 12:43:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07879; Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:43:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:43:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:43:22 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: TOOL OF THE SYSTEM Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:39:43 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4045B811EC8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> ... I think this makes an excellent slogan for a T-shirt. -DC  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18267; Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:12:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09881; Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:11:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:11:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:11:07 EST From: Mark S. c/o Tom Yates To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: RE: Various Comments... Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:12:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <404D1E619B8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Why can't R:AG include both the trusty RQII/RQIII skill check experience system AS WELL AS the arbitrary "GM hands out experience points" method? The current draft does have two ways to judge experience. I just wish that the Skill Checks method was more like the RQIII rule, with only those modifications required to handle the new easy/medium/hard distinction. Mark Sabalauskas  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21099; Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:33:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11608; Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:32:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:33:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:32:34 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: combat; speed; runes; checks; etc. Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:32:29 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4052D764BF9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. A couple people commented on Ray's Lhankor Mhy vs Orlanth. Why does the Lhankor Mhy fight so much? Two reasons. One is the "party balance" thing. Most games I've played in end up looking like a Lightbringer's Quest (with Humakti thrown in for Flesh Man and Ginna Jar). That's if they aren't a cross-cultural mish-mash. This is probably inappropriate, but it's hard to tell a player, don't play the character that interests you. Even if they're only playing the character to round out the party. The second reason is that combat takes so damn long. If the Lhankor Mhy stayed out of battle, his player would have nothing to do all night. Not much fun. So Ray, don't bother messing around with experience, figure out how to make the game play faster. It'll benefit all of us. Joerg said: >Nothing against more speed, but I hate to see characters die within three >rounds of combat without having a chance to do something about it. Right, we'd best get rid of specials and criticals. Seriously, this is just as much a problem in RQ as in Pendragon, but in RQ those 3 rounds can take much longer. I'm sure none of us want to go back to pure attrition combat like D&D. >the oral tradition Guy mentioned seems to have existed only >in Britain, and possibly not everywhere else. Generalizing wildly, it could only have existed in Britain because Britain's small enough that everyone's close enough to carry on the oral tradition. In the US, I've found different RQ styles in different parts of the country. >Glorantha is definitely not the reason why I changed to RuneQuest. Same here, but I was profoundly influenced by it in my own world design. Having an example world in RQ2 probably made it easier than if I'd started with RQ3. >I have to ask you again where you get this mastering a Rune stuff from. It was mentioned (but not at all described) in RQ2. Lords were said to have mastered the Mastery Rune, priests the Magic Rune, and I suppose shamans the Spirit Rune. There was no mention of mastering other sorts of runes (I think it was implied that heroes mastered the Infinity Rune). Newton said >the worst example is the shaman who not only >plays the same game giving his fetch points of POW, but when defend- >ing in spirit combat adds his fetch's POW to his own Guess what? AiG doesn't have that any more. Since shamans aren't typically PCs the way sorcerers are, it looks like most people have overlooked the radical improvements that have been made with full-time shamans. Whether they're truly realistic or not, I now consider them playable (and GMable), where they never really were before. David Cheng eloquently stated why I don't see Axe Trance as a problem. Guy Robinson suggested >Whatever the mechanism is mortals without Runic mastery should >meet diminishing returns as refelected by the standard POW >gain roll. If they sacrifice POW then they loose it seriously. Argh! I know you're not used to RQ3 priests, but this is totally opposed to the way you become a priest by slowly tying yourself to your deity by sacrificing for 10 points of rune magic. What better illustrates your devotion than reducing your overall magical power in favor of limited ability to express your god? I suppose your way makes this even more devoted since you're crippling your magical power, but it seems crocked so that rational players would wait until they're 21 POW and then sacrifice all 10 at once. I've never seen someone IN PLAY lower their POW to get better POW gain rolls. (I have seen it in character creation, when I've allowed characters to roll for each year of initiate worship. This is a very good argument for the abstract system of POW increase that's presented in RQ:AiG.) Nobody seems to think the increased chance of improving is worth the decreased chance of living to roll for the check they would have a decreased chance of earning. Ray Turney said >As a co-author of the RQII experience system, I can state >that had I known then what I know now, the RQII system would never have been >published. I would have pressed for a Warhammer like five checks at the end >of each weekly session, two of them experience and three of them practice or >training as appropriate. Furthermore, fifteen years have gone by and no >game not published by Chaosium has stolen the check system. But why has Chaosium continued to use it, even in games like Pendragon which aren't based on RQ? I always liked the check system, I think that was one of the things that attracted me to RQ. The big advantage to your 5 check proposal above is that it gets rid of the training system and unifies it with experience.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA21587; Fri, 25 Feb 94 13:36:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11857; Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:35:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:36:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:35:42 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Have to rant--some folks MUST be reminded... Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:35:31 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4053AEB5443@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > I fact I believe that this is probably RuneQuest`s Big Concept, > just as Vampire has modern day Goth vampires and Werewolf has > eco-guerilla werewolves. Add to this the good old Gloranthan > ambiguity where there even the most commonly acclaimed Evil, > Chaos, is just trying to roll back Glorantha back to it`s > natural and natal state of Chaos and you have a clasic game. We only need to get this across to a newcomer, e.g. your fifteen year old son. Okay, I'm going to say this once agin, please listen: TRY TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULLS! THE VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST UTTERLY COMPLETELY WITHOUT A DOUBT OVERWHELMINGLY CRUSHING MAJORITY OF GAMERS ARE MERE "NEWCOMERS" TO RQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RuneQuest doesn't have shit for market share--not compared with games that actually SELL, like GURPS, Hero, Vampire, D&D, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. No, I don't have numbers at hand, but that was the impression I got when I spoke to Ken Rolston et al. at GenCon last. The RuneQuest Renaissance didn't do all too great in the bottom line of sales. Sun County sold no better than did Eldarad! How can I convince people of this? How can I show them what is so PAINFULLY obvious? Waldonbooks carries AD&D, DC Heroes, Shadowrun and Vampire, sometimes even GURPS stuff. I have NEVER seen that major chain carry a SINGLE RQ product. To sneer about "newcombers" or the "ignorant" is about as smart as playing russian roulette with a Colt M1911A1 and two bullets!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27380; Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:29:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15751; Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:28:58 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:29:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:28:54 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: combat; speed; runes; checks; etc. Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:29:35 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4061DDB26B4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >David here. > >>Ray Turney said >>As a co-author of the RQII experience system, I can state >>that had I known then what I know now, the RQII system would never have been >>published. I would have pressed for a Warhammer like five checks at the end >>of each weekly session, two of them experience and three of them practice or >>training as appropriate. Furthermore, fifteen years have gone by and no >>game not published by Chaosium has stolen the check system. >>> >But why has Chaosium continued to use it, even in games like Pendragon >which aren't based on RQ? I always liked the check system, I think that was >one of the things that attracted me to RQ. Pendragon is very clearly based on RQ. The d100 system is a d20 system multiplied by five. The skill resolution system is highly modified, of course. >The big advantage to your 5 check proposal above is that it gets rid of the >training system and unifies it with experience. Exactly. I'm torn in regards to my occasionally run playtest game: do I test the training rules, of just give people more checks? The checks method means no math or table lookup. It is much cleaner. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28200; Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:37:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AB16252; Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:36:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:36:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:36:50 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Have to rant--some folks MUST be reminded... Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:37:32 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4063FBF558A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >RuneQuest doesn't have shit for market share--not compared with games that >actually SELL, like GURPS, Hero, Vampire, D&D, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. >No, I don't have numbers at hand, but that was the impression I got when >I spoke to Ken Rolston et al. at GenCon last. The RuneQuest Renaissance >didn't do all too great in the bottom line of sales. Sun County sold no >better than did Eldarad! > I can agree with this. The obvious thing is to look at the games that sell, and try and emulate whatever they are doing right. One area is in artwork. We all know that RQ:AiG had better have a stunning cover. The interior art is also quite important. Check out the art in Vampire and EarthDawn for example. Now contrast this with the bland sketches in the RQ3 boxed set... So you could emulate Earthdawn, by providing an attractive drawing of each "character archetype" presented in the character construction section. This will also convey volumes of information about the culture these characters come from. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01226; Fri, 25 Feb 94 14:55:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17524; Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:54:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:55:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:54:20 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:55:11 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4068A750BAC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Steve Barnes, again >Joerg here. Sorry to pick on Steve, too, but I fully side with Loren. > >> Actually, said persons were fanatic Hero gamers. The problem isn't >> lack of classes, it is the fact that experience gain (checks) is >> directly tied to skill use; thus the more you use, the more you >> learn. Ray makes excellent points regarding this. > >Count this as a Storm Bull rage shout: >I don't want to see any form of experience that allows to apply combat >experience on poetry! i.e. *_NO_* experience points! The method of awarding checks applies to an entire adventure. If your Storm Bull was dallying with his lover, composing poetry, before charging out to brutally slay chaos, then I see no reason why poetry checks are any sillier than axe checks. Another problem with the check system, is that it doesn't account for the quality of the adventure, or the duration. So slaying a few Trollkin is just as much of a learning experience as killing the Crimson Bat... (Yes, the GM can refuse to award checks for killing wimpy opponents, but this introduces the dreaded arbitraryness that people have been complaining about with awarded checks). As for duration, a 12 hour dungeon crawl is often as rewarding as a 2 hour one. With our GM, his games ran so long, with so little game time between adventures, that we had to convince him to allow us to "stack" multiple checks. Otherwise, we would play in several consequitive 10 hour games, and only aquire one set of checks. (Even with this innovation, our characters still progressed with agonizing slowness) >And I (as GM) have better things to do than assign experience, e.g. tell >the story and bring around NPCs and their motivations. This happens when the game is over. Takes a couple minutes. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02098; Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:03:14 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18247; Fri, 25 Feb 94 16:02:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 16:02:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 16:02:07 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW; combat tactics; checks Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:02:53 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <406ABA71F17@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Steven again: > >Roderick Here > >>>Ray Turney suggested > >>>the following changes. Special tactics are a > >>>separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. A character's > >>>skill in a special tactic can be at most his best skill in a weapon in that > >>>category - 70. All special tactics are hard skills > > I'd personally give it a -50, or perhaps each tactic could have it's > >own modifier (Flurry requires 2 better DEX and STR than the weapon, >> These just shift the point at which the combatants have a 100% success >> chance. (170% in Ray's method, 150% in yours). The advantage of using >> specials and criticals to resolve high level combat is that it will be >> highly unlikely anyone ever achieves 100% special chance (500%), and >> less likely for 100% crit chance (2000%). First, in response to Ray, I've seen guys with binders full of rune lords in the 100-150% range. Give them a Beserk spell, and they are in the 200-300% range. What ever system we use, should still work. >Is this what we want, that high level combat depends on luck only? > >I'd rather see high hitters use oodles of special options, finely tuned >to block the other's special tactics. Let the "normal" guys around stand >and guffaw when heroes let their weapons speak, and don't make the outcome a matter of luck, but a matter of tactics (assumed skills are roughly >equal). Ideally, no. We don't want the system luck based. But a straight modifier is just shifting the probabilities. It would be nice to have a system that minimizes luck, but the ones I've seen tend to be guessing games instead (rock-paper-scissors varients). I would like the same thing you want, but nobody has proposed it yet. I'm not overly impressed by the current crop of special tactics skills etiher. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25809; Fri, 25 Feb 94 19:06:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03712; Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:05:45 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:06:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:05:33 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: rq4 cover art artist? Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:55:43 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40ABA7D2C0B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here - Oliver Jovanovic hinted at the identity of the artist the 4th edition cover by saying that he had done cover art for Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Well, I've seen at least three different paperback editions all with very different cover art. (My favorite is the Simon and Schuster "TimeScape" edition, which has an elaborately decorative Art Nouveau feel to it, showing the carnifex with sword, in the *Shadow of the Torturer* cover.) None of the editions I've seen so far name the artist. All of them are very competent (with the exception of the new sequel to the first trilogy). So which cover is by the one to do the RQ4 cover?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26410; Fri, 25 Feb 94 19:20:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04280; Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:20:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:20:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:20:14 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Faster Combat Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 17:20:11 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40AF927072F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Someone {I forget who} wanted me to figure out how to make combat faster. I suggest: 1) Spells have no effect on special and crit chances. 2) Ban spellcasting while in combat {you can always say the adrenalin rush of getting ready to fight interferes with casting}. Failing this, ban casting in melee. 3) Have spaces on the character sheets for weapon stats, etc AFTER all normal and customary spells have been cast, so that this info is available instantly and does not have to be refigured. 4) Have a combat sheet that contains all the info needed for easy consultation. 5) Resolve fights fight by fight, not in SR order. 6) Only roll parries etc, if the attack succeeds. This means forget about parry and Dodge fumbles. 7) Among high levels, or in mass combat where a lot of archers are shooting at a gross PC, roll D20, and only resolve the fight if a roll of 1 indicates a crit. 8) Ignore hit location for blows that do less that 5 pts damage or so, combine this with all over minimum armor protection. I could probably come up with a few other suggestions, but these should probably attract enough flak to shoot me down. In short, RQ combat is slow because it tries to take into account many variables, and cover a lot of exotic combat situations, in the basic rules. It also allows a lot of alteration of attack chances etc within the fight, and has no easy means to track the effect of these. Eliminate these two features, and combat will probably go faster. Of course D&D combat is faster, pure attrition is much easier to keep track of. To Steve Barnes, I'm not concerned with making Berserk and Fanaticism gross. My point about there not being a lot of people greater than 150% stands. - Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28391; Fri, 25 Feb 94 19:55:15 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05778; Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:55:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:55:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:54:52 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: More on speeding up combat Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 17:54:47 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40B8CEE645D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney again - Implicit in RQ combat is a theory that most fighting among armored humans and low hp creatures will be decided by decisive blows. This is why, when all the folderol is dispensed with, fights are decided by specials, crits, and magic. If you wish to speed up combat, factor out special and crit %age as follows. In most situations only specials and crits really matter. Specials have a 4 in 20 chance to occur, crits 1 in 20. Therefore, first roll D20, on a 4 or less a special happens. On a 1, a crit happens. If neither special nor crit happens, go no further. If a special or crit happens, resolve the attack unless the enemy is well enough protected that a special cannot harm him. If the attack succeeds, resolve dodges and parries. Abolish in combat healing. Assume healing spells take 10-20 melee rounds to work, so that once someone is down they will not soon be up again. Only use SR where it matters. Over 100% ers split their attacks into 2, even against a single enemy; over 200% ers split their attacks into 3, the split must be done evenly. This : a) means only one die is rolled for indecisive attacks b) eliminates figuring the impact of modifiers on chances to special or crit, especially in situations where it is not going to matter anyway c) eliminates rolling parries, etc where unnecessary. The big disadvantages are that many of the improbable things that add flavor to RQ combat go by the wayside. Effectively, parry fumbles don't occur to make people vulnerable to attack; people no longer drop their weapons with the same frequency, etc. It should be noted that the system I propose above would produce almost the same results, most of the time, as RQ combat.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01496; Fri, 25 Feb 94 20:49:48 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07658; Fri, 25 Feb 94 21:49:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 21:49:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 21:49:26 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: art; speed Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 18:49:16 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40C75C97469@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Steve Barnes suggested >So you could emulate Earthdawn, by providing an attractive drawing >of each "character archetype" presented in the character construction >section. This will also convey volumes of information about the culture >these characters come from. which would be an excellent idea. (Too bad space is so tight on those pages...) So now we just have to decide if Sartarites really wear kilts, or if they wear plaid pants. I strongly prefer the latter. I don't know if it's really right, but I don't think those 16-year-olds are going to want to play men in a dress. Ray Turney put forth various suggestions for speeding up combat, for which I thank him. >1) Spells have no effect on special and crit chances. This makes sense, in that calculating specials and crits always slows things down. There's always a player who rolls close, then has to ask or look up what level of success he actually made (sometimes this player is me). 2) Ban spellcasting while in combat {you can always say the adrenalin rush of getting ready to fight interferes with casting}. Failing this, ban casting in melee. This would put a huge premium on ambushing. >6) Only roll parries etc, if the attack succeeds. This means forget about >parry and Dodge fumbles. This is already part of RQ:AiG. > first roll D20, on a 4 or less a special happens. On a >1, a crit happens. If neither special nor crit happens, go no further. Is a (possibly) extra roll really going to speed things up? Besides ignoring fumbles, and the 3-4% chance of just plain missing. >Abolish in combat healing. Assume healing spells take 10-20 melee >rounds to work, so that once someone is down they will not soon be up again. Hmm, radical, but far better than not casting spells at all. This would probably work with the current damage rules, where you don't die instantly.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14656; Fri, 25 Feb 94 21:23:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA08578; Fri, 25 Feb 94 22:22:57 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Fri, 25 Feb 94 22:23:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Fri, 25 Feb 94 22:22:45 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 19:22:39 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40D03E84061@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The idea behind rolling to see if a special or crit occurs first, is to avoid rolling all the other dice. If everyone always rolled all dice at once, were skilled in interpeting them, and knew his special and crit chances this would slow things down, since it would be an extra roll. In practice this is not the case {at least in any game I've been in}. The idea is to replace the rolling of a lot of dice, which take time to interpet until you have mastered RQ combat, with one easy to interpet D20 roll. It is an extension of my rules for massed archery against Rolf, which is to roll x, where x is some number of archers larger than 10, D20, and only resolve the crits. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27005; Fri, 25 Feb 94 23:09:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11713; Sat, 26 Feb 94 00:09:36 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 0:09:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 0:09:32 EST From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Have to rant--some folks MUST be reminded... Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 13:14:14 +0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40ECBA422F5@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> To rant in return, I don't think that anyone really wants RQ:AiG to challenge A D&D or Warhammer for sales - we want RQ to sell more than it does, but we want it to sell like (frex) something like Call of Cthulhu does - strong long term sales, enough to keep a steady stream of decent supplements coming, but not necessarily aiming to grab piles of shelf space in the mass retailers - just reclaim a decent section of shelf space in the specialist game stores. I do not want RQ to aim for dragging in hordes of 15 year olds like A D&D or Warhammer - I think that the decline in maturity and depth necessary to attract that audience would kill the game, and wouldn't work anyway (AH just doesn't have the money to devote to vast marketing pushes). We should be aiming at attracting a decent market share - perhaps roughly equivalent to GURPS or so - but not conquering the gaming world. That said, we sould learn a lot from FASA and White Wolf - who have marketed some reasonable games with great sucess, partly by a combination of High Concept games (by which I mean games that gain most of their sucess from their setting, and the most important elements of the setting can be described in one or two sentences) with very nice marketing. And you need both a good game and good marketing - look at the disastrous failure of Dangerous Journeys for GDW, good marketing, awful game. We know that Glorantha is a great world and RuneQuest a good game - certainly the equal or better in setting and rules of Earthdawn, which outsells RQ by a lot. This is partly because they aim at the more numerous teenage market more than the older market - but it is partly because of FASAs skill at marketing. Perhaps AH could be persuaded to try some of the FASA tricks, like free 'teaser' handouts with a small amount of rules and background, or free short story handouts? Cheer Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28581; Fri, 25 Feb 94 23:48:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12876; Sat, 26 Feb 94 00:48:34 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 0:48:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 0:48:27 EST From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Mastering a Rune Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 13:53:13 +0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <40F71AF385D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> We've done this one before, and many of you no doubt know how I feel about it, but for the benefit of the others (and in case anyone thinks that I am going soft on the issue)-- this mastering runes stuff is out of date, a very small part of the original RQ discussion of magic anyway, and a very silly thing to write into the system as an integral part. The mastering runes bit is mentioned only in passing in the discussion of runes in RQ1/2, where it is stated that Rune Lords are associated with the Mastery rune, and Rune priests are assocaited with the Magic Rune (I do not recall or care wether it actually mentions that shamans are assocaited with spirits or wether that is just obvious and assumed by everybody). I have seen the concept of Runic association of characters (not religions) crop up only twice since then, in Steve Maurers unofficial HeroQuest Rules, and in Sandy's unoficial HeroQuest rules, as mentioned in passing in the HeroQuest special in Tales. Neither made particular reference to the Mastery and Magic runes, and both where more concerned with degree of connection to the Elements and Powers. The idea of having to attain initiation into a rune made a nice sort of sense for the RQ2 Lord/Priest dichotomy (with shamans as poor cousins) but with the breakdown of the cookie cutter cult hierarchy with RQ3/GoG it is no longer very clear exactly who is who or what. We have Lords that specialist in magic, we have initiates with full reusable magic, we have acolytes, we have shaman-priests, and who knows what rune would be assigned to any if we cared to assign them, and who knows what the actual cut off point for runic ititiation would be. Chaosium have made very few references to the concept, and I believe that Greg no longer really takes it that seriously (but someone can ask him if they want. So why make it part of the system? It is old-fashioned, its application is unclear and confusing when using the new rules, it is extremely limiting to non-cult types (say, indedependant sorcerers that are not dedicated adepts), and as far as I can see adds very little to the game. Added to this, it is a God-Learner invention of no real relevance to about half of Glorantha, and none what so ever to those few recalcitrants who continue to spread the heresy that no-Gloranthan RQ is actually worthwhile and fun. So I call on you all to make a stand against the proponents of this vile God-Learner heresy of Runic assignation!!! Cheers Dave PS On looking back I note how the ranting level of this post rises exponentially through this post. I apologise to all offended by my sudden attack of mania. PPS Got to go now to play Dragon Pass!!  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07592; Sat, 26 Feb 94 02:03:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16129; Sat, 26 Feb 94 03:01:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 3:03:54 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 3:01:37 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Special Tactics Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 03:00:59 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <411A9E825A1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here: Ray Turney writes: ) I write to suggest the following changes. Special tactics are ) a separate skill for each weapon category {1H Cutting, etc}. ) A character's skill in a special tactic can be at most his best ) skill in a weapon in that category - 70. All special tactics ) are hard skills Not only do I think that this idea is great for all of the reasons Ray has listed, but let us not forget that it also involves only one die roll. In a sense, Ray's suggestion has a simi lar effect to the HeroQuest rules posted in the Daily (was it Steve Maurer's or another Steve's?) wherein everything was divided by 5 to gain a Heroic percentage. In this case, the skill-70% Advanced Combat chance represents an escalation of combat to a "higher plane". Assuming the special combat results are good enough to justify the -70% penalty, then this has the effect of allowing two runelords with 150% attacks and parries to step down their fight to 80% versus 80%, which is of course a very workable level in RQ. Paul writes: ) Perhaps the last is the best. Should cost of casting ) oversta cked Divine Magic be nonlinear? In a friend's campaign, he states that for each multiple of a Divine Spell that passes a RQ2 stacking barrier, the cost of stacking that spell doubles, but only if cast as a single spell. For example, since the RQ2 stacking limit for Shield was 4 pts, a person with Shield 8 could cast 8 shield 1's, 4 Shield 2's, 2 shield 4's, or a single Shield 6. On any single person, the first 4 points of stacked shield are at 1 pt per point of effect. The next 4 points of shield provide only 1/2 effect, and so on. This means that the grossout person with Shield 20 could only get the effect of Shield 8. We also use, in my campaign, something like this for Armouring and Strengthening Enchantments, for the latter, for each multiple of one's base hit points that are added as strengthening enchantment, the cost of each enchantment rises by 1. So a person with a base of 12 hp (i.e. in RQ3 12 Con and 12 Size) gets the first extra 12 hp from enchantments at 1 POW per D6. The next 12 at 2 POW per D6, and so on. The above approach of diminishing returns helps stop single-minded individuals who want to overdo a certain single spell or aspect of the game, without imposing arbitrary breakpoints and absolute limits.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07778; Sat, 26 Feb 94 02:11:48 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16226; Sat, 26 Feb 94 03:09:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 3:11:46 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 3:09:42 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Trews; First Supplement Date: 26 Feb 94 03:06:55 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <411CC7769BE@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. David wrote: > So now we just have to decide if Sartarites really wear kilts, or if > they wear plaid pants. I strongly prefer the latter. I don't know if > it's really right, but I don't think those 16-year-olds are going to > want to play men in a dress. I prefer having both/either. In the Greydog clan kilts are our formal wear, but we wear those neat Gallic-style tartan or checked trews a lot of the rest of the time. The French counter art for "Dragon Pass" has Sartarite infantry done as Gauls, and looks very attractive indeed (but that's the French for you). So if we want an illo of a Sartarite Entertainer and Warrior, have the Entertainer in a kilt and the Warrior in trews, and where's your problem? I can't recall if it's been debated here before, but I find it abominable that Lunar costume is listed as including "trews". The Lunars are the great non-trousered people of Glorantha. As with the Romans, some sensible items of barbarian garb may make it into unofficial Army dress, but most Lunars wouldn't ever consider wearing them. Classical garb: formal toga / chalmys / stola / whatever, informal tunics and cloaks. No Trousers Please, We're Lunars! (Carmanians wear trousers, of course, but let's not get technical now...). Agree with David: it's a shame the tight layout of RQ:AiG was made with no space left for illustrations. They'll have to disrupt it all over the place to fit them in, which *hurts* (TotRM experience). BTW, in my head, large chunks of the rules don't seem to cover Prax as well as the Sartar and Lunar side of things. Am I right? As Praxians are one of the Four Starting Cultures, this would be a shame and a pity. I think the cover artist OJ has in mind is the guy doing Wolfe's Long Sun books (and a couple before that), not one stretching back to New Sun days. I am greatly in agreement with the calls for a more fleshed-out narrative, Rurik-style, for rules examples. Chopping and changing between Arlia and a "Sartarite Bandit" may be too tricky. A full write-up of Orlanth and the Seven Mothers would be *wonderful*, but although the importance of these is (now) obvious, I wonder whether we can fit them into the rules... Maybe if we cut Sorcery. A Serious Alternative: we could release a quick supporting publication called "Peoples of Glorantha" or something, *immediately* after the rules, to contain the following articles, most of which already exist: ___________________ ORLANTHI CHARACTERS PB:G "What My Father Told Me" (Orlanthi) and supporting article GoG "Staves From the Storm Priest" RoC The Cult of Orlanth RoC The Cult of Ernalda (and say "this is typical: extrapolate!") RoC The Cult of Humakt (and say: "Yanafal Tarnils is v.similar") T#6 Tribal map of Sartar (Tales#6) HotB Map of Boldhome (*) stuff about tribal life extracted from King of Sartar (*) a brief (but more detailed than in RQ:AiG) history of Sartar ________________ LUNAR CHARACTERS *NEW* "What My Mothers Told Me" (Lunar) and supporting article GoG "Talking to the Moon Woman" CoP The Cult of the Seven Mothers GoG The Cult of the Red Goddess (and full write-up of Lunar Magic) var. Political Map of Peloria (the Lunar Empire and neighbours) *NEW* Military Map of Dragon Pass and Prax (Lunar garrisons, etc.) *NEW* stuff about career paths in the Lunar army and bureaucracy (*) a brief (but more detailed, again) history of the Lunar Empire ________________ PAVIC CHARACTERS *NEW* "What My Father Told Me" (Pavic) and supporting article *NEW* "Masonic Secrets" (a "What the Priest Says" for Pavic religion) Pavis The Cult of Pavis Pavis The Cult of Flintnail (likely a Sorcery school not a divine Cult) Pavis "A Pavis Panorama" (this illo is a must!) Pavis Map of the Streets of New Pavis Rubble Map showing Regions of the Rubble (*) interesting facts about everyday life in Pavis, from the boxed set (*) you guessed it: a historical article on Pavis __________________ PRAXIAN CHARACTERS PB:G "What My Father Told Me" (Praxian) and supporting article GoG "Tales of the Wastes" CoP The Cult of Waha CoP The Cult of Eiritha (*) Praxian Spirit Cults var. Map of Sacred Prax Codex A listing of Praxian Tribes and their peculiarities *NEW* stuff about everyday life in a Nomad Clan, the yearly round, etc. (*) Recent Praxian History (last twenty years or so: the tribes before and after Moonbroth, current grazing regions and alliances, etc.) -------- *NEW* means nothing like this exists in any official or published form, to the best of my knowledge (spin-offs like "Nomad Clan in Tales#1, might be a great help). (*) means the material for this article exists in a near-finished form, but might need a tad of editing to get it into the right shape. Working on really crude averages, and ignoring changes in print size and page layout from previous publications, each section should be: What Dad Said 4 pages What God Says 2 pages Various Cults 8 pages or more A couple of Maps 2 pages Everyday Life 2 pages History 2 pages or more --------- 20 pages Multiply by four, and you've got an eighty-page book that reprints some of the best and most useful Gloranthan cultural information. If that sounds small, there are loads more things we could chuck in: pages full of good Gloranthan art being the most obvious. About 60% of it already exists, 20% will take some editing/unearthing, and 20% will have to be written up more or less from scratch. The advantage of planning to do this is basically that we can put stuff that would be "really nice to have in the rules" into this book instead -- and we can put more in here than the rulebook could ever hold! Any comments? ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14965; Sat, 26 Feb 94 06:14:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23029; Sat, 26 Feb 94 07:14:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 7:14:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 7:13:59 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 04:14:43 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <415DEB7621A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Ray Turney writes: > > In practice this is not the case {at least in any game I've been >in}. The idea is to replace the rolling of a lot of dice, which take time >to interpet until you have mastered RQ combat, with one easy to interpet D20 >roll. It is an extension of my rules for massed archery against Rolf, which >is to roll x, where x is some number of archers larger than 10, D20, and >only resolve the crits. Actually, I've contemplated the use of a d20 for crits and specials, since it eliminates the math; if you hit, and roll a 1, it is a crit; if you hit and roll 2-4, a special. This method is actually more accurate too. It doesn't handle skills over 100 very well, since you have to resort to clumsy extensions. But if we adopt your rule of having people over 100 split their skill, it isn't a problem. -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20131; Sat, 26 Feb 94 09:26:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26476; Sat, 26 Feb 94 10:24:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 10:26:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 10:23:50 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 13:48:22 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41908D53EBF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Steve Barnes, again > The method of awarding checks applies to an entire adventure. > If your Storm Bull was dallying with his lover, composing poetry, > before charging out to brutally slay chaos, then I see no reason > why poetry checks are any sillier than axe checks. I seem to have been confusing. The Storm Bull roar was me. The hypothetical character in question did NOT perform poetry, but did check for it. We all agree that a system like that is silly. > Another problem with the check system, is that it doesn't account > for the quality of the adventure, or the duration. So slaying a > few Trollkin is just as much of a learning experience as killing > the Crimson Bat... (Yes, the GM can refuse to award checks for > killing wimpy opponents, but this introduces the dreaded arbitraryness > that people have been complaining about with awarded checks). A couple of trollkin are exactly the opponent 'd choose to experiment a bit, the Bat certainly is not, but it would be an experience. > As for duration, a 12 hour dungeon crawl is often as rewarding as > a 2 hour one. With our GM, his games ran so long, with so little > game time between adventures, that we had to convince him to allow > us to "stack" multiple checks. Otherwise, we would play in several > consequitive 10 hour games, and only aquire one set of checks. > (Even with this innovation, our characters still progressed with > agonizing slowness) My problem as a GM as well. >>And I (as GM) have better things to do than assign experience, e.g. tell >>the story and bring around NPCs and their motivations. > This happens when the game is over. Takes a couple minutes. And a lot of remembering if you want to be fair. One of the GM tasks I hate most. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20139; Sat, 26 Feb 94 09:27:59 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26500; Sat, 26 Feb 94 10:26:05 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 10:27:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 10:24:21 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trews; First Supplement Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 15:35:02 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4190B0A04EF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Nick. > BTW, in my head, large chunks of the rules don't seem to cover Prax as well > as the Sartar and Lunar side of things. Am I right? As Praxians are one of > the Four Starting Cultures, this would be a shame and a pity. The _rules_ never did, IMO. > I am greatly in agreement with the calls for a more fleshed-out narrative, > Rurik-style, for rules examples. Chopping and changing between Arlia and a > "Sartarite Bandit" may be too tricky. A full write-up of Orlanth and the > Seven Mothers would be *wonderful*, but although the importance of these is > (now) obvious, I wonder whether we can fit them into the rules... > Maybe if we cut Sorcery. Careful, I'm going to cut the next to suggest this. > A Serious Alternative: we could release a quick supporting publication > called "Peoples of Glorantha" or something, *immediately* after the rules, > to contain the following articles, most of which already exist: Very sensible, but: make it free flyers (like Earthdawn), these were what really caught the attention. Or start a lottery or something similar where the lucky winner could get this for free. Any one of the standard marketing techniques such as Reader Digest or similar publishers use. > ___________________ > ORLANTHI CHARACTERS > PB:G "What My Father Told Me" (Orlanthi) and supporting article > GoG "Staves From the Storm Priest" > RoC The Cult of Orlanth I disagree. A lot more! > RoC The Cult of Ernalda (and say "this is typical: extrapolate!") > RoC The Cult of Humakt (and say: "Yanafal Tarnils is v.similar") > T#6 Tribal map of Sartar (Tales#6) > HotB Map of Boldhome > (*) stuff about tribal life extracted from King of Sartar > (*) a brief (but more detailed than in RQ:AiG) history of Sartar CHDP: Sartar to 1622 > ________________ > LUNAR CHARACTERS > *NEW* "What My Mothers Told Me" (Lunar) and supporting article > GoG "Talking to the Moon Woman" > CoP The Cult of the Seven Mothers > GoG The Cult of the Red Goddess (and full write-up of Lunar Magic) plus short writeup of illumination, else this makes no sense (see GoG) > var. Political Map of Peloria (the Lunar Empire and neighbours) *NEW*. Sylila, most of Aggar and Holay are simply white spots. No roads (one gets the impression that Grazeland roads are better than Lunar ones) > *NEW* Military Map of Dragon Pass and Prax (Lunar garrisons, etc.) > *NEW* stuff about career paths in the Lunar army and bureaucracy > (*) a brief (but more detailed, again) history of the Lunar Empire The Lunar bit ought to be split into a Heartland and a Provinces part, since these differ greatly. Not to speak about Carmania or Allies. > PAVIC CHARACTERS > PRAXIAN CHARACTERS full agreement > -------- > Multiply by four, and you've got an eighty-page book that reprints some of > the best and most useful Gloranthan cultural information. If that sounds > small, there are loads more things we could chuck in: pages full of good > Gloranthan art being the most obvious. About 60% of it already exists, 20% > will take some editing/unearthing, and 20% will have to be written up more > or less from scratch. > The advantage of planning to do this is basically that we can put stuff > that would be "really nice to have in the rules" into this book instead -- > and we can put more in here than the rulebook could ever hold! > Any comments? This seems the way to go. I'd suggest single booklets, though - if handed out for free, surely the cheaper way to go, and a box with the collection - including some more cultures, e.g. Tarsh. I'd find it hard to play a Tarshite or Aggar character right now. For Tarsh there is a few info in KoS, although the dates disagree with all the rest. All I know about Aggar are 4 sentences in Genertela Book, the same amount about their king, and twice as much in Troll Pak. Map info is practically non-existant, apart from where it lies. The two sentences on Jarst can be cut until a few more sentences are written. Regional supplements similar to the Riskland part of Dorastor need to come out real soon. Let's get organized. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24728; Sat, 26 Feb 94 11:26:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00124; Sat, 26 Feb 94 12:24:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 12:26:49 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 12:24:41 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: d20s; formal wear; "Peoples of Glorantha" Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 09:24:35 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41B0C815638@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Ray wrote >The idea is to replace the rolling of a lot of dice, which take time >to interpet until you have mastered RQ combat, with one easy to interpet D20 >roll. It is an extension of my rules for massed archery against Rolf, which >is to roll x, where x is some number of archers larger than 10, D20, and >only resolve the crits. But if you're an inexperienced player, you're hopefully playing characters who miss some of the time and haven't bought the heaviest armor. So normal combat is not well simulated by the d20. Nick said >I prefer having both/either. In the Greydog clan kilts are our formal wear, >but we wear those neat Gallic-style tartan or checked trews a lot of the >rest of the time. Sounds perfect to me. Just have to make sure the starting equipment list reflects this. >I find it abominable >that Lunar costume is listed as including "trews". The Lunars are the great >non-trousered people of Glorantha. The Heartland maybe, but I imagine Thunder Delta and many of the provinces, to say nothing of the Char-Un, all wear tubular leg gear for warmth. >A Serious Alternative: we could release a quick supporting publication >called "Peoples of Glorantha" or something, *immediately* after the rules, >to contain the following articles, most of which already exist: That wuld be an interesting and good idea. It's really Peoples of Dragon Pass and Environs, of course... I'm still working on the Grazers. This work might also be a good place to put the excellent timeline I want to cut from the rules. 80 pages for free sounds like an awful lot, however. >The advantage of planning to do this is basically that we can put stuff >that would be "really nice to have in the rules" into this book instead -- >and we can put more in here than the rulebook could ever hold! This is exactly the advantage. The disadvantage is that it's both more work and another product and a lot of good art, and it's not clear how much Avalon Hill will support that.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29518; Sat, 26 Feb 94 12:33:02 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02512; Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:31:07 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:33:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:30:57 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW Gains Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:25:36 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41C274B1E79@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> The problem with having *all* priests, shamans and adepts getting ten POW checks a year, and everyone else getting five is twofold. First, it requires that the GM keep careful track of the time elapsed so that he metes out the POW checks at regular four or eight week intervals (this could also lead to warping character actions in a much more serious way: "Let's wait until after Harmony week to go on this expedition: we always get POW checks in Harmony week!"). Furthermore, it fails to differentiate suff0 iciently among various levels of magical activity. There are initiates who regularly cast two or three different spells many days in a week, and there are others who cast only once a fortnight. Having there be only two recognized levels of magical activity is like having stats that can only be of two values: one or two, or skills that are boolean: either you have them or you don't, and all people who have them are equally good. Something the system of POW checks provides that no other system suggested does is an easily implemented system of implementing a nearly continuous range of effect for the nearly continuously range of magical activity, without requiring any careful bookkeeping and monitoring of all the character's spell-casting exploits. All it needs is an occasional one-second decision: Does that merit a POW chack? and then it can be forgotten about until the next time the situation arises. While these rules are prone to making characters cast spells more frequently and when they are of less tactical use is true, but this easily models the basic precept of the Gloranthan magical ecology, that you become magically more powerful by overcoming others with your magic. This is much more reasonably than a precept that says you become magically more powerful on the fourth and eighth Godsdays of every season. So, all I think that needs changing is to give the GM some good, solid guidelines as to what merits a POW check and what doesn't. Any of the other systems I' ve seen proposed either place too much of a burden on the GM, or they make POW checks about as interesting and deserved (and regular) as Social Security checks. "I don't need it, and I didn't do anything for it, but if the stop giving them to me, I'll raise hell!" -Abraham Simpson. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01140; Sat, 26 Feb 94 12:56:56 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03197; Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:55:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:56:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:54:52 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Special Tactics Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:49:28 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41C8D584E2C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am in general opposed to a mechanic for special tactics that re- quires teh introduction of a large number of skills. RQ:AiG had alreasy seen a proliferation of skills, what with Ceremony {Divine/Spirit/Sorcery /Dragon/Lunar/...} and all the other crafts and lores and customs etc. This is not the direction to move in, I think, unless you want RQ to become an object of derision (look at Rolemaster for an example of this). This is one of the 29 reasona (sesnd for the free pamphlet) to support my proposal: tactics are abilities that *anybody* can use, and they allow you to reduce your skill percentage in exchange for some other favorable effect, like some control of hit location or extra damage or whatever. You don't need any new skills, and they are much, *much* more effective for high level characters. They also differentiate better between highly skilled characters, thus eliminating the need for a different mechanic for fatigue, chnage your shorts, change your life, change you into a nine year old Hindu boy and get rid of your wife. It lengthens! It strengthens! Sorry. Got into Tom Waits mode there. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01272; Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:00:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA03305; Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:58:27 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:00:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:58:11 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: POW Checks & training Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:52:51 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41C9B7C6C3F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Re: skill checks. What Mike Dawson said. I've been saying the same thing to Oliver & co. for a couple of years now. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA02783; Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:38:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04623; Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:36:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:38:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:36:35 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: There is "exponential", and there is "exponential"... Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:31:09 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41D3F672E59@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On exponential increase. Someone mentioned that just because something is exponential, it doesn't necessarily have to double at every step. While this is true, it is also true that *any* exponential growth will have a doubling period. Let's say that something's growth is measured by the formula s=ab^t, where t is time measured in some unit, and b is some number greater than one. Then this will have a doubling period equal to ln(2) ------ ln(b) time units. So, if you rescale your time by this factor, you get the doubling again. In conclusion, all exponential growth looks bascially alike in that the amount of whatever you have will double after every certain length of time. Ta, -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03830; Sat, 26 Feb 94 13:50:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA04995; Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:48:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:49:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:47:49 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More on speeding up combat Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 11:47:39 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41D6F4D611E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brent Krupp here... Ray Turney makes a bunch of good suggestion for speeding up combat that would definitely work as optional rules (though I really don't know how squeezed for space the combat section is) and maybe for 'real' rules too. It prompts me to describe a very simple way of speeding up combat, that while it may seem obvious, and maybe everyone else does it that way, to my players it was never intuitive and I had to enforce it at first. Simply put, whenever dice get rolled in combat: ROLL THEM ALL. That is, if rolling to hit with a sword, roll the percentiles, the d20 for location, the d8 for damage, (in the old rules, the d6 for bonus), even an extra d8 of a different color in case you special. Again, this may sound dumb, but it *really does save time*. Those few less seconds of the player scrambling for dice after successfully hitting do add up. Also, make people roll BEFORE figuring special/critical chances changed by magic. I've seen players delay while calculating what they need, only to roll way over their skill, or roll an 01. AND any roll from 21 on up isn't going to be special (typically) so that saves time too. Just an overlong, simple suggestion... Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA05820; Sat, 26 Feb 94 14:35:09 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06859; Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:33:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:35:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:32:58 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Miscellaneous POW issues Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:27:31 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41E300B5C2C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng apparently has different views of the nature of the Babeester Gor cult than most people have. It isn't obvious to me, or indeed to anyone else I've heard speak on the issue, that Babeester Gor intiates reject femininity and savage their genitals. What ever happened to "Babeester Gor has many lovers"? Nothing in the cult write-up in GoG even remotely suggests anything approaching this. Ritual scarification isn't the same as turning oneself into an inhuman creature shunned by all. It's a fairly common practice in primitive and nomadic cultures, and isn't completely out of place in a barbarian culture either. A Babeester Gor initiate may be rejecting some of the elements of civilization and normal family life, but she certainly isn't rejecting her sex and humanity. -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08648; Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:34:42 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09091; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:32:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:34:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:32:39 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Comments Date: 26 Feb 94 16:29:32 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41F2EBB10E4@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. George Harris complained about 4/8 week POW gain intervals: > First, it requires that the GM keep careful track of the time elapsed > so that he metes out the POW checks at regular four or eight week > intervals (this could also lead to warping character actions in a much > more serious way: "Let's wait until after Harmony week to go on this > expedition: we always get POW checks in Harmony week!"). (i) Not *that* much bookkeeping, surely! Compared to other rules... (ii) This sounds like it'll distort most character actions into a *more* Gloranthan pattern: have Humakti who roll POW gains in Death week, Orlanthi in Motion week, et cetera. They'll feel spiritually fortified after their holy day ceremonies. Is that a problem for you? David Dunham said (of "Peoples of Dragon Pass and Environs"): > 80 pages for free sounds like an awful lot, however. When did I say it was "for free"? It'd be a bona fide supporting product, like Cults of Prax was for RQ2. Mostly reprints, some new stuff -- what's new about that, for current versions of RuneQuest? > The disadvantage is that it's both more work and another product and a > lot of good art, and it's not clear how much Avalon Hill will support > that. As I noted in drawing up that proposed list of contents, over half of the "work" has been done already. I hope and believe Avalon Hill can see that a product which immediately supports and expands on their new top-flight relaunched edition of RuneQuest would be a good thing. Certainly, this was the consensus picked up from discussions with Oliver & Co. at RQCon: that getting some momentum going is very important to the future of the game. Don't *just* sell them a rule book then wait six months before the second release: hit'em while they're recovering from the initial shock & joy of Glorantha, with something that'll be useful. If only the people who draw up contracts can be made to see sense... Yeah, getting "good Gloranthan art" could be a problem. We offered Dan Barker's services to Avalon Hill, but nothing has come of that yet. After many past disappointments, I don't really trust their in-house artists. Oh, anyone else notice there are no scenarios in RQ:AiG? Shouldn't a small pack of these be on the drawing-board, aimed at the new players we hope to attract? And perhaps a little section of "neat ideas for first scenarios" in the Gamemastering chapter? ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09164; Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:45:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09490; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:43:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:45:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:43:33 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: whaddaya mean "ducks are silly"? Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:42:14 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41F5D3A0167@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here, astonished at accusations that ducks are silly. So ducks are silly, huh? I've heard that one, too. Usually the people making this point seem to accept hobbits, orcs, magicians blasting people with fireballs, and style-conscious gothic vampires smoking clove cigarettes as perfectly reasonable. But ducks are silly. Excuse me? I think these people define "silly" as "anything besides the tired old cliches I expect to see." I'm all for silliness. The way Glorantha combines profundity and silliness is something I greatly admire.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09992; Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:52:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09797; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:50:48 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:52:40 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:50:30 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: More flea eggs Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 13:50:21 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41F7AD7083D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> 18 Might be nice to mention that attributes all have 2-letter abbreviations, characteristics 3-letter. 60 While some of the language stuff is interesting, I'm not sure it needs to be in this work (Glorantha covers languages). Cut Kralori (you're stretching), Balazaring (Balazar isn't part of the Lunar Empire). I prefer the previous term Auld Wyrmish (found in all other works) to Draconic. 149 Is Sever Spirit really an exception, and needs an MP vs MP roll instead of MP vs POW like all other spells? 152 Worship (Deity) gives a POW gain roll. Is this in addition to the once-a-season POW gain rolls? I think it should give a POW _check_, and both checks and rolls be provided for more like RQ3. 153 You mention Hsunchen. Not having an index, I don't know for sure if they're mentioned elsewhere, but I don't think so. (Well, you mention Hsunchen languages on p.60, but they're not explained anywhere.) As an aside, I note you describe lands of Glorantha, but not cultures of Glorantha. 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 (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10130; Sat, 26 Feb 94 15:57:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09925; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:55:56 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:57:47 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:55:47 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runic Mastery Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:55:39 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41F916D2AB8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> A Shaman fights off the Bad Man. A knight holds vigil and possibly accepts a quest, read Pendragon for details. A Wind Lord has to prove mastery of a couple of cult skills before examiners, but this is hardly better than a journeyman proving his skill before a guild. Does this make master crafters the equivalent of a Rune Lord or priest? Do secret societies (like the Bullocks) parallel cults? Actually, yes, it does. This is EXACTLY how a craft-god's cult would recognize "rune" status. Remember, Glorantha is not hack-n-slay-munchkin world. MOST of the religions and MOST of the world does NOT exist for the convenience and furtherance of martial goals. There are SHITLOADS more plain folk than adventurer scum. RQ:AiG needs to CONSTANTLY remind people of this--adventurers are WIERDOS. They are sickos who can't fit into regular society--at least those who consider themselves to be professional "adventurers" are. Now, there are also those who are forced into adventure, and they aren't sick, but they usually don't revel in battle and try to rack up as much combat magic as they can, either. Now, as to the whole "rune affinity" thing--it plain stinks to me. Why? The proponent's ideas are valid if and only if the "Runes" of Dragon Pass are 100% universal and valid everywhere. This is, of coures, not true. The Godlearners have been crushed, and One True Worldism is a discredited doctrine. I sometimes think that Pameltelans may not even HAVE "Runes" as they are known in central Genertela. It would make MUCH more sense for the Pamaltelans (being African homologues) to have "masks", "dances", etc. Now, some folks could claim that one could construct some sort of "correspondence" between the Pamaltelan Power Masks and the "true" Runic meaning. This is about as valid as the Romans insisting that Lugh Lamfod was "really" their god Mercury, that the Dadghda was "really" their god Jupiterus, etc. etc. etc. It's kind of like insisting that Christ is "really" Krsna (Krishna) because of some similarities in the MODERN, ANGLICIZED spellings of their names and some superficial similarities in some of their preachments. I put the idea that ther is some over-arching set of universal "runes" for all of Glorantha in the same intellectual category as the above spurious conclusions.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AB10183; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:00:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09995; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:58:50 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:00:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:58:36 EST From: Brian Murphy To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 13:58:29 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41F9D793787@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> subscribe help new subscription  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10528; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:12:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10486; Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:10:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:12:19 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:10:10 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The trews, the fielaghmor, etc. Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:10:04 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <41FCEC64C90@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, as I recall from reading and personal experience: The filiedhmor (great kilt/great wrap) was the typical daily dress of the Gaels most of the time--in work and in war. The Trews were worn in cold weather, either by themselves, or just as commonly WITH the kilt. They were also worn whenever the hell you felt like it. My personal experience with a great kilt (a LARGE one--six yards long) is that one can easily run, jump, lift, work, etc in the garment. Climbing is pretty easy, too. The upper parts also have the advantage of being useful as a bag, as a cloak, as a wrap for your musket in rain, etc. Finally, the great kilt was also used by the Gaels as their blanket when they slept. Fighting poses no problem in this garment, either, so long as it is properly belted and pinned (or tied or tucked). Has anyone on this list besides me ever actually WORN a great kilt for any length of time? PS: I am not referring to the filiedhbeag, or little kilt, which is what most people see when they see a kilt. This monster was invented in the 1720's by an Englishman. I refer to the traditional Gaelic wrap garment, which does not have a single stitch made in it and is made out of sevaral yards of fabric--a single piece.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11142; Sat, 26 Feb 94 16:25:51 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11056; Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:23:59 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:25:52 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:23:52 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Runic Mastery Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 17:25:12 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <420093875F1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly, replying to Bryan J. Maloney: I think that Bryan is overreacting a bit here: >It's kind of like insisting that Christ is "really" Krsna (Krishna) because >of some similarities in the MODERN, ANGLICIZED spellings of their names and >some superficial similarities in some of their preachments. >I put the idea that ther is some over-arching set of universal "runes" for >all of Glorantha in the same intellectual category as the above spurious >conclusions. While your 'cultural relativist' way seems to have won, you accuse some poor schlemiel of idiocy for advocating the idea that Glorantha might have an underlying 'true' Runic structure. Where could he have gotten this aberrant world picture? Well, it is promulgated prominently in RQ 2, RQ3: Glorantha Book, RAG, and other places. Since Glorantha is a secondary world, there is no fundamental reason why there need not be such an underlying structure - after all, our world seems to have one. Question: do you think concepts such as charge, mass, space-time interval invariance, the fine structure constant, etc., are purely artifacts of Western civilization? Or is there an underlying structure to our universe that can be discovered by reason and experiment? I think helium would still exist in the Sun even if we thought that it was a fiery rock about the size of the Pelopenesus; it is logically admissible that Fire would be a basic element of Glorantha even if the God Learners (or whoever) had never categorized it. Thus I feel your slamming of the person you quoted was a bit extreme. - Paul P.S. You do make good points in the earlier part of your post, about craft gods and also about proportions of adventurers to people who just want to be left alone.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16626; Sat, 26 Feb 94 18:03:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14750; Sat, 26 Feb 94 19:02:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 19:03:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 19:02:16 EST From: dquill@netcom.com (Daniel Quill) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Comments Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 16:03:02 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <421AD1A3DAB@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> No, I've not heard from John Castelucci. If I see John (the one we played against, I'll give him one of my Earthbinds so he doesn't go low. I have quiet a few of the things so it's no big deal. Eventually we'll go against each other again. Were is the spot now?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12923; Sat, 26 Feb 94 22:57:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22448; Sat, 26 Feb 94 23:55:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sat, 26 Feb 94 23:57:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 26 Feb 94 23:55:06 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Various Comments Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 20:54:54 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4268EB40B42@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney - Further clarifications of speeding up combat. The purpose of rolling D20 to determine special or crit is, in the many cases where you can be sure you will be very lucky indeed to do 2 HP damage on a normal hit, to avoid unnecessary in resolution of hits to the tink. It is not intended for large monsters, fireblade etc, where it is might be reasonable to expect a normal hit to do serious damage. In general, I'd say the dividing line is where an average roll would more or less tink off armor and magic, even if the defender failed his parry or dodge. For those who are averse to adding a roll; roll the first D10, which is the ten's digit of the percentile roll. If it could be a special, crit, or fumble, roll the one's digit and proceed with resolution. This has the incidental benefit of dealing with that charming indecisiveness some players manifest about which die is high, without accusing them by implication of cheating {our primary motive is to speed up combat}. The theory is that we are trying for a Seven Samurai like account of the fight, not a blow by blow account. Seven Samurai only focused on the dramatically significant blows in the Samurai & village vs bandit fight {it was still a long movie}. It did not attempt a blow by blow account. D20s for special or crit has the advantage of replacing calculation by a roll; particularly important for inexperienced players. Healing taking time to work was not intended to increase the lethality of combat. The idea was that healing would stop things from getting worse, starting immediately, but that FI people would sit and hurt for a while instead of leaping up to fight again. If their side won the fight, they would still live, they just couldn't stand up and help win it instantly.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13197; Sat, 26 Feb 94 23:05:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22620; Sun, 27 Feb 94 00:03:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 0:05:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 0:03:31 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Comments Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 21:03:25 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <426B2A6232B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney here Agree with Nick Brooke on the subject of scenarios. Steve Maurer has written one, and I've GMed it once as a playtest. Would anyone else be interested?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13237; Sat, 26 Feb 94 23:08:26 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA22690; Sun, 27 Feb 94 00:06:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 0:08:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 0:06:20 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "peoples of Dragon Pass" Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:05:24 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <426BEAF7371@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I am very enthusiastic about this idea. There is an enormous amount of useful stuff that is collected in odd places, this would be an excellent place to put some of the most useful (long write ups of Humakt, Seven Mothers, etc.) stuff that is published in obscure places (I mean, I love Tales to bits - but being subscription only is not so good for general accessability). Also, good supplements (IMHO) is what made RQ2 (I can't imagine being as big an RQ fan without CoP/CoT) and what failed RQ3 - the good supplements did appear, but only after half the audience had wandered away. Personally I think a book that just contains a bucket load of long format cult write ups is not a bad thing, if it also contains a decent amount of social information and all those nice touches that made CoP/CoT so good, like character stories intertwined with the cults, and general myth info. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15665; Sat, 26 Feb 94 23:43:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA23408; Sun, 27 Feb 94 00:41:35 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 0:43:27 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 0:41:28 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: "peoples of Dragon Pass" Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:40:38 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <427548840B0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu>  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27265; Sun, 27 Feb 94 05:32:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28991; Sun, 27 Feb 94 06:30:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 6:32:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 6:30:19 EST From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: whaddaya mean "ducks are silly"? Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 03:31:04 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <42D2520194B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Newton here, astonished at accusations that ducks are silly. I for one, was mentioning that friends of mine often mention Ducks as one of the stupid things about Glorantha. > So ducks are silly, huh? I've heard that one, too. Usually the >people making this point seem to accept hobbits, orcs, magicians >blasting people with fireballs, and style-conscious gothic vampires >smoking clove cigarettes as perfectly reasonable. But ducks are >silly. Excuse me? It is possible to interpret Ducks in a non-silly way. The problem is that, for years, Chaosium portrayed them as Donald / Daffy Duck style creatures. Anyway, I have no problems with Ducks being included as long as they are nothing more than a short writeup in the creatures section. And get rid of the part about getting a APP bonus (or lack of APP penalty) when joining Death cults... -steve  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04020; Sun, 27 Feb 94 09:04:07 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05501; Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:02:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:04:08 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:02:04 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Have to rant--some folks MUST be reminded... Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 9:58:22 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <430ACC14885@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cake says: # To rant in return, I don't think that anyone really wants RQ:AiG to # challenge A D&D or Warhammer for sales - we want RQ to sell more than it # does, but we want it to sell like (frex) something like Call of Cthulhu # does - strong long term sales, enough to keep a steady stream of decent # supplements coming, but not necessarily aiming to grab piles of shelf space # in the mass retailers - just reclaim a decent section of shelf space in the # specialist game stores. This is not true. I, for one, think that RQ having 75% market share sounds just great. It won't happen, but I see no reason to shy away from trying. # I do not want RQ to aim for dragging in hordes of 15 year olds like # A D&D or Warhammer - I think that the decline in maturity and depth # necessary to attract that audience would kill the game, and wouldn't work # anyway (AH just doesn't have the money to devote to vast marketing pushes). As long as the quality of the game and supplements stays at the high level we here have come to expect, I really don't care who buys them. # FASAs skill at marketing. Perhaps AH could be persuaded to try some of the # FASA tricks, like free 'teaser' handouts with a small amount of rules and # background, or free short story handouts? I believe this is being considered. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04592; Sun, 27 Feb 94 09:40:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA06134; Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:38:11 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:40:03 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:38:03 EST From: "QFF00036@niftyse" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Special Combat Option. Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 0:05:00 JST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <431463A6719@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Kuri here. George W. Harris wrote: >tactics are abilities that *anybody* can use, and they allow >you to reduce your skill percentage in exchange for some other favorable >effect, like some control of hit location or extra damage or whatever. I agree. I use this special combat option rule in my campaign. Special Combat Option Rule: To use a special combat option, the fighter must roll skill-100% or skill/2 (which is higher) + modifiers. 350% attack with bladesharp4 allows 3 options with 70% hit probability. 80% attack with baldesharp2 allows only 1 option with 50% hit probability. - Some options need specific weapon (ex. entanglement for whip). - Some options need high skill (ex. two-attack opt. needs 100%+). - Fighting cults/guilds have some secret combat options. Regards. // Kuri (QFF00036@niftyserve.or.jp) //  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04251; Sun, 27 Feb 94 09:21:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05828; Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:19:44 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:21:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:19:34 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More on speeding up combat Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:15:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <430F7616968@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Cheng agreeing with Brent Krupp: # # Simply put, whenever dice get rolled in combat: ROLL THEM ALL. That is, # if rolling to hit with a sword, roll the percentiles, the d20 for # location, the d8 for damage, (in the old rules, the d6 for bonus), even # an extra d8 of a different color in case you special. Again, this may # sound dumb, but it *really does save time*. Those few less seconds of the # player scrambling for dice after successfully hitting do add up. Also, # make people roll BEFORE figuring special/critical chances changed by # magic. I've seen players delay while calculating what they need, only to # roll way over their skill, or roll an 01. AND any roll from 21 on up # isn't going to be special (typically) so that saves time too. When I first playtested RQ4 2.0, I insisted we do this. It really does save noticable time. We played Trollpak "Munchrooms": 4 players as the 30+ attacking trolls, 4 players as 4 humans and 50+ trollkin. (Obviously, it was meant to be nothing but a combat fest). Rolling all the dice at once _really_ helped. About crits & specials: Don't worry about them unless the percentiles come up low! Don't even think about the math unless you have to. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA07442; Sun, 27 Feb 94 10:49:43 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07635; Sun, 27 Feb 94 11:47:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 11:49:13 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 11:47:07 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More on speeding up combat Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 08:46:57 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4326CF67574@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Rolling all dice at once is an old idea, standard even in Steve Perrin's game in the late 70's. I don't think it made it into the rules because we assumed anyone interested in speeding up combat would try it. There are two problems with it. First, it helps least those people, beginning GM's, who need the help most. They have the heaviest burden of dice rolling placed upon them, will probably not intuitively remember what dice they have to have in their hands, and will be faced by a mob of players asking them questions which they do not know the answers to, thus distracting them. They are therefore the people most likely to be looking for dice, and they are the worst placed to insist that their players roll all the dice at once. Second, it requires people to be organized, and not all people naturally are. In spite of this, Brent is correct. It should be in the rules, either in GMing or Combat. My preference for rolling the ten's die first is based on the idea that most players most of the time do not care about hits to the tink, or even one or two points of damage. I am thus borrowing an insight implicit in D&D, namely that what counts is the chance to damage, not the chance to hit, and applying it to the more dramatic all or nothing style RQ combat system. In effect, in most combat between reasonably evenly magicked human opponents, you can be pretty sure a normal hit is not significantly better than a miss. Thus, if the ten's digit is anything other than a 0, 1, or 9, nothing decisive will occur and there is no reason to press on with resolution; IFF you are strongly interested in speeding up combat and willing to live with results that approximate RQ combat. The number of dice you roll is not relevant to this argument. You can roll them all at once, if you want. I also think we should consider the possibility that replacing the crit and special chances with a D20 indicator die, and then rolling damage and location might not generally be faster. This would eliminate almost all calculation from routine combat; break down into two logical steps {to hit and quality of hit, then result} interpetation, etc. The big disadvantage of this is that unless the players are rolling two clearly distinguished D10's and two clearly distinguished D20's, it is hard to know which die is which. For example, roll all dice at once works wonderfully if you have 2D10's {percentile roll} 1D20 {hit location} and 1D6 or D8 {weapon damage}. If the weapon does D10, the players use D20s for percentile dice, etc, its utility declines a fair amount.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09573; Sun, 27 Feb 94 11:50:36 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09473; Sun, 27 Feb 94 12:48:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 12:50:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 12:48:25 EST From: Brent Krupp To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: whaddaya mean "ducks are silly"? Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 09:48:22 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43372A574EF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Brent Krupp here, obsessing on ducks... On Sun, 27 Feb 1994, Steven E Barnes wrote: > It is possible to interpret Ducks in a non-silly way. The problem > is that, for years, Chaosium portrayed them as Donald / Daffy Duck > style creatures. Anyway, I have no problems with Ducks being included > as long as they are nothing more than a short writeup in the creatures > section. And get rid of the part about getting a APP bonus (or lack of > APP penalty) when joining Death cults... But without the Death cult reference they really *are* cartoon characters. Back in RQ2 that bonus (when joining "certain Death cults") seemed to clearly indicate that Humakt must like Ducks (the other prominent death cults - Storm Bull, Waha, Seven Mothers, and Zorak Zoran being foreign to Sartar and the Duck Point region) and gave them a serious purpose as characters. Humakti ducks can be role-played as Humakti and need not be jokes. But without that kind of guide (more recently crystallized as a unique role in keeping Delecti and his Zombies from swarming Sartar) they are just feathered Hobbits and about as silly. BTW, that always did seem like a reason for ducks (quite possibly unintentional): to fill the role that most FRPs give to Hobbit/Halflings. Ala Tolkien, every FRP used to have a really short character race... Brent Krupp  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10770; Sun, 27 Feb 94 12:23:08 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10634; Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:21:17 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:23:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:21:04 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: "Cultural relativism" and Runes Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:20:54 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <433FDF32166@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I just don't put runes in the same category as Bolzmann's constant. Runes are magical--this means that, almost by definition, they must be self-contradictory, inconsistent, and not universal EVEN IF THEY ARE UNIVERSAL. Do I contradict myself? Yes, I contradict myself--I contain multitudes. The one is many the many are one. All is nothing, and to be nothing is to be everything. Sound like enlightenment--were I to be within Glorantha it woul, but I am outside Glorantha, so I cannot be limited by a single culture's view of magical reality--that luxury is only available to those inside Glorantha. Now, if runes were entirely consistent, universal, and invariant, they would be in the same category as the gas laws, but they would also not be magical. Let's put it another way--it has already been established that the runes are a God-Learner construct, so there would probably have been a great deal of effort on the part of the Powers that Be to ensure that the runes were NOT as all-powerful and all-encompassing as the God-Learners stated. One more thing: Just because it appears in RQII or RQIII doesn't mean it's true--after all, there is no Elmal in either of them, no? There is an Elmal now...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15368; Sun, 27 Feb 94 13:55:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14229; Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:53:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:55:21 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:53:12 EST From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Special Combat Option. Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:47:47 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4358721415C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> No, no, no. Everyone seems to want special options to be something that take effect if you roll skill-100, or skill/2, or something. This is not a good idea. This turns special options into something that has the following properties: There are no drawbacks to using it. There is never any incentives *not* to use the special option, so it will become something automatic. This makes combat less interesting. It turns into a lottery. Any special tactic either *does* take effect, or it *doesn't*. All times when it takes effect, it is precisely as useful (or useless) as any other time. It doesn't behave well for all skill values. If you have special tactics work on a roll of skill-n, then for values above 100+n%, you get the same problem. If the work on skill/i, you have the same problem for values equal to or greater than i*100%. People may say that these are  unlikely to occur, but in campaigns I've been in, Storm Khans with skills of 120% with BS 4 and Berserk are not unknown. Special tactics should scale equally well to *all* skill levels, so that *any* difference of skill is significant, whether it be 100% vs. 50% or 200300% vs. 250%. My proposal, which I won't repost in it's entirety, is that special tactics work thusly: There is a tradeoff in using them. If you use a special tactic to increase the effectiveness of your attack in some way (possibilities are adding to the damage you do, being able to adjust the hit location roll by some figure, or reducing your opponent's defense chance), then your percentage chance of hitting is reduced. This way, there are pros and cons to using them, so the choice won't be a no-brainer. Special tactics have variable effectiveness. The attacker (or defender) can choose to lower his opponents skill by 25% by reducing his roll by 50%. He can choose any two values he likes, so long as his own penalty is twice his opponent's. Similarly, he can add 1, 2, or however many points of damage, or choose to be able to modify the hit location roll by 1, 2, or however many points, in either case by lowering his chance of success by an amount proportional to the effects of the tactic. The tactics easily scalscale to any skill level. It makes the difference between 300 and 200 as significant as the difference between 200 and 100, and makes both much more significant than they are now. The system doesn't break down until you get to levels of 500% or so. Moreover, the tactics are available to combatabts of lower (<100%) skill, but are much less effective, because the concomitant penalty has a greater effect, since it lowers not only attack percentage, but actual chance of success. Some may complain that this mechanism is too complicated. I don't see that it is significantly more complicated than many of the other methods suggest; subtracting a multiple of 10% or 20% isn't hard for most junior high school students. Besides, these would be optional rules in any case, so the apparent necessity some people feel for making the rules accessible to the otnay ootay ightbray wouldn't apply. I haven't seen anyone raise any problems with these mechanics, and they solve quite a few problems, among them making higher skill levels meaningfull *and* removing the necessity for a totally new mechanic for fatigue (and Impede Chaos, which seems to have acquired it merely to make fatigue look less out of place). -- George W. Harris gharris@jade.tufts.edu Dept. of Mathematics Tufts University Days, I remember cities. Nights, I dream about a perfect place. Days, I dive by the wreck. Nights, I swim in the blue lagoon.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15550; Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:00:04 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14396; Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:58:08 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:00:02 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:57:51 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: tactics; The Avenging Daughter; kilts Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 11:57:37 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4359AEC3FCC@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. George Harris raises a very good point: the current special tactics exhibit skill proliferation (or skill dilution), which I deplore. I note that most of my players seem to like the concept of the tactics but don't use them much. George also gives a good argument for how the RQ3 POW check scheme works "without requiring any careful bookkeeping and monitoring." >David Cheng apparently has different views of the nature of the >Babeester Gor cult than most people have. It isn't obvious to me, or >indeed to anyone else I've heard speak on the issue, that Babeester Gor >intiates reject femininity and savage their genitals. What ever happened >to "Babeester Gor has many lovers"? Nothing in the cult write-up in >GoG even remotely suggests anything approaching this. GoG hardly has a full writeup... Since Babeester Gor is a "Malign Earth" goddess, this sort of thing feels well within possibility. Where did you get "Babeester Gor has many lovers?" She might, but most likely out of manipulation. You'd be an idiot to marry a Babeester Gor initiate (if you want a warrior wife, find a Vingan -- although they too may opt out of customs like marriage). In short, I feel David's close to the mark. Nick Brooke noted >Oh, anyone else notice there are no scenarios in RQ:AiG? Shouldn't a small >pack of these be on the drawing-board, aimed at the new players we hope to >attract? And perhaps a little section of "neat ideas for first scenarios" >in the Gamemastering chapter? I figured they'd be coming, but it would be nice to see them before it's published. And yes, scenario hooks are equally important. Fashion-plate Bryan Maloney said >The filiedhmor (great kilt/great wrap) was the typical daily dress of the >Gaels most of the time--in work and in war. The Trews were worn in cold >weather, either by themselves, or just as commonly WITH the kilt. They >were also worn whenever the hell you felt like it. This is NOT what people are going to think when they see "kilt" on the Sartar equipment list. Of course, the Sartarites are NOT Gaels, and might wear the little kilt (but I hope not!). Ray Turney offered > Agree with Nick Brooke on the subject of scenarios. Steve Maurer >has written one, and I've GMed it once as a playtest. Would anyone else be >interested? Sure. It should be for Trained characters.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16909; Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:34:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15810; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:32:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:34:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:32:09 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Combat Options Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:28:31 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4362D411ADF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I agree 97% with George Harris' ideas on combat options: i.e. they should subtract from the current skill of the user, and be available to non-masters. My one reservation is this: GH says the difference between a 50% fighter and a 100% fighter becomes the same as the difference between a 200% fighter and a 250% fighter. My question: _should_ this be the case? In scenario 1, B is 100% better than A. In scenario 2, D is only 25% better than C, even though in both 1 and 2 the difference is 50% absolute skill. I have thought about this semi-frequently, more as it relates to combat modifiers. Should an archer at long range be 1/2, or just a -20% (or some other constant penalty)? However, since George Harris is a math guy, and I am but an MBA-poser, I defer to his judgement on this subject. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0, forwarded,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18075; Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:51:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16368; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:49:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:51:04 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:48:58 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Earth analogues; Dress Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:50:28 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43675176746@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Sartarites are NOT Celts. They don't feel at all like Celts - much more like, say, Anglo-Saxons. They are especially NOT Irish, which some people seem to be thinking they are. Let's look at just a couple of points. 1. Cities. Your classic Celts (and ESPECIALLY Irish) don't really have cities, per se. The Gauls start to pick them up after contact with Greek (Massilia) and Roman culture, but Ireland is free of them until the Norse found Dublin, Limerick, etc. Sartar and Heortland are both centered around cities. This is much more like Archaic Greece than it is like any Celtic countries. 2. Plowing as a great human endeavor - "Every man plows; even Orlanth plows" Try telling a Heroic Age irishman that he is supposed to plow and I, for one, will stand well out of the way. Cattle are the measure of a Celt's wealth; plowing is not for free men. 3. The _godi_ (see KoS) of the Orlanthi seem a lot more like the _godi_ of the Germanic peoples than they seem like the druids of the Celts. Really, folks. 4. The feel of Orlanthi mythology is not very Celtic; much more Norse or Saxon. This is somewhat subjective, but seems clear to me. More on request. I could go on all day, but will resist. - Paul Dress: I OBJECT to trousered Lunar Heartlanders! First, Heartland culture is more or less Dara Happan in origin - these guys would never switch to pants. They don't wear pants in GRoYelm, (check God's Wall, e.g.) and their close cultural analogues on Earth, the Sumerians, wouldn't be caught dead in pants. Historically, pants appear in riding cultures and where it's damn cold. Dara Happa is neither. Male village Pelorians wear (I think) something like a dhoti or lungi, i.e., a simple rectangle of cloth arount the waist, no sewing involved. (Held up by tension). Females might wear something like a sarong. Formal occasions (village dances, etc.) will merit tops. Theyalans might have pants (probably checks or stripes of garish colors whenever possible). They came down from the mountains where pants are practical, also many men ride as cattle herders. There are probably formal robes as well. Kralorelans might as well wear Chinese-analogue clothing. Westerners can have pants, especially for the Knight class. Maybe this is starting to penetrate Western-conquered areas. Wizards and lords probably wear robes. Peasants get filthy rags. More another time, am working on a whole dress file. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18217; Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:57:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16562; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:55:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:57:05 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:53:28 EST From: Carl Fink To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Runic Mastery Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 15:53:09 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <436883F49F7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue writes in part: J>Now, as to the whole "rune affinity" thing--it plain stinks to me. Why? >The proponent's ideas are valid if and only if the "Runes" of Dragon Pass >are 100% universal and valid everywhere. This is, of coures, not true. >The Godlearners have been crushed, and One True Worldism is a discredited >doctrine. According to Sandy Petersen, although the Runes *themselves* may vary, all cultures do seem to recognize the concepts and powers that they represent. That is, the Kralori might have a different Rune for Harmony, but they do recognize a Harmony power. There are local exceptions to this, i.e. the Dara Happans refused to recognize Air as an Element. Belief in the precognitive powers of an Asian pastry is really no wackier than belief in ESP, subluxation, or astrology, but you just don't hear anyone preaching Scientific Cookie-ism. --Penn and Teller Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CARL.FINK (GEnie)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA18191; Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:55:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16525; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:53:19 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:55:10 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:53:17 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More nits in RQ:AiG (magic) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:54:48 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43687766526@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray: Did you see the Jakaleel notes I sent to the Daily? I'd be interested in your reactions, also in your Lunar stuff. I am also working on several other Lunar things, including (like you) a bit about the Imperial cult. Spirit of Reprisal: the Red Tapeworm. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19474; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:08:38 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16947; Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:06:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:08:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:06:30 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More nits in RQ:AiG (magic) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:08:06 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <436BFE15A7F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly here... Whoops, that reply was supposed to go to Ray Turney only. Sorry. Might as well append something else... Does it strike anyone else as bizarre that Runes have been dropped out of sorcery (and if, as some suppose, Runes are the result of God Learnerism, they could certainly be in modern sorcery somewhere - who were the God Learners, anyway, but the ancestors of the modern sorcerers) but have been kept in for shamanism? I find it bizarre that shamans of the Aranjara in the Pamaltelan plains have even _heard_ of the same runes as Kolating shamans of Sartar or broo shamans of Dorastor, much less categorize their local spirits or their own abilities according to these Runes. If shamans of tribes with little contact with the outside world actually do categorize spirits and spirit magic this way, then Runes ARE universal constants of Glorantha. I'd rather stick the Runic stuff into Wizardry, since all practicing Wizards stem from different (distant) cultural roots in the Kingdom of Logic. - Paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19605; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:12:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17090; Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:10:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:12:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:10:19 EST From: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trews; First Supplement Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 22:11:08 +0100 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <436D0243E66@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM>: >Nick here. >A Serious Alternative: we could release a quick supporting publication >called "Peoples of Glorantha" or something, *immediately* after the rules, >to contain the following articles, most of which already exist: [detailed description deleted] >The advantage of planning to do this is basically that we can put stuff >that would be "really nice to have in the rules" into this book instead -- >and we can put more in here than the rulebook could ever hold! >Any comments? Yes, I'll take one. No need to wrap it... -- 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 (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19851; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:21:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17499; Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:19:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:21:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:19:24 EST From: Mark Gagnon To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Earth analogues; Dress Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 16:20:03 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <436F6E4183D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Sun, 27 Feb 1994 paul@phyast.pitt.edu wrote: > Westerners can have pants, especially for the Knight class. Maybe > this is starting to penetrate Western-conquered areas. Wizards and lords > probably wear robes. Peasants get filthy rags. Up to about here, I agree with you Paul. I do not agreed with you statement that "peasants get filthy rags" however; do you mean slaves? Yes, I concur. Serfs? Yes again. But "peasants" as a class are workers bound to the land in the classic feudal arrangement. They make their own food, drink and cloth (homespun, felt, wool, etc...) Peasants should be workers, producers, etc., and as such have some economic power. Anyway, please bear with me -- this is all coming from half-remember lectures on Medieval English History. Peasants in Glorantha may follow this model or may not, depending upon location, culture, etc. (...Now 'owed you get that then! By exploiting the masses! By 'angin' on to outmoded capitalist dogma! If there's ever goin' to be any progress...) Mark Gagnon (markg@engrg.uwo.ca) University of Western Ontario =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ignus aurum probat, miseria fortes viros Fire tests gold; adversity strong men  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20288; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:37:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18226; Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:35:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:37:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:35:19 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Earth analogues; Dress Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:36:50 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4373AD539F8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here. Finula points out that the whole social structure of the Orlanthi is much more like the Saxons than like that of the Irish. Ask Nick for more info, she says. More on Irish culture (she is an Irish citizen and an archaeologist): Up until the Renaissance, practically, the Irish upper class (warriors, poets, etc., maybe 20% of the population, much higher than anyone else) wandered around in a more or less constant party. They spent a LOT of time outdoors (although they did have homes). More like the Telmori than the Sartarites. My clearest vision for the model of the Sartarites is German Bikers. The sense of overlap with the Celts that some people want is there (bright color clothing and tattoos, also found on ancient Germans) but the behaviors are right for Sartarites. Look at Falco's Amadeus video. The other thing is that a leader among the Celts is leader because he is perfect in all things, not just a cunning sword jock like in the Orlanthi culture, that's a German/Scandinavian thing. The way they've got the women's and men's roles divided is Germanic, not Irish. A wind lord isn't required to have a dance skill, a Sing skill, play the harp, etc., in contrast to Celtic culture. The warband members don't have to have scholarly foreign languages - in Cormac mac Art's time, warriors were expected to be literate in Latin and Greek as well as Irish. The model is clearly more Germanic than Celtic - people just don't know what the differences are. The closest analogue I can think of is the Anglo-Saxons (that people can easily research.) Orlanthi don't even hve geasa - how can they be modelled on the Celts if they don't have geasa? Their berserkergang is Germanic berserkergang, not Celtic berserkergang. (The latter is a bit more like Talor the Laughing Warrior) Paul, transcribing Finula over the phone. Most of above transcribed rapidly from phone call, apologies for stylistic problems. ps. Finula says "Angles and Saxons and Jutes - oh my!" To which I add, the stereotypic Uroxi is a lot the stereotypic Jute.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20428; Sun, 27 Feb 94 15:41:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA18374; Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:39:40 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:41:33 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:39:28 EST From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Earth analogues; Dress Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 16:41:04 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4374C8674D0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul here. Mark is right about peasants, I was a bit flip and just mentally sneering at the glorious Rokari when I said: >> probably wear robes. Peasants get filthy rags. Actually, they probably get tunics and cross-gartered leggings (which might well be rags). Details depend on climate. Peasants probably have one nice set of clothing that they wear to church on Godday. Malkioni church is on Godday, isn't it? They will embroider one really nice set of clothes for weddings and the like. More later, paul  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12347; Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:05:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11109; Mon, 28 Feb 94 04:05:18 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:05:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:05:00 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: More on speeding up combat Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 23:23:40 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <442B9F828C9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg to Ray Turney: > My preference for rolling the ten's die first is based on the idea > that most players most of the time do not care about hits to the tink, or > even one or two points of damage. I am thus borrowing an insight implicit > in D&D, namely that what counts is the chance to damage, not the chance to > hit, and applying it to the more dramatic all or nothing style RQ combat > system. In effect, in most combat between reasonably evenly magicked human > opponents, you can be pretty sure a normal hit is not significantly better > than a miss. Not in the RQ3 power level I played in, no. Standard armour was about 4 to 7 points of worn armour plus maybe 3 points of magical armour. Standard damage was around 1D8+2+1D4 (normal human with battle axe), max damage 14, ave damage 9, add 2 to 4 points of magical damage, with a reasonable chance to get 4 or 6 points of damage through, enough to take out a limb. With sorcerous "Resist Damage" the rolling dance really started... (After a few games everyone possessed a conquered full suit of chainmail. The campaign being naval-based, noone in his right mind ever wore it...) We only once had a priest, which seriously unbalanced the game by casting Shield 3 regularly - and I ran a campaign with an Adept sorcerer as PC. Speciality skills rated around 75%. > Thus, if the ten's digit is anything other than a 0, 1, or 9, > nothing decisive will occur and there is no reason to press on with > resolution; IFF you are strongly interested in speeding up combat and > willing to live with results that approximate RQ combat. The number of dice > you roll is not relevant to this argument. You can roll them all at once, > if you want. When a special occurred, the GM could ignore the damage, just note the location - incapacitated or dead. The other results needed to be rolled, though. > I also think we should consider the possibility that replacing the > crit and special chances with a D20 indicator die, and then rolling damage > and location might not generally be faster. I as a GM never had problems to determine whether a PC had rolled a crit or special. They hadn't either, modifiers included. The most complicated problem was the influence of altered STR on the agility and manipulation modifiers. > This would eliminate almost all > calculation from routine combat; break down into two logical steps {to hit > and quality of hit, then result} interpetation, etc. The big disadvantage > of this is that unless the players are rolling two clearly distinguished > D10's and two clearly distinguished D20's, it is hard to know which die is > which. Apart from the breakdown for skills over 100, why not. I prefer calculation. A swedish Basic Roeplaying clone which has skills and success rolls divided by 5 compared to RQ uses the following for d20: if you rolled a 1, reroll, a success indicates a crit, else it is a special. if you rolled a 5 or lower, reroll, a success indicates a special, else it's a normal success. For skills greater than 20, reroll skill-20 on a 2 for crits and skill-20 on a 6 (skill 21-24) for specials. On a roll of 20, a failed reroll is a fumble. Simple, isn't it? Multiply by five if you prefer percentile dies. > For example, roll all dice at once works wonderfully if you have > 2D10's {percentile roll} 1D20 {hit location} and 1D6 or D8 {weapon damage}. > If the weapon does D10, the players use D20s for percentile dice, etc, its > utility declines a fair amount. Too much effort. The more dice you roll at once, the larger the risk to drop some. Speed increase in practical application: nil, since to figure out which die is which becomes hard for 2-handed spear (RQ3: 1d10+1). And special damage would need an extra roll anyway. If you really want to speed NPCs up, prepare them so you can use a single d20 for to hit chances. The effect on PCs doesn't change much... -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24821; Sun, 27 Feb 94 17:06:48 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21737; Sun, 27 Feb 94 18:04:53 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 18:06:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 18:04:42 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: fielaghmor Date: 27 Feb 94 18:01:59 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <438B8351CB1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> (Sent this just to Bryan by mistake last time: here we go again!) Nick here, saying hi to Bryan, who asked: > Has anyone on this list besides me ever actually WORN a great kilt for > any length of time? No, I'm more the toga-party type myself. I helped a friend work out how to wear a plaid mhor (I think he called it) for a banquet, and while doing so tried it myself for twenty minutes or so: a very cosy garment indeed. That was held on with a belt, the fabric being roughly pleat-folded at the back then cast over the shoulder to cover the arm and chest (very much like a toga). Quite an exercise getting into it, as I recall: involved rolling around on the floor waiting for the right moment to fasten the belt-buckle and stand up! Mike had no trouble with it all evening long; and that was a very convivial and active evening. So I agree with you about the practical nature of this garment (if this is also known as a "fielaghmor", that is). Also agreed: Queen Victoria's "kilts" are right out! John Prebble's book "Glencoe" gives very good descriptions of Scottish clan life in the seventeenth century: evocative and easily pillaged for Sartar. Probably has a bunch of stuff on their clothes, too, but I can't check now as Jon Quaife has my copy. David Dunham rightly points out that several Lunar allies will wear trews of one kind or another. This doesn't excuse the misleading impression given in the rules, that "Lunars wear trousers". When you think of a "Lunar", is it a Char-un cossack or a Heartland citizen that springs to mind? A Carmanian cataphract, Sable lancer, or Pelorian peasant? I know what I believe... ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12366; Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:06:32 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11125; Mon, 28 Feb 94 04:06:28 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:06:31 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:06:21 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Earth analogues; Dress Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 01:05:08 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <442BFB67DB0@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. Paul Reilly writes in RQ playtest: > Sartarites are NOT Celts. They don't feel at all like Celts - much > more like, say, Anglo-Saxons. To me they feel like a mixture of both. > They are especially NOT Irish, which > some people seem to be thinking they are. There I agree. > Let's look at just a couple of points. > 1. Cities. Your classic Celts (and ESPECIALLY Irish) don't really have > cities, per se. The Gauls start to pick them up after contact > with Greek (Massilia) and Roman culture, but Ireland is free of them > until the Norse found Dublin, Limerick, etc. Wrong, at least partially. The upper Danube valley had old oppidae in the 2nd century BC, most prominently Manching close to Munich. They had trade contacts to Greeks and Carthaginians, but so did the Germanic people north of the Baltic Sea (amber!). Fortified hill forts are known from all the Celtic settlements then. Hallstein had a large trade town until around 200 BC, when the salt mines began to run low and the populace moved elsewhere. Fortified swamp towns were common east of the Elbe already around 0 AD. > Sartar and Heortland are both centered around cities. This is much more > like Archaic Greece than it is like any Celtic countries. Sartarite cities were built but 150 years ago. Heortland cities were built under maritime trade influence - replace Greeks by Trader Princes - and high culture civilizations like the Theyalan councils and the EWF. Sartar, Heortland, Esrolia and Otkorion are the most developed Theyalan areas, and comparable to Gallia Narbonnensis and Cisalpina and Celtiberia before the Roman Conquest, or with the Slavic tribal lands around 1000 AD. Read Free INT 7 for a few details on the slavic cities along the Baltic Sea (plug). > 2. Plowing as a great human endeavor - "Every man plows; even Orlanth plows" > Try telling a Heroic Age irishman that he is supposed to plow and I, for > one, will stand well out of the way. Cattle are the measure of a Celt's > wealth; plowing is not for free men. Try telling an Anglosaxon Housecarl or Ealdorman, or a Norse Jarl or petty King. They might have measured their wealth by the amount of land under the plow, but catch them following the team themselves... The plowing warrior occurs in a society which has land-owning, free farmers. The Germanic tribes had these in the dark ages, the Celtic tribes had these in the Antique, the Slavic tribes had these in the High Middle Ages. This is a society where the king and the church has not yet a grip on the landowning farmers. As soon as the church or the nobility begins to be the main landholder, the warrior-farmer dies out. Consider the decline of the Jizamurai in Tokugawa Japan, or the decline of the Viking farmers in christianized Scandinavia. When the law passes from the peoples' meeting (Thing) to the nobility, the warriors stop tending crops and start tending serfs. > 3. The _godi_ (see KoS) of the Orlanthi seem a lot more like the > _godi_ of the Germanic peoples than they seem like the druids of the Celts. > Really, folks. Not at all. The Norse godi, e.g. on Iceland, were men who _owned_ a place of sacrifice and profited of it. They were about as holy as were mercenary captains. Kings and chieftains, now there you have sacral offices... RQ priesthood has its parallels in the Persian Magi or Egyptian priesthood, plus Christianity. > 4. The feel of Orlanthi mythology is not very Celtic; much more > Norse or Saxon. This is somewhat subjective, but seems clear to me. > More on request. Request. The feel of Orlanthi mythology isn't very Germanic to me, either. Recently I read a bit about Slavic temples which strongly reminded me of Orlanthi or Yelmic practises. > Dress: > I OBJECT to trousered Lunar Heartlanders! > First, Heartland culture is more or less Dara Happan in origin - these > guys would never switch to pants. They don't wear pants in GRoYelm, > (check God's Wall, e.g.) and their close cultural analogues on Earth, > the Sumerians, wouldn't be caught dead in pants. The sumerians had mountain ranges between themselves and the icy northern plains, the Pelorians have not. The Dara Happans might have warmer climate than their geography indicates, but around Silver Shadow climate would be somewhat like Russia, were there not the Kalikos Icebreaker ventures. > Historically, pants appear in riding cultures and where it's damn cold. > Dara Happa is neither. Agreed. Western and eastern Peloria, however, are washed by the Ice Sea, which has no Gulf Stream to warm it up, and are similar in climate to southern Pent. Lunar Heartland outside of the Oslir Valley would be similar in climate to the Redlands, the latter gain some additional shelter from the Blue Moon Plateau. Fronela, Peloria and Pent get all the cold air, while Ralios, Maniria and the Wastelands are sheltered by the east-west ranges of Nidan and Rockwood Mountains. Seshnela get cool sea air from the Neliomi, and is cooler, too. If Peloria is to get reasonable amounts of rainfall, this would have to come from the north, and be cold weather, ten to fifteen degrees Celsius at most. Storm and Sea Season are prone to bring belated blizards from Valinds Glacier, and Sea and Fire Season have soft but steady influx of air from the Sea of Ice. With an everage height of 500 m above sea level (extrapolated from the height of the Elf Sea, which is about 950 m in Griffin Mountain) the climate isn't at all what I would call mild or friendly. The Pelorians consequently need reasonably warm clothing, females might wear kaftans, males baggy trews and long shirts, similar to the (sedentary) Russians. American plains indians were often nomads, whose dress follows other needs. I don't know what costume the maize growing cultures along the Mississippi wore around 1400, but that dress may be appropriate, too, since the climate (colder then than today, look at what happened to the Greenland settlements) was similar. The Oslir cut deep into the Pelorian bowl, and thus provided its valley with some protection from the cold weather the surrounding higher ground had to suffer. This led to the strength of the Dara Happan civilization, and different styles of life from the Lodrili peoples around them. Where Lodrili needed an Earthwarm, the Dara Happans could do with a Sunripen. These easier circumstances made the Oslir valley dwellers look down to the non-valley dwelling Pelorians. The cultures are related, but different conditions need different adaptions. > Male village Pelorians wear (I think) something like a dhoti or lungi, i.e., > a simple rectangle of cloth arount the waist, no sewing involved. (Held > up by tension). Females might wear something like a sarong. > Formal occasions (village dances, etc.) will merit tops. Too damn cold, I'd say. Valind's Glacier is only about 400 miles from Karasal or Oronin, and the Grey Mountains don't protect much. Climate would be harsher than around the Great Lakes in US/south Canada, and show me people wearing just flimsy cloth around April there. Sea season is the time of sowing. > Theyalans might have pants (probably checks or stripes of garish colors > whenever possible). They came down from the mountains where pants are > practical, also many men ride as cattle herders. There are probably formal > robes as well. Theyalans are great shepherds and use wool to a large amount. The Pelorians might prefer linen or cotton (if they manage to grow the latter in their climate). These materials dictate cut of clothing to a certain degree. Take this into account. Woven wool or felt don't make good baggy or light garment, cotton and fine linen do. What do the Pelorians (not Dara Happans) use as draught beasts for their plows? Buffalos, or (since the Praxian conquests under the Second Council, and later under Arkat) Bisons? Do they (or some bastard Pentans) have camels (perfect beasts for Redland settlers, BTW, remember the battle in which the Persians improvised camel lancers against Croesus, and forced the enemy cavalry to dismount because their horses shied from the strange beasts)? Do they ride donkeys (real horses forbidden by Dawn Age horse-rider overlords)? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04233; Sun, 27 Feb 94 19:35:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27125; Sun, 27 Feb 94 20:31:01 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 20:35:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 20:30:52 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Trews; First Supplement Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 17:30:41 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43B27FB3EC7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Who's to write and edit it? Surely not the people working on RQIV AiG who will probably be burned out for two years after this; are the advocates volunteering here? It is not reasonable to wait for AH to pay for supplements to be developed. Lacking the much despised mass market, it is not economical for them to do so, and they are not in this business because they love RQ. More constructively, I have a complete CoP/CoT style writeup of the Red Goddess cult, which I was working on as part of a possible CoLE supplement, and because I want Lunar PC's in our campaign and suspect one reason they are rare is that there is not much material on how to play them.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA04306; Sun, 27 Feb 94 19:38:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27329; Sun, 27 Feb 94 20:36:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 20:38:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 20:36:30 EST From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Sandy Peterson and Runes Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 20:36:23 -0500 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43B40007E1F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Well, I take whatever Sandy Peterson has to say about runes with a grain of salt for one reason: When queried as to what a "hero" and a "superhero" were, Sandy stated that a hero had affinity with the "Hero rune" and a superhero had affinity with the "Superhero rune". However, when asked the same question, Greg Stafford (who happens to own Glorantha as a concept and world) stated that there was no qualitative difference between the two and that being a "hero" or "superhero" was not a matter of affinity with different runes but was more a matter of scale and how selfish one was. Put it another way: Harrek was a superhero because he was a selfish bastard. He kept all his heroquesting gifts to himself. Argrath was a hero because he shared his heroquesting gifts with his people. Now, Harrek could stomp Argrath in a one-on-one fight, but Harrek's power died with him. Argrath's influence was much more widely and much longer-lasting. This was in an issue of Tales of the Reaching Moon, which I consider to be as valid as anyone citing RQII material--MORE valid in fact, since I am able to get TOTRM but most RQII information is completely inaccessible to me. If people are upset at me citing ToTRM for information, I'll make a deal: I'll stop citing ToTRM and other such sources if you stop citing RQII.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27004; Sun, 27 Feb 94 21:56:18 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA02323; Sun, 27 Feb 94 22:54:22 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 22:56:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 22:54:08 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Who wore what. Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 19:53:57 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43D8B4B0B4F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> There has been much discussion of whether Lunars wear trousers, etc. Since comparisons have been made to a number of historical cultures, I thought I would get out my "Armies and Enemies" series books, which draw on English classical scholarship and archaelogy, are intended for fanatical English minatures types who care whether a Late Roman went barelegged, wore breeches, or wore trousers. Since the Lunars are most often compared to Late Imperial Rome {though I have heard Greg compare them to Byzantium, and Republican Rome as well}, I looked up Late Imperial Romans first. They wore cloak, tunic, and as of the mid 2nd century AD "Auxiliary pattern breeches had been increasingly used on a semi-offical basis in the previous hundred years, and now became standard at all times" speaking of changes in legionary equipment in the mid 2nd century AD. Byzantines "Main diferences from Late Roman dress are the substution of trousers and boots for breeches and sandals". A few other random observations: Sassanid Persian clibanarii are given as wearing either long robes or trousers "126 is a later version. He wears a long robe beneath his mail, has a helmet with an attached mail hood with small eye holes, and uses his Kontos overarm in one hand. The baggy trousers worn by 129 are an alternative lower garment." Blemye {who are black cavalry who raided the Sudan and wore among other things ostrich plumes} "His tunic and trousers are white with patterned blue decorations at the neck and cuffs." though Blemye infantry were barelegged. Frankish and Dacian infantry wore trousers. Palmyrans {from Syria} also wore trousers. Saxons wore a long sleeved tunic, trousers, and often a soft leather or cloth cap. Picts wore a large cloak, loincloth, and if rich sometimes a shirt. From later periods: Carolingian infantry wore tunic and linen trosers; Vikings wore baggy trousers of steppe origin; 7th-10th Century Anglo Saxons wore breeches; Khazars wore tunic, trousers and long arab topcoat; Later on trousers become dominant, varying between tight and loose as needed. What I make of this: Pelorians wear breeches or trousers as appropriate to the climate, usually tight as opposed to baggy Turkish style. They may wear long robes on formal occasions, as a matter of cult obligation and for display. Dara Happans, being notoriously conservative go barelegged except in Sartar, Aggar etc, where a desire not to freeze to death causes them to switch to breeches. Carmanians wear trousers, as do Char-Un. Carmanian trousers are tight, functional and sometimes worn under armor. Char-Un trousers are loose, baggy and decorated, sometimes being worn over armor. Most everybody wears a tunic. Boots are worn by all except Dara-Happans who probably stick with sandals. Ray Turney  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01070; Sun, 27 Feb 94 23:28:27 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA05453; Mon, 28 Feb 94 00:26:32 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 0:28:26 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 0:26:25 EST From: Mark Gagnon To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sandy Peterson and Runes Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 00:27:07 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43F15221C3B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> On Sun, 27 Feb 1994, Bryan J. Maloney wrote: > This was in an issue of Tales of the Reaching Moon, which I consider to > be as valid as anyone citing RQII material--MORE valid in fact, since I > am able to get TOTRM but most RQII information is completely inaccessible > to me. > > If people are upset at me citing ToTRM for information, I'll make a deal: > I'll stop citing ToTRM and other such sources if you stop citing RQII. Hear, hear! (a voice for the back-benches) Mark Gagnon (markg@engrg.uwo.ca) University of Western Ontario =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ignus aurum probat, miseria fortes viros Fire tests gold; adversity strong men  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10347; Mon, 28 Feb 94 02:07:18 -0600 Return-Path: <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10080; Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:07:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 3:07:17 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 3:07:05 EST From: Nick Brooke <100270.337@CompuServe.COM> To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Peoples Date: 28 Feb 94 03:04:01 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <441C2CA6A1C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Nick here. Ray asked: > Who's to write and edit it? Surely not the people working on RQIV AiG > who will probably be burned out for two years after this; are the > advocates volunteering here? Well, Ray: 60% of it is done already, 20% is easy to extract from existing material. It's the non-existent last 20% that will be real work. I *would* volunteer, but with How the West was One, the Carmania Book, proofing and improving RQ:AiG, Wyrms Footprints, Tales and so on taking up a lot of my time, I'd perhaps not be the best person for the job. > It is not reasonable to wait for AH to pay for supplements to be > developed. Lacking the much despised mass market, it is not > economical for them to do so, and they are not in this business > because they love RQ. The difference between the five projects listed above which I am working on, (only one of which involves Avalon Hill) and my "Peoples of Glorantha" proposal is that I know, at the end of the day, that my current work *will* see print if it's at all possible. The people who want to produce it are friends who like my stuff and can publish it themselves. I am not going to be paid for any of it, but my incentive is there. Try talking to MOB some time about Avalon Hill and contracts: the disincentive is not that they don't pay you to develop them, which only a noodle-head would expect in this "business", but that they aren't prepared to commit themselves to doing anything with the finished product. >From conversations with Eric Dott at RQCon, I'm almost prepared to believe Avalon Hill are in this business because they love RuneQuest. It's not a moneyspinner for them. They just love it differently... Maybe we should evangelise more? > More constructively, I have a complete CoP/CoT style writeup of the > Red Goddess cult, which I was working on as part of a possible CoLE > supplement, and because I want Lunar PC's in our campaign and suspect > one reason they are rare is that there is not much material on how to > play them. Is this the same as the Chaosium's full cult write-up? I found that a bit sketchy, so if yours fleshes it out and adds some more colour (preferably red) that'd be handy. OTOH, that means more work for the poor sap who ends up editing this supplement... Of course, I was a fool to omit Storm Bull from the Praxian cults listed in the proposed contents table. He should certainly be there. The Trousers Debate: > "Armies and Enemies" series books ... are intended for fanatical English > minatures types who care whether a Late Roman went barelegged, wore > breeches, or wore trousers. Make that "a Late Roman *soldier*". The rest of my previous comments stand. On "Lunar trews", I agreed the army in Dragon Pass might wear them. I deny that the hypothetical "average Lunar Heartland citizen" does -- and this includes the Pelorians you want to see embreeched. If you liked the "Armies & Enemies" books, Ray, have you seen the Osprey "Men at Arms" series. Hours of fun! > Carmanians wear trousers, as do Char-Un. Carmanian trousers are tight, > functional and sometimes worn under armor. Applies to the military only. I prefer the "baggy Turkish style" for trousers worn in the Pelorian highlands, and for Carmanian court gear. And I think you're wrong about "everyone wears boots except the Dara Happans": the Pelorians are also sandal-wearers, when they have anything on their feet at all. Why make everyone look the same (boots and trousers) when you can make them look different and more Ancient (RQ's "Bronze Age" feel) at the same time? Paul Reilly talks sense most of the time. But I still like to mix Celtic and Germanic elements in my Orlanthi. Compare the Lhankor Mhy and Issaries and Chalana Arroy cults to the role of druids, bards and doctors in Celtic societies: travelling masters of their vital skills, legally immune to clan politics. That work for anyone? I would insist that RQ:AiG say "Celts and Anglo-Saxons" or "Celts and Vikings" for parallels, so people don't assume they're entirely Celtic. But there's lots of cosy, homely "feel" you can pick up from the Celts, in part due to Asterix the Gaul and Slaine, which some people don't get from the Germanic types. ==== Nick ====  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10534; Mon, 28 Feb 94 02:13:50 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10205; Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:13:46 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 3:13:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 3:13:41 EST From: Dustin Tranberg To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Divine Magic, Sartar<>Ireland, & "interpretatio Lunara" Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 00:13:34 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <441DF035EA8@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> SUMMARY: Divine magic, Sartarites/Irish comparison, and theological theories. Steve Barnes writes on Divine magic: >The point is, if I already have 4 points of Shield, and for roleplaying >reasons, want some non-combat spells, I don't want to have to worry that >I may get toasted in the next mondo fight, unless I dump all my POW into >Shield. I want stacking limits (or something), so that I don't have to >worry that the Other Guy might have more of something than I do. This sounds like a good argument for a Runepower-type system, where a priest et al sacrifices for general spellpower instead of "holy handgrenades" (i.e., pre-declared specific divine spells, a D&Dism I'd like to nuke). *** On another note, Paul (paul@phyast.pitt.edu) writes about comparing Sartarites to the Irish: > 2. Plowing as a great human endeavor - "Every man plows; even Orlanth plows" >Try telling a Heroic Age irishman that he is supposed to plow and I, for >one, will stand well out of the way. Cattle are the measure of a Celt's >wealth; plowing is not for free men. Hmmm, while I agree it would be stupid to suggest to a "Heroic Age" Irish *warrior* that he plow, my understanding is that there existed a sizable class of *free* farmers, who were of a lower class/caste, but were NOT slaves. Slaves occupied a position so low as to drop off the bottom of the caste system entirely. In fact, try telling an Irish free farmer that "plowing is not for free men", and *I* will stand well out of the way. ;^) *** On the subject of religions and equating/comparing them, Bryan J. Maloney said: >Now, some folks could claim that one could construct some sort of >"correspondence" between the Pamaltelan Power Masks and the "true" Runic >meaning. This is about as valid as the Romans insisting that Lugh Lamfod >was "really" their god Mercury, that the Dadghda was "really" their god >Jupiterus, etc. etc. etc. Actually, the "interpretatio Romana", as this is called, has a little more going for it than just the Romans' say-so, in that the deities/pantheons of other Indo-European peoples, especially the Celts of Gaul, share a common origin with the Roman deities. In fact, IMO, it was exactly this ability to fold the religion of a conquered (or otherwise culturally influenced) area *into* the Roman system, producing a hybrid Roman-local religion, that helped the Roman empire achieve its remarkable stability over time. Why destroy the local cults when you can *co-opt* them? Indeed, why destroy the local cults when they *really do* bear great similarities to your own? So, do you think there's an "interpretatio Lunara"? Hoping that I do not digress overmuch, Dustin (dustin@ocf.berkeley.edu)  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10550; Mon, 28 Feb 94 02:14:24 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10211; Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:14:21 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 3:14:25 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 3:14:13 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Orlanthi analog Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 00:14:03 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <441E1366CC6@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. I agree with Paul; as I've said before, Sartarites seem more like Celts crossed with Icelanders. Although after reading the Pendragon supplement Pagan Shore, I start to lean toward the Celt side. > The other thing is that a leader among the Celts is leader because >he is perfect in all things, not just a cunning sword jock like in the >Orlanthi culture, that's a German/Scandinavian thing. The way they've >got the women's and men's roles divided is Germanic, not Irish. But who said an Orlanthi leader is a cunning sword jock? This doesn't fit the kingship tests we've read about in Wyrm's Footnotes -- nor the fact that the Varmandi clan's current leader is titled "The Peaceful." > A wind lord isn't required to have a dance skill, a Sing skill, play the >harp, etc., in contrast to Celtic culture. The warband members don't have to >have scholarly foreign >languages - in Cormac mac Art's time, warriors were expected to be >literate in Latin and Greek as well as Irish. I think you may be erroneously setting up a later Celtic period as your target; I'd use the earlier stuff from Pagan Shore. Furthermore, Wind Lords are the embodiment of the warrior; it's unreasonable to expect them to be other than warrior-like. It's not a requirement for clan leadership -- look more to Orlanth Rex. And Wind Lords can at least use Swordspeech or Oratory for their rune lord requirements. > Orlanthi don't even hve geasa - how can they be modelled on the Celts >if they don't have geasa? It's not clear if the Prince of Sartar whom the Red Emperor killed broke a Humakti geas or another sort... It's obvious that Sartarites are not just Celts who worship Orlanth. But there's much Celtic about them. Do the Saxons or Jutes (or Norse) have king elections? Do they fight naked?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12280; Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:02:41 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11076; Mon, 28 Feb 94 04:01:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:02:01 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:01:51 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Have to rant--some folks MUST be reminded... Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 01:01:12 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <442AC835A04@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here: People on this thread have raised a couple of issues: Bryan J. Maloney writes about the size current audience for RQ: >How can I convince people of this? How can I show them what is so PAINFULLY >obvious? Waldonbooks carries AD&D, DC Heroes, Shadowrun and Vampire, sometimes >even GURPS stuff. I have NEVER seen that major chain carry a SINGLE RQ >product. To sneer about "newcombers" or the "ignorant" is about as smart >as playing russian roulette with a Colt M1911A1 and two bullets! David Cake talks about not dilluting the audience for RQ: > I do not want RQ to aim for dragging in hordes of 15 year olds like >A D&D or Warhammer - I think that the decline in maturity and depth >necessary to attract that audience would kill the game, and wouldn't work >anyway (AH just doesn't have the money to devote to vast marketing pushes). Taking into account Bryan's account of market share, which I agree with, the 15 year olds can not be ignored. I am not suggesting that we water down RQ in any way but that RQ is marketed as the pinnacle of roleplaying games. Literate, educational, inspirational and mature. The kind of game that is cool enough to buy and can still be recommended to parent as something to buy their fifteen year olds. There should be some advertising aimed at this market and the rules should catter for the compartively low reading ages of both 15 year old and adult which have been weaken by the dominant audio-visual entertainment culture. Beware the modern attention span. What a roleplaying game publisher print should be both a good role playing game and a good read. RQ:AiG should be as fresh and as readable as the writing team can write it. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13180; Mon, 28 Feb 94 03:45:33 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12009; Mon, 28 Feb 94 04:45:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:45:32 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 4:45:17 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: The UK Oral Tradition Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 01:44:52 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44365DC0050@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here explaining the oral tradition. People have been talking about the oral tradition experience I have explained to people so here is a fuller explaination. As someone around at the birth of roleplaying in the UK people were very keen to talk about it. I found that you could meet people and from their use of role playing words, like Dexterity for example, you could spot the roleplayers. Secondary schools, live role playing, families moving away and people leaving home to read for a degree stirred the UK mixing pot and forged links between might otherwise have been insular groups. Here is an Urban legends to illustrate the situation: One of my friends went to a British Telecom training course with a whole crowd of people from across this large UK company. After people started to socialise and my friend let out a few *Oh Wows* he was asked by another attendee if he knew Guy Robinson? It turned out that a friend from live roleplaying had encountered a friend from my degree, quite by chance. Also being one of the earlier roleplayers, apart from the people who where in UK Universities when I was at tender age of ten I hasten to add, arriving at Polytechnic and doing a four year course meant that I met a large number of gamers. Maybe other people lacked the events that bound and rebound us all. I went to TSR's Open Days and Conventions, travelled by Bus across landscapes marred by comparative urban poverty to play in different groups and travelled by train to Treasure Trap, a live role playing place, to play a Wizard before I even started my degree. Amongst those days RuneQuest, Traveller and Chivalary and Sorcery stood out as the classic games of the period, excluding D&D and AD&D, of course. Comparative discussions about the games abounded as although our purchasing power was often shallow but our enthusiasm commonly ran deep. Enough already. Regards Guy 'I was too poor for a middle name' Robinson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20596; Mon, 28 Feb 94 07:43:19 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12352; Mon, 28 Feb 94 05:07:20 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 5:07:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 5:07:06 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Faster Combat Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 05:06:24 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <443C2C8390D@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here: Ray Turney writes: ) Someone {I forget who} wanted me to figure out how to make ) combat faster. I suggest: Assuming that we want to generally keep the RQ system and not revert to a D&D type combat system, then in my experience the number one way to speed up combat is by being organized. There are several ways to do this: 1) Gm needs to be prepared (obviously 2) The players need to be fully proficient with all aspects of their character and its operation. While new players will be less so, it is certainly not beyond the call of reasonableness for a GM to insist that the players pretty much memorize their characters, especially when they've played them enough. Barring this, I encourage my players to plan out their actions for the next round while someone else is taking their turn. Similarly, I expect Statements of Intent to have been planned while other things are going on, so that when the Statement of Intent time rolls around, no thinking and hemming and hawing is done. The RQAiG rules could stress this. 3) Publish combat aids. I have a worksheet that allows a player to record what he is going to do in the upcoming MR. This has several benefits...as it helps keep track of Statement of Intent and helps to track spell duration. Someone suggested the idea of a combat character sheet that lists characters with their combat spells up and operating. In any case, the point of all this is that I have found that RQ combat can progress quickly if people are organized and up to speed. The proposed methods for speeding up combat perhaps should be included as an optional rule, especially in trivial combats (i.e. Runelords against Rubble Runners), but I for one think the changes D&D-ize Runequest combat way too much. David Dunham writes: ) This makes sense, in that calculating specials and crits ) always slows things down Really? The average RPG players is usually a bit on the above avergae intelligence side, and is probably math-proficient enough to divide by 5 or 20 in their head, after all, these are no complex mathematical equations. It takes most of our group about 1 second to calculate special or crit chance s, and in general, when you've played for a few hours and have calculated what you need for a special or critical the first time, you can pretty much remember the number for the rest of the evening (assuming weapon skills don't change). Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15021; Mon, 28 Feb 94 04:41:55 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13158; Mon, 28 Feb 94 05:41:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 5:41:56 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 5:41:43 EST From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Have to rant--some folks MUST be reminded... Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 18:46:34 +0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44456884451@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Guy Robinson here: > Dave Cake here >Taking into account Bryan's account of market share, which I agree with, >the 15 year olds can not be ignored. > They should not be the market we aim at. Period. If we can drag them in without compromising the game at all, well and good. >I am not suggesting that we water down RQ in any way but that RQ is >marketed as the pinnacle of roleplaying games. Literate, educational, >inspirational and mature. The kind of game that is cool enough to buy >and can still be recommended to parent as something to buy their >fifteen year olds. > Fifteen year olds mostly buy their own games, and they mostly buy AD&D or Warhammer. We are never going to sell as many as these games. Personally, I think that is something that we should accept and learn to like. For Australians and English, an appropriate metaphor is to think of AD&D as the Neighbours of role-playing games - sure its more popular, and that is largely BECAUSE of its artistic flaws. >There should be some advertising aimed at this market and the rules >should catter for the compartively low reading ages of both 15 year >old and adult which have been weaken by the dominant audio-visual >entertainment culture. Beware the modern attention span. > Well, sure. Just don't change the game at all - and we will get a small %age of the 15 year old market. > >Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20123; Mon, 28 Feb 94 07:22:53 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA19641; Mon, 28 Feb 94 08:22:39 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 8:22:48 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 8:22:24 EST From: shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: checks; stigmata Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 04:52:22 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <447043E62A2@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David Dunham writes: > > Wayne Shaw said > >I'm getting more than a bit tired of be stigmitized because > >I don't think dumbing down the rules is the best idea since sliced bread. > > If I've stigmatized you (instead of merely opposing your position), I apologi > No, no, no David! That statement was in a comment to you because I was attempting to explain the somewhat irritable tone of a comment I made to someone else. I wouldn't want people to assume that statement was aimed more than VERY peripherally at you. The worst that can be said about your position on this is that you have made (perhaps unwarrented) assumptions about how close your view and the theoretical buyer of RQ4 correspond to one another, and that's somewhat inevitable in this sort of thing. If that comment came across as directed at you, I'M the one who should be apologizing. ------------------------------ 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 (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA26038; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:58:05 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA24663; Mon, 28 Feb 94 09:42:29 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 9:42:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 9:42:16 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Restoring and Balancing Runic Mastery I Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 06:41:18 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44859001B2A@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here. This a work intended to help with GM Section as I attempt to discuss how to restore RQ to a state where RQ:AiG players and GMs can envisage the campaign possibly progressing to the HeroQuest level. With RQ:AiG Spirits, Spirit Magic and Divine Magic are now classified by Runes. If we are moving back to this state them the relationships of people with these Runic archetypes should be explored, taking into account the broader culture of Glorantha. I felt that RQ3 was essentially a hatchet job on the Gloranthan/Runic background and that Glorantha will not be complete unless the issues of Runic mastery are worked through. With RQ:AiG being an attempt to write something closer in sprit to RQ2 the legacy of RQ3 has caused some problems, although it undeniable improved some areas. One of my players during a play test remarked that Rune Lords seems simply a less powerfull form of Priest. This guy is brutally objective and I tend to concurr with him. Not everything has been reintegrated yet from the RQ3 cultural massacre. This discussion is about ways perform this rebuilding. Joerg wrote: >> My interpretation is that you master a Rune through a rite of passage. >This is very nice, but a rite of passage can occur outside of a religion. >In Hrestoli society, to become a knight you have to master similar skills >as a Wind Lord. Hrestoli Knights ought to be the equivalent to a >Rune Lord, don't you think? >Now we have Rokari society where your caste is hereditary, and anyone from >the knight caste who becomes an adult (rite of passage) is promoted to >knighthood. So ordinary Rokari knights do qualify? >I give these examples to show that rite of passage is not sufficient IMO. The issue is that the Rune Lord and Rune Priests rites of passage are backed by the sacrifices of MPs and POW made by the Cult, accumilated by the God and directed by the Priest hierarchy. A shaman will have the spiritual aid and weight of the tribes and it's links that have been forged over the centuries with spirit plane. It is this power which would endow cults, or tribes, to endow Runic Mastery upon the supplicant. Lesser rites of passage cover aspects likes Initiation, which causes cult ties to be visable via Soul Sight (RQ:AiG). Beside I would postulate that the major Rite of Passage, the significant one, would be endowed by the School of Sorcery linking the Supplicant to the Rune of Law. After all in Sorcerous societies magic is firmly in the hands of the Sorcery (RQ:AiG). I hopes this asnwers your question about the rites of passage issue. I'm not suggesting that all rites of passage are equal but that the major rites from each the three magical approaches should grant Rune affinity. >> RQ2 is pretty vague about Runes but it does state the Runes that >> Rune Lords, Priests and Shamans have mastered or have an affinity >> to (both terms are used) near the Runes description. >So vague that I couldn't find it searching about 2 hours for it. Unless >pointed to the page and paragraph, I'd say RQ2 doesn't say so. Fearsome that my step-son, learning how valuable the RQ:AiG script could be would set about selling photocopies to his friends I sent him home for two weeks with my copy of RQ2. Trust me, I'm a scientist :-) But I have a near photo-graphic memory for gaming rules so this might just work. Find the picture of Rurik as a Rune Lord. The opposite page, which should contain a fair number of numbered paragraphs, should contain the quote which is in a single paragraph. As most RQ2 rules occurr but once in the strangest of places I sympathise, believe me. [My max POW mechanic for people who not have acheived Rune level] >> Beginning max POW either 21 or original POW times 1.5, whichever is >> lower. If you scarifice POW below original POW then your POW >> max drops to a possibly lower POW * 1.5. I would suggest that gaining >> in POW above your max POW without Runic mastery is possible but should >> be at a slower pace. >> This is an example, a straw person, feel free to criticize. >You bet. Lets assume a Khan of Waha, original POW 13, who managed to raise >his personal max POW to 22, but due to aquiring for several divine spells >now is at POW 18, sacrifices for one use of Call Founder, cost 6 POW. This >would bring him down to POW 12. Does this lower his POW max to 18? I am not familiar with the term Khan of Waha, as my copy of RQ:AiG is not to hand, so what follows assumes that he is not of Rune level. Someone with an original POW of 13 would have a max POW of 21 (1.5 * 13). Build up to 18 POW and sacrifice 6 points and that person is down to 12 POW and yes, his new max POW is 18 (1.5 * 12). Truely a great sacrifice and one sure to build his standing within his community. If the Khan was Rune level this POW maxima remains unchanged and the deed would probably lay the foundations for more respect from his community and hence help him develope POW through whorship if the gift is used wisely. >POW 18 is very reasonable for a leader, and sacrificing for either a >powerful divine spell or a good enchantment can easily cost 5 to 6 POW. But 5 to 6 POW is a lot to sacrifice and it should not be common, I believe, for people to encounter people who have blown a third of their POW in one go. They should suffer for it unless they are Rune level and tied sufficently in the mythological framework of Glorantha to make such feat feasable. >What about knights, or people who mastered a Rune outside of known cults >(e.g. Sartar and Dormal)? This is why I am recommending guidelines and taking the time to explain and expand them. Situations will occurr when a GM writing Gloranthan background, or Gloranthan-style background, will want to assess this very matter. My replies to other people can be found in the 2nd part of this note.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA24544; Mon, 28 Feb 94 08:48:46 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA25046; Mon, 28 Feb 94 09:48:37 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 9:48:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 9:48:33 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Restoring and Balancing Runic Mastery II Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 06:43:17 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44873DB48F7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Guy Robinson here, continuing his post. David Dunhman wrote: >Guy Robinson suggested >>Whatever the mechanism is mortals without Runic mastery should >>meet diminishing returns as refelected by the standard POW >>gain roll. If they sacrifice POW then they loose it seriously. [...] >I've never seen someone IN PLAY lower their POW to get better POW gain >rolls. (I have seen it in character creation, when I've allowed characters >to roll for each year of initiate worship. This is a very good argument for >the abstract system of POW increase that's presented in RQ:AiG.) Nobody >seems to think the increased chance of improving is worth the decreased >chance of living to roll for the check they would have a decreased chance >of earning. I have nothing against the slow accumilation of Divine Magic by acolytes. What I was suggesting was a response to a call to have sacrified POW return within a season or something similiar. My suggestion of reducing the POW maximum if someone sacrifices POW below their original POW was there to highlight the issues of having not bought in the system of Runic Mastery where you start to think about HeroQuesting. Once someone becomes Rune Level this mechanic does not apply. David Cake writes: >Neither [of the HeroQuest works] made >particular reference to the Mastery and Magic runes, and both where more >concerned with degree of connection to the Elements and Powers. I would see Mastery and Magic being the steping stones through which HeroQuesters would start to accumilate their degrees of connection the Elements and Powers. Bryan Maloney writes: >When queried as to what a "hero" and a "superhero" were, Sandy stated that >a hero had affinity with the "Hero rune" and a superhero had affinity with >the "Superhero rune". However, when asked the same question, Greg Stafford >(who happens to own Glorantha as a concept and world) stated that there was >no qualitative difference between the two and that being a "hero" or >"superhero" was not a matter of affinity with different runes but was more >a matter of scale and how selfish one was. I'd side with Greg here. Having a hero and superhero rune is too much like levels to me. I would advocate many ways to Runic Mastery which allows someone to develop the ability the HeroQuest and generally improve their mettle, and POW, to a more heroic status. >If people are upset at me citing ToTRM for information, I'll make a deal: >I'll stop citing ToTRM and other such sources if you stop citing RQII. I have absolutely no complaints with you quoting any RQ source. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25652; Mon, 28 Feb 94 09:00:44 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26077; Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:00:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:00:42 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:00:26 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Orlanthi analog Date: 28 Feb 1994 10:00:00 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <448A6997BA1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Can we move the cultural analog stuff to the Daily where it gets better distribution than here? I've been distressed recently about the amount of non-rules discussion here that will be forever lost to the majority of RQ players, even to the majority of RQ players online. Please take cultural issues to the Daily. -- Loren  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA20824; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:14:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA29905; Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:48:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:48:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:47:48 EST From: David Cheng To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Earth analogues; Dress Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:45:09 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44970AF027C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Paul Reilly on Sartarites: | Let's look at just a couple of points. | | 1. Cities. Your classic Celts (and ESPECIALLY Irish) don't really have | cities, per se. The Gauls start to pick them up after contact | with Greek (Massilia) and Roman culture, but Ireland is free of them | until the Norse found Dublin, Limerick, etc. | | Sartar and Heortland are both centered around cities. This is much more | like Archaic Greece than it is like any Celtic countries. I have to disagree with this a little bit. I don't think Sartarite culture is "centered around" cities. I see the clan units as the most important 'unit' of Sartarite society. Most stead-living Sartarites (the bulk of the population) would call their urban cousins "girly-men," or other such terms implying softness. The cities are where those 'specialists' (i.e. weird) are found: Chalana Arroy, Lhankor Mhy, etc. Remember, it took King Sartar's oratory to convince the tribes to form the city confederations. * David Cheng drcheng@sales.stern.nyu.edu / d.cheng@GEnie.geis.com Ask Appel & Rowe about RuneQuest-Con (212) 472-7752 [before midnight]  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA19201; Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:55:03 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15861; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:54:51 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:54:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:54:28 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: The trews, the fielaghmor, etc. Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 08:31 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44C8D3A5538@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Well, as I recall from reading and personal experience: >The filiedhmor (great kilt/great wrap) was the typical daily dress of the >Gaels most of the time--in work and in war. The Trews were worn in cold >weather, either by themselves, or just as commonly WITH the kilt. They >were also worn whenever the hell you felt like it. Just so's everyone is aware, the Gaels referred to here are the Scots. Trews, and other 'cylindrical leg garments' are horseman's gear. Trews, in the Scot's wardrobe, are bias-cut woolen tights. Very clinging, VERY revealing if a long shirt isn't worn... >My personal experience with a great kilt (a LARGE one--six yards long) is >that one can easily run, jump, lift, work, etc in the garment. Climbing >is pretty easy, too. The upper parts also have the advantage of being >useful as a bag, as a cloak, as a wrap for your musket in rain, etc. >Finally, the great kilt was also used by the Gaels as their blanket when >they slept. SIX yards!?!?!? LARGE!?!?! Huh youngster, go for the whole Nine yards for full effect. Climbing in a great kilt always produced ...varied responses from the ladies, as did most activities where the kilt was liable to fly up or around... >Fighting poses no problem in this garment, either, so long as it is properly >belted and pinned (or tied or tucked). Yes, but usually they were taken off for combat. (We always joked that your wife/mother would kill you if you brought it back slashed and bloody). >Has anyone on this list besides me ever actually WORN a great kilt for any >length of time? Yep. I used to work Ren. Faire out here in California, plus a 16th. century Re-Creation group. We took our gear out on weekend hikes in the wilderness. Our normal clothing was long shirt, great kilt, and jacket. Add in a pack for canvas dropcloth/food/spare shirt/etc, and weaponry (at least dirk, often sword or axe, sometime we took out the spears and Lochaber axes for fun. Where/when did you pick it up? (talk to me private mail if you'd like to continue this). Roderick Robertson Ruadhrigh Lom Cassach An Caolin Dahl Last Chief of Clann Colin  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16299; Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:27:23 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13459; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:26:23 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:26:29 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:25:51 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Men at Work Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 17:34:46 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44C133215E3@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. Nick: > Ray asked: >> Who's to write and edit it? Surely not the people working on RQIV AiG >> who will probably be burned out for two years after this; are the >> advocates volunteering here? > Well, Ray: 60% of it is done already, 20% is easy to extract from existing > material. It's the non-existent last 20% that will be real work. I *would* > volunteer, but with How the West was One, the Carmania Book, proofing and > improving RQ:AiG, Wyrms Footprints, Tales and so on taking up a lot of my > time, I'd perhaps not be the best person for the job. If I were native English speaker, I'd volunteer, but lacking the finer points of the language is not what I ask for in an editor. :-( At least I offer active cooperation. But I tend to disagree about the 60%, IMO there's more work to do. >> It is not reasonable to wait for AH to pay for supplements to be >> developed. Lacking the much despised mass market, it is not >> economical for them to do so, and they are not in this business >> because they love RQ. What really would help is some information from the powers that be at AH what to expect to be accepted in near future. I think the people on this list are among the most likely candidates to produce future material. > The difference between the five projects listed above which I am working > on, (only one of which involves Avalon Hill) and my "Peoples of Glorantha" > proposal is that I know, at the end of the day, that my current work *will* > see print if it's at all possible. The people who want to produce it are > friends who like my stuff and can publish it themselves. I am not going to > be paid for any of it, but my incentive is there. Try talking to MOB some > time about Avalon Hill and contracts: the disincentive is not that they > don't pay you to develop them, which only a noodle-head would expect in > this "business", but that they aren't prepared to commit themselves to > doing anything with the finished product. Then they ought to give out a quality seal "Approved for use with RuneQuest" for ventures like yours. >> More constructively, I have a complete CoP/CoT style writeup of the >> Red Goddess cult, which I was working on as part of a possible CoLE >> supplement, and because I want Lunar PC's in our campaign and suspect >> one reason they are rare is that there is not much material on how to >> play them. Quite true. > Is this the same as the Chaosium's full cult write-up? I found that a bit > sketchy, so if yours fleshes it out and adds some more colour (preferably > red) that'd be handy. OTOH, that means more work for the poor sap who ends > up editing this supplement... Come on, there are quite a few people around who don't mind a bit of work for additional information. And, as I said, there's more to be done, e.g. an Orlanth write-up for Sartarites, and a non-Orlanth write-up for Tarshite (Aggarite, Vanchite (?), Holaying...) Orlanthi. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11189; Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:34:42 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09250; Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:34:33 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:34:41 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:34:11 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Have to rant--some folks MUST be reminded... Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:33:58 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44B36A66397@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> This marketing discussion is getting pretty abstract. If we wanted to reach the 15 year old audience specifically how would you suggest going about it? If you have another audience in mind, who are they and how do you plan to reach them? My one marketing related idea is that we should make the game as easy to GM as possible, since it is GM's who keep a system alive. In general, I am a little suspicious of marketing related calculations, as they tend to become a matter of "look what the market is buying" which is useful in itself, followed by copying which if not supported by fresh inspiration fails {yes we should have archetype equivalents and good illos of them, no we should not rely on this to sell the game as otherwise they may merely buy ShadowRun, which had them before us}. So much for ranting. As for scenario pack development, my suggestion would be to have Tales of the Reaching Moon bring stuff out first. This: a) insures that authors who write stuff have a better chance of seeing it published {I'm not a big fan of AH company politics} b) allows the RQ community at least a preliminary look at stuff to see if it is good. c) Specifically, I would suggest a "Best of the Reaching Moon" supplement to come out shortly after RQIV AiG is released. It should be selected and edited by the Reaching Moon people {odd as it sounds, I don't know them} and have a color cover put on it by AH. This would both increase the stock of generally available RQ background and give Reaching Moon some valuable publicity.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA13600; Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:56:25 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA10909; Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:56:09 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:56:16 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:55:49 EST From: "Roderick Robertson, SC1-5, x52936" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Peoples Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:40 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44B92EF43B1@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >Nick here >>Ray asked: >> Who's to write and edit it? Surely not the people working on RQIV AiG >> who will probably be burned out for two years after this; are the >> advocates volunteering here? >Well, Ray: 60% of it is done already, 20% is easy to extract from existing >material. It's the non-existent last 20% that will be real work. I *would* >volunteer, but with How the West was One, the Carmania Book, proofing and >improving RQ:AiG, Wyrms Footprints, Tales and so on taking up a lot of my >time, I'd perhaps not be the best person for the job. Okay Nick, Ray, I'll take it up. I've had experience with stingy game companies (White Wolf), and have the "free" time to do it. Nick, do you have your original message (I deleted it...)? I'll contact Greg (and anyone else that wrote things) for permission to use old material. The Trousers Debate: About the Pelorians and trousers and cold, remember that the Pelorian Basin is one of the greatest concentrations of Sun worshippers around. All that POW going into the Sun *must* have some effect on the average temperature... And the Wind is cold, so you'd expect wind worshippers to wear cold-weather gear (weather trousers or kilts, which are warm, even when they're wet (old Clann Colin joke...). Roderick Robertson  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16325; Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:27:40 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13564; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:27:30 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:27:36 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:27:14 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Orlanthi analog Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 18:52:54 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44C1906759E@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg reacting to David Dunham in RQ playtest: (This is a discussion for the Daily, folks, so I crosspost) > I agree with Paul; as I've said before, Sartarites seem more like Celts > crossed with Icelanders. Although after reading the Pendragon supplement > Pagan Shore, I start to lean toward the Celt side. They are a "generic" European free farmer-warrior society. The Icelanders are just the best known example in literature, but almost any pre-christian, pre-monarchy and not yet fully Romanized people of Europe qualifies for describing the role of the farmer-warrior. It's the colourful bits on the side (like Woad) which make the Celtic parallel dominate, and the Anglosaxon names for the classes give a push in that direction. (What does Anglosaxon mean, by the way? Hengist, Horsa and Cerdic? Ine? Penda? Offa? Beorthnoth? Alfred of Wessex? Aethelred the Unready? Canute? Harold? Augustinus? Columba? Pelagius? Alcuin?) >> The other thing is that a leader among the Celts is leader because >>he is perfect in all things, not just a cunning sword jock like in the >>Orlanthi culture, that's a German/Scandinavian thing. The way they've >>got the women's and men's roles divided is Germanic, not Irish. > But who said an Orlanthi leader is a cunning sword jock? This doesn't fit > the kingship tests we've read about in Wyrm's Footnotes -- nor the fact > that the Varmandi clan's current leader is titled "The Peaceful." He is noted as an exception. But peacefulness didn't count for Irish perfection, either. The Leader had to be perfect in all things to be able to undergo the Great Marriage, to ensure fertility for his clan/tribe/kingdom. I wonder how the great queens (Kallyr, Leika Ballista) went around this one... >> A wind lord isn't required to have a dance skill, a Sing skill, play the >>harp, etc., in contrast to Celtic culture. The warband members don't have to >>have scholarly foreign >>languages - in Cormac mac Art's time, warriors were expected to be >>literate in Latin and Greek as well as Irish. Certainly not in the time of Niall of the Nine Hostages. Literacy is almost contradictionary in a culture based on oral tradition. What was Ogham used for in Ireland? The Welsh relied fully on their Bard class to record history, as did the Norse on their Skalds until christianisation, and some time beyond that. Snorre Sturlasson was working as a historian when he wrote the Heimskringla, and he relied on skaldic kvads rather than prose rendering because a skald misquoting a kvad at court would be sent off in ignomy, where a prose rendering could be changed over the course of the years. > I think you may be erroneously setting up a later Celtic period as your > target; I'd use the earlier stuff from Pagan Shore. Furthermore, Wind Lords > are the embodiment of the warrior; it's unreasonable to expect them to be > other than warrior-like. It's not a requirement for clan leadership -- look > more to Orlanth Rex. I agree. Orlanth Adventurous is somewhat a parallel to Yelm the Rider, the boastful youth fighting for his place among the adults. One of the reasons why I demand Wind Lords of Orlanth Thunderous, Orlanth Rex, Orlanth Lightbringer etc. > And Wind Lords can at least use Swordspeech or Oratory for their rune lord > requirements. Also the Riddling contest with the Yelmalians and other Solars asks for some intellectual quality in a Wind Lord. >> Orlanthi don't even hve geasa - how can they be modelled on the Celts >>if they don't have geasa? > It's not clear if the Prince of Sartar whom the Red Emperor killed broke a > Humakti geas or another sort... And Yelmalio _is_ an Orlanthi, will say Theyalan in Boris' notation, cult, which seems to be as popular in Sartar as is Orlanth or Barntar. _He_ has geasa. On the whole, I'd reserve geasa for heroes (like in Heroic Ireland) or would-be heroes. Oaths (common at Viking courts), geasa, Pendragoonesque quests - all the same stuff. > It's obvious that Sartarites are not just Celts who worship Orlanth. But > there's much Celtic about them. > Do the Saxons or Jutes (or Norse) have king elections? Do they fight naked? Yes on both accounts, I'm afraid (depending on the time you choose, of course), but at least they don't paint themselves when fighting naked. The Cimbres and Teutones invading the Roman sphere of interest fought as "sky-clad" as did Brennus' Celts about 200 years earlier, although with less success. The helmets and armours they got in early victories were sacrificed to their gods rather than worn in battle. No reason to believe contemporary Saxons would have acted otherwise, with all the moor findings on the Cimbrian peninsula. Danish Kings had to be approved by the various district-things as late as in Svein Estridssons and Norwegian King Magnus' time, around 1040 AD. Among the Frisians and northern Saxons (Dithmarschen) this custom survived along with their farmer republics almost into the age of absolute monarchy. (Switzerland is another example of a surviving culture like that.) The Kings needed royal, i.e. divine, descent to be eligible. There were few who were powerful and had no such claim, and it took their dynasties only a few generations to find such a claim. The Karolingians were the first to use divine grace as bearer for royalty, copying the concept the Hebrews had invented a generation before King David to get themselves a parallel to the indogermanic kingship the Hittites had. -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA14870; Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:13:39 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA12379; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:13:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:13:23 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:12:58 EST From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: My play testing has found RQ:AiG Sorcery problems Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:56:01 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44BDC351D11@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I attempted to spin off an Akarti (sp?), expert level campaign which focused on a venture into the lands of the Animal Nomads to contrast with the Skilled Satarite campaign. We discovered the following flaws that has killed this seperate thread off. * Magic is focused too intensely in the hands of Nobles and Sorcerers. The magic of proffesions is trivial and therefore they are not suitable as PCs in my books. * Sorcerers are not well supported via character generation. They have to burn a lot of background choices to get a reasonable blend of magic. * Sorcerers do not develop via social means therefore breaking a key RuneQuest concept where you become more powerfull by social integration and cooperation rather than by isolation and greed. * Sorcerers are not powerfull unless POW is burnt. Either the PC will have to be very philosophical about his place or bank his hopes on some of the weaker spell descriptions. > The other alternative is to rig POW recovery in a manner that unsettles the balance of the other Magical Backgrounds. > I think I have a solution to this but thats another story ... * Sorcery and Sorcerers are very weakly woven into the Runic / Gloranthan setting. How do they HeroQuest to develop magic beyond what their Manipulation skills can afford them? * Despite some cracking good spell descriptions some spells descriptions are very weak, notably Fly. I am always wary about granting Flight in a role playing without due regard to game balance. It is all to easy to Fly out of range or abuse the advantage of rapid 3D movement otherwise. * Pure spell casters with 6 STR and CON get a pretty raw deal if they are designed with the pure design method of assigning attributes mainly from fatigue. I think this is fair enough but people should be warned that is pretty daft thing to do. Summary RQ:AiG Sorcery could work in a pure sorcery environment but I would recommned that all PC be from proffessions that use High Magic to allow characters to be balanced. I do not recommend mixing RQ:AiG characters with a Sorcery Magical background with those of other Magical Backgrounds. They simply do not fit together in moderately coherent fashion. I recommend that any mixing of the Magical Backgrounds is carried out via NPC as the fudge factor needed to work out interactions is too high. Regards -- Guy Robinson --  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA16267; Mon, 28 Feb 94 12:26:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA13472; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:26:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:26:38 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:26:13 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Earth analogues; Dress Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 19:03:28 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44C14B37D1F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. > Paul here. > Finula points out that the whole social structure of the Orlanthi is > much more like the Saxons than like that of the Irish. Ask Nick > for more info, she says. The names are, to say the least. But Nick and I tend to use continental Celts for the parallel. More on this soon on the daily. > More on Irish culture (she is an Irish citizen and an archaeologist): > Up until the Renaissance, practically, the Irish upper class (warriors, > poets, etc., maybe 20% of the population, much higher than anyone else) > wandered around in a more or less constant party. They spent a LOT of > time outdoors (although they did have homes). More like the Telmori than > the Sartarites. > My clearest vision for the model of the Sartarites is German Bikers. > The sense of overlap with the Celts that some people want is there (bright > color clothing and tattoos, also found on ancient Germans) but the > behaviors are right for Sartarites. Right for Sartarite Storm Bulls, you mean. > Look at Falco's Amadeus video. Hardly what I'd call typical. Biceps tattoo, a colourful tabard (a jeans vest) above black leather and that's about all the colour you get. Include some heavy metal music and several pints of lager. So much for culture. > The model is clearly more Germanic than Celtic - people just don't > know what the differences are. The closest analogue I can think of is > the Anglo-Saxons (that people can easily research.) I recommend the excellent collection of essays in the book "The Celts", > Their berserkergang is Germanic berserkergang, not Celtic berserkergang. > (The latter is a bit more like Talor the Laughing Warrior) The only Sartarite I expect to go berserk is an Uroxi. Celtic fighting trance is more like Bladesharp, quite common in Sartar... > ps. Finula says "Angles and Saxons and Jutes - oh my!" To which I add, > the stereotypic Uroxi is a lot the stereotypic Jute. Like the Kentish people of the sixth century under King Ine, the only civilized Anglosaxons you could find on the whole Island at that time? -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12806; Sun, 27 Feb 94 21:08:06 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA00585; Sun, 27 Feb 94 22:06:13 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Sun, 27 Feb 94 22:08:07 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Sun, 27 Feb 94 22:05:59 EST From: Tim Leask To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Experience Rules Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:05:46 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <43CBDE32ACF@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Tim Leask here Brian Jackson writes: > > It's been a while since I read the RQ3 rules, but didn't that say > something along the lines of 'an experience check should only be > awarded if the GM feels the character learned by the experience'. > Which I took to mean, don't give out checks for dumb moves like swapping > weapons in mid combat. Or as I said to a player who tried it on me > in the middle of a hectic battle 'you can have your exp. check if you > reduce our INT by 1 for pulling such a dumb stunt'. > > Anyway, I agree with Loren. Something like this should be included > for the befit of novice GMs. In the first campaign I ever played in (RQ2) the GM would only allow you an experience 'tick' for the weapon you entered combat with unless there was an extremly good reason for using another such as you dropped your weapon due to a fumble or your weapon was broken during combat. The GM has to be the final arbiter on these sorts of issues. I second (third?) Loren's motion. ================================================================================ Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow." Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko. Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| -- e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au ================================================================================  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA09892; Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:44:34 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA27881; Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:44:16 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:44:22 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:44:02 EST From: rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Restoring and Balancing Runic Mastery I Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 20:39:36 MEZ Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44F60DF209C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Joerg here. > Guy Robinson here. > The issue is that the Rune Lord and Rune Priests rites of passage are > backed by the sacrifices of MPs and POW made by the Cult, accumilated > by the God and directed by the Priest hierarchy. A shaman will have > the spiritual aid and weight of the tribes and it's links that have > been forged over the centuries with spirit plane. The Rokari knights get the "voluntary" backup by their serfs shoved into church, and yet it's only an initiation WRT skill and magic level. The Hrestoli knights are in power, skill and magic the equivalent of Rune Lords (or Acolytes). In both cases a Worship Invisible God will be held, and MP will be sacrificed. If a patron saint is chosen, POW will be sacrificed (6 or 8 points _at once_). > It is this power which would endow cults, or tribes, to endow Runic > Mastery upon the supplicant. Lesser rites of passage cover > aspects likes Initiation, which causes cult ties to be visable via > Soul Sight (RQ:AiG). I'd have thought that initiation builds up a tie to the Runes of the deity, much like Steve Maurer's super-RQ heroquest system. > Beside I would postulate that the major Rite of Passage, the > significant one, would be endowed by the School of Sorcery linking > the Supplicant to the Rune of Law. After all in Sorcerous > societies magic is firmly in the hands of the Sorcery (RQ:AiG). Hrestoli Knights get to learn Intensity. More significantly, their combat skills elevate them to mastery. > I hopes this asnwers your question about the rites of passage issue. > I'm not suggesting that all rites of passage are equal but that the > major rites from each the three magical approaches should grant Rune > affinity. The problem is that the rites of passage even within one system vary greatly. Lhankor Mhy initiates compare to Rune Lords WRT skills of knowledge in the River of Cradles write-up. Orlanth or Storm Bull initiates are mere half-growns. > Someone with an original POW of 13 would have a max POW of 21 (1.5 * 13). > Build up to 18 POW and sacrifice 6 points and that person is down to > 12 POW and yes, his new max POW is 18 (1.5 * 12). Truely a great > sacrifice and one sure to build his standing within his community. My point was that the character first built up POW to 22, by whatever means, and thereby had raised his species/personal max by one. This extra advancement would be gone as well? > If the Khan was Rune level this POW maxima remains unchanged and the > deed would probably lay the foundations for more respect from his > community and hence help him develope POW through whorship if the > gift is used wisely. So a character who DIs for say 8 points of POW gets reduced POW max but status? Why punish this guy twice? >>POW 18 is very reasonable for a leader, and sacrificing for either a >>powerful divine spell or a good enchantment can easily cost 5 to 6 POW. > But 5 to 6 POW is a lot to sacrifice and it should not be common, I > believe, for people to encounter people who have blown a third of their > POW in one go. They should suffer for it unless they are Rune level > and tied sufficently in the mythological framework of Glorantha to > make such feat feasable. Acquiring a saint, or enchanting a potent spirit trap with a user condition or two easily costs as much. >>What about knights, or people who mastered a Rune outside of known cults >>(e.g. Sartar and Dormal)? > This is why I am recommending guidelines and taking the time to > explain and expand them. Situations will occurr when a GM writing > Gloranthan background, or Gloranthan-style background, will want to > assess this very matter. Ok, let me reformulate. Is it possible to attain Rune Level without joining a cult but by heroquesting? (For instance, would Urgh the Ugly be considered Rune Level?) -- Joerg Baumgartner rq4@sartar.toppoint.de  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA25804; Mon, 28 Feb 94 13:55:21 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA20393; Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:55:12 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:55:20 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:55:01 EST From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Future products Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 14:53:34 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44D8F990B82@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> As a general note - we are currently planning a number of support products for RQ: AiG to be published by Avalon Hill. I will be posting more detailed information in a while (products include cult books, source material, campaign packs and scenario packs), soliciting contributions from interested parties, etc., but in the meantime, if any of you are seriously interested in writing sections of such products or working on such a product, please drop me a line at "jovanovic@cuccfa.ccc.columbia.edu". Oliver  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA27382; Mon, 28 Feb 94 14:11:49 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA21374; Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:11:38 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:11:45 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:11:21 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: speed; sorcery; kilts Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 12:11:09 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44DD559302C@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here. Guy Robinson assumed >I am not familiar with the term Khan of Waha, as my copy of RQ:AiG is not >to hand, so what follows assumes that he is not of Rune level. No, they're effectively priests, with rune lord requirements. See Gods of Glorantha. I'd said >I've never seen someone IN PLAY lower their POW to get better POW gain >rolls. Oops, I just saw this. And it's all because of the damned "no check" POW system! The shaman gets a POW gain every 4 weeks, so he had a big incentive to transfer POW to his fetch just before the roll. Actually, the incentive is probably stronger for non-shamans, since they can wait 7 weeks and then lower their POW for their seasonal roll. Devin wrote >Assuming that we want to generally keep the RQ system and not revert to a D&D >type combat system, then in my experience the number one way to speed up >combat is by being organized. This may be true, but it's totally the wrong attitude. You're assuming that the people are broken, and need to be trained and more devoted. The system should change to adapt to the people, not the other way around. >1) Gm needs to be prepared (obviously I'm never prepared. If I had to prepare before GMing, we'd never play at all. It's perfectly reasonable to improvise -- I ran a reasonable raid on an Esrolian town last night without any preparation at all. (I long ago wrote an article for Different Worlds on the subject of gaming on the fly.) >certainly not beyond the call of reasonableness for a GM to insist that the >players pretty much > memorize their characters, especially when they've played them enough. It's well beyond the call of reasonableness. The statistics alone are 6 numbers. Human short term capacity is 7, +- 2. You'd have to be a prodigy to remember all the numbers you need in combat. And when we play, when a player's missing, someone else frequently runs their character. >) This makes sense, in that calculating specials and crits >) always slows things down > >Really? The average RPG players is usually a bit on the above avergae >intelligence side, and is probably math-proficient enough to divide by 5 or >20 in their head, after all, these are no complex mathematical equations. It >takes most of our group about 1 second to calculate special or crit chance >s, and in general, when you've played for a few hours and have calculated >what you need for a special or critical the first time, you can pretty much >remember the number for the rest of the evening (assuming weapon skills don't >change). Well, one of my players (also oneof our local GMs) was using a calculator late night to figure DEX*5%... Weapon skills do change, depending on modifiers or magic. And there are far more than weapon skills involved -- people often do a Scan or Listen during combat. Or they may drop their shield and suddenly have to Dodge. Anyway, it doesn't matter how fast anything is for players. It matters how fast it is for the GM. ANY slowdown is multiplied by at least as many NPCs as the GM runs. Guy Robinson recommended >RQ:AiG Sorcery could work in a pure sorcery environment but >I would recommned that all PC be from proffessions that use >High Magic to allow characters to be balanced. Hmm, you're assuming everyone wants to have magic. While some "note to the players" text should describe the differences, I might be tempted to start players out as non-High Magic users so they have less to learn. (In fact, I more or less did this, even with my experienced players, when I started my Griffin Island campaign.) >I do not recommend mixing RQ:AiG characters with a Sorcery >Magical background with those of other Magical Backgrounds. Seems reasonable. Again, some sort of "about these rules" or "note to the playes" text could mention this. There are other places where some sort of boxed commentary on the rules and their implications would be useful. Even little things like "The GM should make sure Sartarite characters are from friendly clans. It's simplest that they all be from the same clan." Roderick Robertson noted >but usually they [kilts] were taken off for combat. (We always joked >that your wife/mother would kill you if you brought it back slashed >and bloody). Probably a perfectly serious explanation for why the Celts fought naked...  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AB07381; Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:18:28 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA26226; Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:18:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:18:14 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:17:48 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: curse of the black knight Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:15:13 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44EF0ED5ABA@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here, wondering about the way RQ handles locational damage. I think everyone agrees that the way previous editions' rules resulted in severed and mangled body parts strewn everywhere is unacceptable. I don't think that reducing the damage done by weapons is the right way to tackle this one. I also don't like docking hit points per round for bleeding. Not only is this a big pain to GM (which David Dunham pointed out), the rule doesn't extend properly to large creatures You'd need a rule scaling their losses, something like 1 HP per 10 SIZ, and that's ugly too. Another weakness of the previous editions' rules on this is that severing a limb is too much like chopping wood. When I cut a tree down, I choose one spot to hit, make a notch, and hack away, so damage to the tree is cumulative, and soon the tree is down. When you're trying to hit somebody in battle, previous damage isn't all that relevant. For instance, if you start with 4 HP in an arm then, even if the arm is reduced to -3, somebody should NOT be able to waltz up, hit the arm for 1 HP of damage, and lop it off. Severing a location should be a lot harder--the example of Mary Queen of Scots comes to mind. I'd like to propose an alternative that eliminates the difficulty of the bleeding rules and makes serious injuries a little harder to achieve, so casual fistfights won't result in dreadful injuries as a matter of course. 1. Go back to death at curr HP = 0. Unconsciousness from total HP losses occurs at curr HP = starting total HP/6. 2. Change the point at which damage results to locations (limb use- less, can't stand, unconscious from blow to the head, etc.) kick in from the previous limit (damage >= starting location HP) to twice that. 3. Maiming/severing (for limbs) or instant death (head, chest, abdom.) occurs when the total incoming damage from a single blow >= triple the starting location HPs. 4. Once a limb's HPs have been reduced to negative starting location HPs times 2, no more damage done to that limb is passed on to total HPs. 5. When someone takes an incapacitating blow to head, chest, or abdomen (twice location points or more), or when unconsciousness from total HP damage occurs, then if he isn't healed in 2 full turns he dies from shock and bleeding. Give 'em a saving throw of (curr total HP/starting total HP) * 200 percentiles to roll under if you feel generous, so if he makes it he survives and is restored to consciousness. ?  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12476; Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:55:20 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA28479; Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:55:04 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:55:11 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:55:00 EST From: "Loren J. Miller" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: curse of the black knight Date: 28 Feb 1994 16:53:42 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <44F8F816DD7@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton Hughes sells ice to eskimos: > Newton here, wondering about the way RQ handles locational damage. Do you have RQ4b2 or RQAIG? Quite a bit of what you suggest is already in the rules. > I think everyone agrees that the way previous editions' rules resulted > in severed and mangled body parts strewn everywhere is unacceptable. Agreed so far. > I don't think that reducing the damage done by weapons is the right I do. > way to tackle this one. I also don't like docking hit points per > round for bleeding. Not only is this a big pain to GM (As David I like bleeding rules if they're simple. They'll be used mostly for PCs anyway. Players will love the chance to survive for a few rounds after being incapacitated. For most enemy characters, I'll assume that incapacitated=dead, and if players want to interrogate the NPC I'll see if said NPC has anything to say and if so then "hey, he's still alive!" That's why I like bleeding rules, actually, because they make things a little fuzzier and let the GM have some leeway without limiting PCs. I presume that most GMs will do the same, but this would be a good thing to mention in the GM advice chapter. > Dunham pointed out), the rule doesn't extend properly to large creatures > You'd need a rule scaling their losses, something like 1 HP per 10 SIZ, > and that's ugly too. Untrue. Blood loss is proportional to the size of the wound, not to the HP of the limb. In fact, this is how the current rules handle it. > Another weakness of the previous editions' rules on this is that > severing a limb is too much like chopping wood. When I cut a tree > down, I choose one spot to hit, make a notch, and hack away, so damage > to the tree is cumulative, and soon the tree is down. When you're > trying to hit somebody in battle, previous damage isn't all that > relevant. For instance, if you start with 4 HP in an arm then, even > if the arm is reduced to -3, somebody should NOT be able to waltz up, > hit the arm for 1 HP of damage, and lop it off. You misread something. This was never the rule. Limb severing required a single wound that was HL+6 in RQ2 and HLx2 in RQ3. In RQAIG it's HLx3, so this matches one of your points below. I also disagree with you about death at -1xHP vs death at 0HP, and about incapacitating locations at 0HL vs -1xHL (your points 1 and 4). Note: RQAIG adds the abbreviation HL to mean hit points per location. I thought I'd never have need to use it, but that paragraph shows me it's occasionally useful, as heavy-duty rules-jargon often is. > Severing a location should be a lot harder--the example of Mary > Queen of Scots comes to mind. It's exactly hard enough now, imho, with the newly reduced damage scores for weapons. 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 (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA28491; Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:47:01 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07524; Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:46:10 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:46:18 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:46:01 EST From: "Newton Hughes" To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: ice to the eskimos, huh? Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:38:30 CST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <452696E6828@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Newton here, responding to Loren Miller's response to my locational damage thoughts. I had said: > Another weakness of the previous editions' rules on this is that > severing a limb is too much like chopping wood. When I cut a tree > down, I choose one spot to hit, make a notch, and hack away, so damage > to the tree is cumulative, and soon the tree is down. When you're > trying to hit somebody in battle, previous damage isn't all that > relevant. For instance, if you start with 4 HP in an arm then, even > if the arm is reduced to -3, somebody should NOT be able to waltz up, > hit the arm for 1 HP of damage, and lop it off. Loren replies: >You misread something. This was never the rule. Limb severing required >a single wound that was HL+6 in RQ2 and HLx2 in RQ3. You are right insofar as the RQ2 edition rules go. However, until the middle of last December I was part of the group of people who had never seen RQ2 or played in an RQ2 game, and my understanding of the rules was shaped entirely by RQ3. If you check that version, it says nothing about the damage having to be from a single blow, so I don't think this counts as a misreading. Sorry to whine so much about the reduced weapon damage. I gather from the terseness of your reply that you see no point in arguing it. As you guess, I lack both versions of the playtest rules; I base my dis- affection for the reduced weapon damage on the tables sent to this list last September--they manage to be incredibly picky (differing base chances for attacks and parries and for different weapons in the same class, for instance) and wildly unbalanced at the same time (no reason to use a pole axe instead of a great axe, for instance). And this bleeding business--why put in a bunch of rules and then say, "Oh, don't worry, nobody actually uses these." I'd rather have just an outright fudge than that, like Paranoia's Dramatic Tactical Non- System. Then the space that would be spent on bleeding rules can go to something interesting, like Glorantha info. Oh, by the way, what happens to poison damage, now that death occurs at -HP? Is it now impossible to die of poisoning, or is that changed now, too? Rant ends here.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA29036; Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:55:35 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA07929; Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:55:31 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:55:35 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:55:16 EST From: Raymond D Turney To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Men at Work Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 16:55:05 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <45290E415B9@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Ray Turney here - I agree that there is much work to be done on the Orlanthi side, but outnumbered n to 1 by people who are pro-Orlanth and personally quite unsympathetic to Orlanth and most Orlanthi PC's, I am not the one to do it. Andy Weill and Steve Barnes can both testify to my lack of enthusiasm for Orlanth.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01284; Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:32:16 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09041; Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:24:24 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:32:12 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:24:12 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Sandy Peterson and Runes Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:23:31 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4530C503335@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here again: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes: ) but most RQII information is completely inaccessible to me. Hmmm, I seem to hear this refrain a lot. Well, I somehow managed to get my hands on pretty much every officially (i.e. not in zines like the Wild Hunt) published item for RQ2 and Glorantha excepting 1 or 2 Hero issues, a few RQ related White Dwarfs, and about half a d ozen Wyrm's Footnotes. I wonder if Chaosium would have a problem with me giving photocopies of this info at no charge to members of this playtest list who want such stuff, so that everyone works with the same knowledge of Glorantha? I guess if someone of some significance at Chaosium would tell me it's OK, then I would be willing to photocopy stuff to anyone sending me a self-addressed stamped envelope. Let me know. Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA01327; Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:32:30 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA09293; Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:32:15 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:32:28 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:24:34 EST From: devinc@aol.com To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Comments Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:23:43 EST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4530DCD3615@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Devin Cutler here Ray writes: "Agree with Nick Brooke on the subject of scenarios. Steve Maurer has written one, and I've GMed it once as a playtest. Would anyone else be interested?" Yes Devin Cutler devinc@aol.com  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA03819; Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:30:37 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA11070; Mon, 28 Feb 94 21:24:41 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 21:30:37 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 21:24:27 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Future products Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 18:24:20 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4540D63376F@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> >we are currently planning a number of support products >...if any of you are >seriously interested in writing sections of such products or working >on such a product, please drop me a line I'm interested in working on a Grazer section or product. I've been researching horse nomads for some time, and am gradually building up a set of notes on Grazers. As well as running a Grazer campaign. I'll be sending you a few more RQ:AiG comments based on yesterday's session. 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 (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA08318; Mon, 28 Feb 94 21:35:31 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA14179; Mon, 28 Feb 94 22:35:25 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 22:35:30 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 22:35:09 EST From: David Dunham To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: chopping wood Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 19:35:05 PST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4553B201F0B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> David here, apologizing for accidentally sending to the list instead of Oliver (I could see his name up there in the "From..."). Newton Hughes said >Another weakness of the previous editions' rules on this is that >severing a limb is too much like chopping wood. When I cut a tree >down, I choose one spot to hit, make a notch, and hack away, so damage >to the tree is cumulative, and soon the tree is down. When you're >trying to hit somebody in battle, previous damage isn't all that >relevant. For instance, if you start with 4 HP in an arm then, even >if the arm is reduced to -3, somebody should NOT be able to waltz up, >hit the arm for 1 HP of damage, and lop it off. I don't see your point. Wasn't it always damage-multiple in a single blow to sever a limb? The multiple is now 3 in RQ:AiG, in RQ3 it was 2 (and I don't recall RQ2 for sure). Loren replied >I like bleeding rules if they're simple. They'll be used mostly for >PCs anyway. Players will love the chance to survive for a few rounds >after being incapacitated. Huh? I see bleeding rules as a way to die, while forcing you to keep track of your character's slowly declining health.  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA10213; Mon, 28 Feb 94 22:13:54 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA15386; Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:13:26 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:13:44 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:13:05 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: My play testing has found RQ:AiG Sorcery problems Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 12:12:01 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <455DCF40564@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> I would say that Guy has a definite mix of problems here. Some are solvable by more knowledge or a different attitude to Gloranthan sorcery (it really helps to have a good amount of background on anything Gloranthan), some are perhaps problems with RQ:AiG sorcery, and some show that RQ:AiG has failed to solve all the problems with RQ3 sorcery. I note that Guy used a a group of Arkati (I think), and his conception of Arkati (as opposed to Stygians) was pretty different to mine. I have always thought of the real Arkati as being something like the write up in Troll Gods, even among humans - more of a fairly closed cult within a society than any sort of major social group. > > We discovered the following flaws that has killed this seperate > thread off. > > * Magic is focused too intensely in the hands of Nobles and > Sorcerers. The magic of proffesions is trivial and therefore > they are not suitable as PCs in my books. > Well, I personally think tha a very high proprotion of Arkati are Sorcerers - but the point remains true for the Rokari, for example. And the unfortunate truth is that everything seems to indivate that it is supposed to be that way. > * Sorcerers are not well supported via character generation. > They have to burn a lot of background choices to get a > reasonable blend of magic. > I too think that sorcerers get a raw deal in character creation. Spells really need to be cheaper or more flexible (I have made my own attempts to remedy this, as some of you are aware, but my personal optional rules do not help the RQ:AiG draft). > * Sorcerers do not develop via social means therefore breaking > a key RuneQuest concept where you become more powerfull by > social integration and cooperation rather than by isolation > and greed. > I would disagree with this one. Most of the sorcerers in Glorantha are part of Churches, of which the schools of magic are part of the intellectual tradition. While their magic may not be directly linked to their social status ( a la Guy's beloved Runic mastery concept) I think that sorcerers that have nothing to do with their school (in most cases the Church) are definately limited. This is not to say that isolated power mad sorcerers cannot exist - but the lack of an easy source of new spells, mundane support, a ready source of capable warriors, and short term sorcerous assistance is a pretty big disadvantage. > * Sorcerers are not powerfull unless POW is burnt. Either the > PC will have to be very philosophical about his place or > bank his hopes on some of the weaker spell descriptions. > I would be interested to know wether many of your players actually bothered to burn POW, or did they just ignore it? > > * Sorcery and Sorcerers are very weakly woven into the Runic > / Gloranthan setting. How do they HeroQuest to develop > magic beyond what their Manipulation skills can afford them? > I think we can see part of Guys problem here - the word Runic. Sorcerers are pretty weakly woven into the RQ2 Runic correspondances, but they are pretty firmly woven into Glorantha. They HeroQuest relatively similarly to how other people HeroQuest - they strive to repeat the deeds of Saints and famous sorcerers of times past, they learn their enemies mythic weaknesses and act on them. There are differences of course - quite possibly the God Learners attitude to myth lingers in many sorcerers - but mostly they are in much the same position as anybody else. As Greg is stressing recently, personality and faith are more important than cult status or magic on many heroquests, anyway. A Malkioni sorcerer that strives to emulate a Saint in thought and deed probably heroquests in a similar manner to a devout Divine worshipper. Of course, certain sorcery schools probably heroquest rather differently - like the Arkati, but after all they invented exploratory heroquesting, and still know secrets that nobody else knows. > * Despite some cracking good spell descriptions some spells > descriptions are very weak, notably Fly. I am always wary > about granting Flight in a role playing without due regard > to game balance. It is all to easy to Fly out of range or > abuse the advantage of rapid 3D movement otherwise. > This is a problem with some spells, but you can always not choose to allow a particular spell if you think that it will cause problems with your campaign. It is more the concept rather than the spell description that is the problem. I would not like to remove Fly from the game because some people find it troublesome, nor weaken it. > * Pure spell casters with 6 STR and CON get a pretty raw deal > if they are designed with the pure design method of > assigning attributes mainly from fatigue. I think this is fair > enough but people should be warned that is pretty daft thing > to do. > Well, I think that it is fine too. > Summary > > RQ:AiG Sorcery could work in a pure sorcery environment but > I would recommned that all PC be from proffessions that use > High Magic to allow characters to be balanced. > Almost all the other roleplaying games on the market have little or no magic available to the majority of characters (and I am not just talking about AD&D, almost all of them work this way). RQ is unusual in this respect. I can live with sorcery having some imbalance in this respect in most sorcerous cultures. I am certainly not convinced that the game balance is such that a sorcerer character in intrinsically much tougher than a dedicated warrior, for example (I would bet on the warrior unless the sorcerer had some martial ability). It is probably a good idea to ease up the availability of some High Magic spells (particularly defensive magic), while restricting most Manipulations. This means that many warriors will eventually become relatively competent purely defensive sorcerers, which sounds good to me. > I do not recommend mixing RQ:AiG characters with a Sorcery > Magical background with those of other Magical Backgrounds. > If you mean in character creation, yes, very few people know both sorcery and non-sorcerous magic (and they are generally people to watch out for, like Lunar College of Magic graduates, or experienced troll Arkati). If you mean in a party, I have not really found a problem. > > Regards > > -- Guy Robinson -- > Cheers Dave Cake  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA11943; Mon, 28 Feb 94 22:53:00 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA16765; Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:52:54 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:52:58 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:52:50 EST From: jdegon@vega.iii.com (Jim DeGon) To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Dress, Peoples, RQAiG draft Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 20:53:06 -0800 Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <45686965C4B@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> Folks, I thought this was a list to discuss the development of a rules revision, not a chat line for Gloranthan scholarship. Seeing as the amount of Glorantha which can be included in the main rulebook _is_ limited, commonly available information should be included. This kind of discussion really belongs on the Daily. I agree that info to roleplay Lunars should be included, but the level of detail will never approach the exact style of wearing this or that article of clothing. Jim DeGon  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA12544; Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:11:58 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17270; Tue, 1 Mar 94 00:11:52 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Mar 94 0:11:55 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Mar 94 0:11:41 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: Restoring and Balancing Runic Mastery I Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 13:10:45 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <456D7255311@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > > Guy Robinson here. > Dave Cake here. > This a work intended to help with GM Section as I attempt to discuss > how to restore RQ to a state where RQ:AiG players and GMs can > envisage the campaign possibly progressing to the HeroQuest level. > I completely fail to see the connection. I am sorry Guy, but if HeroQuest is just about accumulating Runic connections, the concept does not appeal. If HeroQuest is about interacting with the magical realm through your cultures mythology, I fail to see why the runes are of any real importantance whatsoever. Think of the Runes as being a metaphor for what is really going on - and like any metaphor, sticking to it too strongly stresses it until the flaws become obvious. the Runes are a metaphor that worked for RQ2, but neat God-Learner classifications do not fit the real world of Glorntha so neatly that they should become part of the rules. > With RQ:AiG Spirits, Spirit Magic and Divine Magic are now classified > by Runes. If we are moving back to this state them the relationships > of people with these Runic archetypes should be explored, taking into > account the broader culture of Glorantha. > Having still not read RQ:AiG, I can not really comment. But I would prefer for most spirits a more down to earth classification scheme, like simply classifying them by origin. Spirit Magic and Divine Magic can be classified by Runes if you really care to make the attempt, but I see little reason for such a fruitless exercise. > I felt that RQ3 was essentially a hatchet job on the Gloranthan/Runic > background and that Glorantha will not be complete unless the issues > of Runic mastery are worked through. With RQ:AiG being an attempt > to write something closer in sprit to RQ2 the legacy of RQ3 has > caused some problems, although it undeniable improved some areas. > For a start Guy, aren't you the person that has admitted to having read almost no RQ supplements, either RQ2 or RQ3? Methinks that your very limited exposure has caused you to elevate a couple of remarks in RQ2 to the status of pure gospel. Personally, with the neat system of ascribing runes to the status of Rune Lord and Rune Priest also came the RQ2 syndrome of cookie-cutter cults, where every cult had a Rune Lord and Rune Priest no matter how inappropriate, which only began to break down with Cults of Terror. When RQ3 killed this idea (that cults had Rune Lords and Rune Priests and that was the end of the story) I thought that it was great. Would you favour a return to this? Afterall, it all follows quite logically - if Storm Kahns are associated with Mastery, then they are not associated with the Magic Rune, so we better start taking magic away from them, and bring back Priests of Storm Bull, who encourage them, but don't lead the charge. Lhankor Mhy needs completely useless Rune Lords that gain no abilities whatsoever, and we better ease up the restrictions for priest or they will be too similar to Rune Lords, and to closely assocaited with Mastery. etc. etc. I know that this is not what you are advocating, but to me the killing of the Runic Mastery dogma was part and parcel of making cults interesting and individual, which I thought was one of the good changes made by RQ3. One mans hatchet job is another mans cutting away dead wood. > One of my players during a play test remarked that Rune Lords seems > simply a less powerfull form of Priest. This guy is brutally > objective and I tend to concurr with him. Not everything has been > reintegrated yet from the RQ3 cultural massacre. > Well, they vary greatly from being almost identical to RQ2 Rune Lords to completely replacing priests and being far more powerful. You do really need a proper cults reference to make this obvious. Generalising about the Rune Lord status is pretty silly. And cultural massacre is pretty strong and silly words. The RQ3 changes to the cult system where actually largely spurred by the desire to put a bit of cultural relativism and genuine variation into RQ cults. You may see the entire world no longer working the same way as you are used to cultural massacre - but I see forcing the entire world to work your way as cultural crime just as much or more. > This discussion is about ways perform this rebuilding. > or slavish return to every minor detail of RQ2, depending on viewpoint. Joergs very sensible example deleted. BTW I think you missed the point- it Joergs point was not that you needed to talk about how sorcery worked as well, it was that the status within a cult was no longer a neat cut and dried thing, different cults have a bewildering number of different positions and different requirments - and you proposal seems to neatly classifying them all into equivalents. Should a Rokari Noble be considered equivalent to Hrestoli noble, who are pretty equivalent in cult status, but one worked to attain the equivalent of Rune Lord Priest status (weapon master and sorcerous adept) while the other was just born rich. > I hopes this asnwers your question about the rites of passage issue. > > I'm not suggesting that all rites of passage are equal but that the > major rites from each the three magical approaches should grant Rune > affinity. > Guy, I don't think that you have got the point yet. The three magical approaches is basically a rules thing. Any description of major rites in the a given magical approach for attainment of high status is certain to be a hopeless generalisation. The Mastery/Magic thing works for RQ2 cults, and works for many cults that have both Rune Lords and Rune Priests. But that is definately a minority! Many have only priests, a large number more have some completely different system. What is the criterion for deciding who is what? Does everybody get the magic rune is they get reusable divine magic, including such worldly rune lords as Wind Lords? Does everybody get the Mastery Rune if they have to master skills in order to attain their status, including Issaries merchants and Lhankor Mhy scholars? What about people that mix two of the magical approaches shamelessly - like the majority of shamans. The neat system of Runic assignment really needs neat RQ2 cults to make it work in any sensible or coherent fashion - and virtually wants them back when we can have the much more organic and culturally realistic patchwork that we have now. And please, Guy, read what you criticise. RQ3 was not all bad, in fact parts of it were very good. RQ3 is in many ways a better game than RQ2 (but it certainly has much stronger competition and worse support). What was wrong with RQ3 was not its failure to slavishly follow the concepts of RQ2, it was some bad rules and bad support (at least for the first few years). We are fixing the first, and AH and Chaosium (and some of us) are fixing the second. Sticking our heads in the sand and saying 'RQ2 right, RQ3 wrong' is not going to help anybody, especially from a a position of relative ignorance. Cheers Dave  0,, *** EOOH *** Received: from NOC4.DCCS.UPENN.EDU by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.23/mx-relay) with SMTP id AA15103; Mon, 28 Feb 94 23:28:10 -0600 Return-Path: Received: from MKT46.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU by noc4.dccs.upenn.edu id AA17779; Tue, 1 Mar 94 00:28:03 -0500 Received: from WMKT/MAILQUEUE by marketing.wharton.upenn.edu (Mercury 1.1); Tue, 1 Mar 94 0:28:09 EST Received: from MAILQUEUE by WMKT (Mercury 1.11); Tue, 1 Mar 94 0:27:54 EST From: David Cake To: "RQ4 Playtest Discussion" Subject: Re: ice to the eskimos, huh? Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 13:26:49 WST Reply-To: rq-playtest@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Sender: Listserv@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu X-Listname: X-Mailer: Mercury MTA v1.11. Message-Id: <4571C403711@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu> > Loren replies: > >You misread something. This was never the rule. Limb severing required > >a single wound that was HL+6 in RQ2 and HLx2 in RQ3. > > You are right insofar as the RQ2 edition rules go. However, until > the middle of last December I was part of the group of people who > had never seen RQ2 or played in an RQ2 game, and my understanding of > the rules was shaped entirely by RQ3. If you check that version, it > says nothing about the damage having to be from a single blow, so I > don't think this counts as a misreading. > Bottom of page 42 in the Players book, "If the damage was done at one pass by a slashing weapon or by a natural weapon such as claws or bite, the limb is severed. Otherwise it is maimed." So sorry, charges of misreading stand. > Sorry to whine so much about the reduced weapon damage. I gather from > the terseness of your reply that you see no point in arguing it. As > you guess, I lack both versions of the playtest rules; I base my dis- > affection for the reduced weapon damage on the tables sent to this > list last September--they manage to be incredibly picky (differing > base chances for attacks and parries and for different weapons in the > same class, for instance) and wildly unbalanced at the same time (no > reason to use a pole axe instead of a great axe, for instance). > And furthermore they are besides not being very useful one of the major reasons why RQ3 supplements are not immediately useful for use with RQ:AiG. > And this bleeding business--why put in a bunch of rules and then say, > "Oh, don't worry, nobody actually uses these." I'd rather have just > Well, I use the bleeding rules, and like 'em. > Oh, by the way, what happens to poison damage, now that death occurs > at -HP? Is it now impossible to die of poisoning, or is that changed > now, too? > Poisons suck generally. If I wanted a realistic poisons system, it would probably work like a hybrid of the poison and disease rules (ie regular resistance rolls to avoid taking damage/ characteristic loss). I definately see it as a problem with posions rather than a problem with the current damage rules (IMHO the best of any RQ edition). > Rant ends here. > Cheers Dave Cake