Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 09:19:07 +0100
From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: The RuneQuest Daily, Tue, 02 Feb 1993
I forgot to run the queue yesterday. Apologies.
When replying to an article, use the "RuneQuest" address.
Also try to change the subject line.
--
Send Submissions to:
Enquiries to:
The RuneQuest Digest is a mailing list on the subjects of Avalon Hill's
RPG and Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha.
Maintainer: Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM
---------------------
From: eco0kkn@cabell.vcu.edu (Kirsten K. Niemann)
Subject: Re:armor enc, new rules
Message-ID: <9302011718.AA17432@cabell.vcu.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 93 17:18:00 GMT
Jacobus---
I don't have my rules set handy, but I believe that the ratio of ENC
to KG is NOT 1:1. I think it is 4:1. Not that this destroys your
argument; it adds weight to it.
Paul--
the effort to redesign RQ is well under way, has been for over a
year. Someone on this list should have Oliver Jovanovic's address
handy (I don't at the moment) ask him and he can send you the current
draft of the RQ IV rules set.
The biggest advantage RQ IV will have over all previous editions is
that it is being EXTENSIVELY playtested. Apparantly, for RQ III for
example, either no playtesting was done, or the playtesters' comments
were ignored for deadline reasons.
Engagement, sorcery, shamanism, character creation are all
extensively reworked in RQ IV.
And it won't be a boxed set. the goal is to publish it in a format
not unlike Call of Cthulhu 5th edition. for a roughly equivalent
price, too.
The Gang of Four are the main designers on RQ IV:
Oliver Jovanovic
Mike Dawson
Martin Crim
Carl Fink
You can reach me at the address above, Carl's address is in the last
daily, andyou can write OJ at gray@aol.com.
Martin has a GEnie account at M.CRIM, but no internet access.
Mike >|<
---------------------
From: clay@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther)
Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 01 Feb 1993
Message-ID: <9302011824.AA21690@charon.vortech.com>
Date: 1 Feb 93 06:30:34 GMT
> Lay members definitely still exist, as evidenced in _King of Sartar_.
>They just don't get religiously-defined benefits from their status.
>That is, in most religions there isn't a formalized cult status
>called "lay member", but anyone who attends services without becoming
>an initiate is probably going to be referred to as a "lay member".
>Some cults will vary - I agree that in a cult like Yelmalio, in which
>joining requires years of pre-initiate status, this sort of thing
>would be more rigid and rule-bound.
Speaking of Yelmalio:
I have a character who is a Lokarnos initiate, born in Sun County.
He's thinking about becoming a Yelmalio initiate. Does the "born in
SC, spend a point of POW to be accepted" guideline still apply, or
must he now go through the long acceptance ritual normally reserved
for "outsiders?"
Thanks.
---
Clay W. Luther clay@vortech.com
Software Engineer Vortech Data, Inc
Office (214) 994-1377 Fax (214) 994-1310
Also cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
Well, it had been 987 years in outer space time when I got back.
Couldn't seem to find any of my friends to tell my interesting
stories to.
---------------------
From: danm@cpqhou.compaq.com (Dan Mazina)
Subject: Character Generator program
Message-ID: <9302011315.aa04232@cpqhou.se.hou.compaq.com>
Date: 1 Feb 93 07:15:06 GMT
I noticed a request for a character generator program and thought I'd
mention that I have written such a beast for RQIII. It's in C++, has
most of the main classes and I have a DOS executable. It even has the
troll, dwarf and elf generation tables built in. If only a few people
are interested then I'll e-mail it direct, if a lot then I'll sent it
to the mailing list. Let me know if you're interested.
Dan Mazina
P.S. And I don't want to hear any sniveling about the RQIII character
generation system, I happen to like it!
---------------------
From: mace@lum.asd.sgi.com (Rob Mace)
Subject: Re: Visibility and Combat
Message-ID: <9302012137.AA06461@lum.asd.sgi.com>
Date: 1 Feb 93 05:37:33 GMT
SPB1@vms.bton.ac.uk (Ghost Dancer) writes:
>
> (lots of good points which I agree with deleted)
>
> To try to reflect the effect of visibility I suggest the following
> modifiers to combat when the various types of helmet are worn:
>
>
> Attack/Parry Bow/Missile
> Open Face - -
> Semi Guarded -10% -10%
> Full Face -25% -25%
I have also spent time in doing medieval combat recreation(SCA) and have worn
a variety of helms over the years.
The penalty for wearing a full faced helm is quite different if you are
in a melee or a one on one combat. In one on one I found that the
restricted view did not really hamper me. I was able to watch all that
I needed. In melees though things became much tougher because I had to
watch multiple people who might be swinging at me. Also in the SCA we
have restrictions against blind siding people for safety and honor reasons.
So in a real combat I think the percentages you list above could be much
greater for parry.
I'm not sure how to put this into rules though. The more rules and
sub-rules we tack on the more cumbersome the system gets to play. You
also want to balance rules against how easy you want to make it to kill
PCs. If you upped the chance of criticals to the head for open face
helms you would get a lot more dead PCs.
Rob Mace
---------------------
From: T.S.Baguley@open.ac.uk (Thom Baguley)
Subject: Natural weapons
Message-ID: <9302020109.AA14636@Sun.COM>
Date: 1 Feb 93 09:13:36 GMT
Regarding the natural weapons rule (1/2 damage against hard armours).
A problem with this rule is determining hard armour (cuir bouilli? bezainted?).
What about simply applying a general armour modification. All armour protects
at double value (or maybe half again) against natural weapons. Possible
exceptions would be grapple and martial arts.
It would be simpler to apply than the other rule (probably ...)
Thom
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ Human Cognition Research Lab
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ The Open University
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, U.K.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Tel: +44 908 65-4518 Fax: -3169
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ Internet:T.S.Baguley@open.ac.uk
---------------------
From: trystro!rune@Think.COM (Peter Maranci)
Subject: RQ Character Design
Message-ID: <9302020455.AA02652@Early-Bird.Think.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 93 04:11:26 GMT
Regarding character design for RuneQuest -- I have to agree
that the RQ3 system is very unsatisfactory in this regard. The
proposed RQIV version is very...impressive, but after considerable
reflection and much use, I've come to believe that we may be heading
down the wrong trail.
I'd originally hoped that RQIV would include, perhaps in
parallel with the character skill/characteristic/possession design
system a character history/personality design system. This need not be
a set of firm rules, but rather a sort of optional game aid.
Something, perhaps, a bit like the "Fantasy Heroes" book put out by
Paul Jaquays, but not as rigid.
I'm not sure this would be possible however; it would
certainly be very difficult to write.
Personally, I've been designing characters for my own games by
discussing the desired concept with each player first, working out
through negotiation a reasonable compromise, and creating the
character without using a formal system. We keep the characters
vaguely balanced, but much less so than usual -- yet we haven't had
any real problems with game balance. I have noticed, however, that the
longer a person takes to create their character, the happier they are
with it in the long run -- and the better their roleplaying becomes
(what a sentence! 8^>} ).
What I'm trying to say is that perhaps we've been worrying too
much about the details and mechanics, and not enough about the
creation of dramatic characters.
How do other RQ gamemasters create PCs?
-->Pete
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maranci
trystro!rune@think.com or rune@trystro.uucp
Q: How many Storm Bull worshippers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: "It glows without magic or fire!? Chaos! KILL CHAOS!"
---------------------
From: SPB1@vms.bton.ac.uk (Ghost Dancer)
Subject: New Rules - Fatigue
Message-ID: <9302021128.AA26470@Sun.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 93 11:27:00 GMT
I would like to propose a new rule for increasing a players Fatigue
independant of their statistics. The reason for this is that I feel
that it should be possible for a character to increase their stamina
without necesarily having to increase any of thei r stats. When I used
to fight in a Dark Age combat society, with metal weapons/armour etc,
we used to do displays and shows during the summer months only. At the
start of each season I was usually able to fight for 3 to 5 minutes
before fatigue became a problem, by simply practising against thin air
I found that my stamina would increase such that by the end of the
season I could probably fight for 10 minutes. This was without any
noticable increase in my strength.
I suggest that if a character actively spends 1 hour per 2 game days
or half hour per day practicing they should gain an increase in
fatigue of 1 point up to a maximum bonus of +CON. This practice would
not increase any weapon skills or stats. The bonus would last until
the character stopped practicing for a wek or more at which point it
would decrease at the same rate.
I must add that I haven't tried this idea out in play as yet, it's
just an idea. Any further thought or comments on the subject would be
welcome.
._
/! \ Alternative
/-!-/ Realities Jarec
/ ! \ Games Club e-mail: SPB1@VMS.BTON.AC.UK
---------------------
From: dickmj@essex.ac.uk (Dicks M)
Subject: Excalibur, my nightmare
Message-ID: <324.9302021415@solb1.essex.ac.uk>
Date: 2 Feb 93 14:15:28 GMT
Just a quickie.
I wasn't really making a serious comment about 'Arthurian Knights', I
was just demonstrating a point. But thanks for the history lesson
anyway.
I must disagree about not doubling armor ENC for lesser armor: have
you ever tried wearing to leather jackets?? There may be some
arguements that this rule should only apply to lesser soft armor, not
hard, but this leaves the door open for more 'ring + cuirbouilli'
loopholes.
Good idea about reducing skills depending upon how big your helmet is
(oo-er missus!!! Sorry, had to be said). I've been thinking about
something like this for some time, but have never got round to doing
it.
- Arganth
---------------------
From: b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com (Brian J. Kondalski)
Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 01 Feb 1993
Message-ID: <9302021735.AA27586@Sun.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 93 17:37:07 GMT
> Alex (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk) writes:
[ Stuff Deleted]
> I never have used the 18 POW rule, and I don't know anyone who
> has - it's too arbitrary for my taste, in that you can roll up a
> starting character who is suddenly a priest.
I disagree here, you could never roll up such a thing. It takes more
than just a high power to be a priest. It takes things like
dedication to the temple, proving that you can lead a "congregation",
and other traits/talents/skills that a starting character could never
possibly have! Each cult is very partic- ular about what it takes,
and the final part is always "convincing the examiners". Now I think
the only exception to this might be Orlanth Wind Lords in RQ2....given
the money, you could train a character to the necessary levels to
become one (not the power though). But I beleive that even then they
say you must someone show your sincerity somehow....
Brian Kondalski b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (alex)
Subject: Re: Sun County (The RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 01 Feb 1993)
Message-ID: <9302022051.AA25099@seram.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 2 Feb 93 20:51:50 GMT
Carl Fink:
> Alex (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk) writes:
> >Sun County provides at least one possible answer itself: Invictus,
> >Light Captain of Sun County is a Light Son and Acolyte, but not a
> >priest.
> There is talk (so far not resolved) of bringing back the old
> "Associate Priest" rank from RQ2 for RQ4. What do people think?
Surely this is neither here nor there: anything you could do under the
old associate priest rule, now comes under acolyte (if available). If
the writeup just said "the Light Captain may be a RL/A, but ranks and
is restricted as a priest", I'd be quite happy. Is that what was
intended, anyone? Or _must_ he be a priest, as in RQ2? At the very
least, an acolyte?
> I never have used the 18 POW rule, and I don't know anyone who
> has - it's too arbitrary for my taste, in that you can roll up a
> starting character who is suddenly a priest.
No, I agree that the RQ3 rules make more sense in general. I was
thinking of an additional requirement, or at least "desirable
qualification".
> The "know ten points
> of divine magic" requirement seems like enough of a POW restriction
> to me.
It's not a POW restriction in that it provides no reason to keep
characteristic POW high while a priest: in fact, almost the reverse.
Isn't anyone else bothered by the idea of a POW 5 priest? Almost
optimal for making those POW gain rolls.
> The Test of Holiness is rarely a die roll in my games, I
> take the role of the High Priest (or the deity, in some religions)
> and simply decide based on the character's conduct. Sometimes I
> will roll dice to fool the player, but that's about it.
I fully agree with this attitude, but feel that there should still be
_some_ POW-based qualification. I'll get back to you on what, though.
"This person is not Spiritually Powerful enough" is certainly a valid
reason for refusal in my book.
> >Mongroth: POW of 60?!? That's a bit stiff for geas-breaking.
> Well, remember that good PC shamans under RQ3 can easily defeat Monrogh!
Since shaman can't become Y. initiates, this is only a factor for an
Illuminated Yelmalion Shaman, a thought too horrible to contemplate.
:-)
> Actually, the whole idea of this would seem to be that
> Monrogh should never lose. Then again, he doesn't kill his targets
> under normal circumstances. Have you read Monrogh's origin in
> _King of Sartar_?
Nope. I was thinking in terms of the following: Yelmalion stubs his
toe and inadvertantly exclaims "Oh Fire!", or some such blasphemy,
breaking his "don't speak on Fireday" geas, or something equally
trivial. Along comes Mongroth and beats the living DayLight out of
him. A tad Firm, perhaps?
Mike Dawson:
> Yes, there are too few priests mentioned. I assume there are many
> others who are just too vanilla to write up.
Right. Numbers would have been helpful, though. And for Light Sons
and Servants too, come to that. Guesses?
> The Yamsur mentioned in SC is not the dead god.
That much was clear.
> Just a hero named after the god.
That's pretty weird. Being named after a God seems i) improbable; ii)
blasphemous; iii) problematic if only his name survives to the
present, and no other knowledge; and iv) confusing. Why not just
rename the Hero?
> Of course, King of Sartar makes it clear that the Yelmalio cult did
> not really exist at the time of the Dragonkill War, but I can explain
> that...
You can? Go for it!
> Solinthor the Yelm Elder: your guess is as good as mine. I suppose he
> did it because he could.
Could he though? If no cult of Yelm existed in the area, how could he
join one, however eligible he might be?
--
Alex Ferguson.
ARPA: alex%dcs.glasgow.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: alex@glasgow.uucp
BANGNET: ...!mcvax!ukc!dcs.glasgow.ac.uk!alex JANET: alex@uk.ac.glasgow.dcs
"You mean you could have walked the galaxy and you simply never bothered?"