Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 17:13:03 +0100
From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Digest Subscriptions)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: The RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 17 Feb 1993
This is an semi-automated digest, sent out once per day (if any
messages are pending). Replies will be included in the next issue
automatically.
Selected articles may also appear in a regular Digest. If you
want to submit articles to the Digest only, contact the editor at
RuneQuest-Digest-Editor@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM.
--
Send Submissions to:
Enquiries to:
The RuneQuest Daily is a spin-off of the RuneQuest Digest and deals
with the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's world of
Glorantha. Maintainer: Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM
---------------------
From: cdarlast@mcs.dundee.ac.uk (Chris Darlaston)
Subject: Dragonewt Minatures
Message-ID: <3064.9302151619@pop.mcs.dundee.ac.uk>
Date: 15 Feb 93 16:19:01 GMT
Hi All...
I have a problem. I am looking for a Warrior Dragonewt lead minature.
I know that there were some sold about 1984, but I cannot get hold of
any near me at the present time. Does anyone know of anywhere that you
can still get hold of them, or does anyone have an old one that they
do not want, but want to go to a good home (Or bad home even!)
Thanks.
**********************************************************************
* -------------------------------------------------------------------- *
* |Chris Darlaston | JANET: cdarlast@uk.ac.dund.mcs | *
* | | INTERNET: cdarlast@mcs.dund.ac.uk | *
* |Postal Address: |--------------------------------------| *
* |14 Shandon Ave, | Dreams can help to hold the world | *
* |Northenden, Manchester. | together, but then again... | *
* |ENGLAND | Nightmares make it more interesting! | *
* |M22-4DP | (Profound Quote Number 1) | *
* -------------------------------------------------------------------- *
**********************************************************************
---------------------
From: okamoto@hpcc90.corp.hp.com (Jeff Okamoto)
Subject: Re: KoS and multiple Argraths
Message-ID: <9302161806.AA29717@hpcc90.corp.hp.com>
Date: 16 Feb 93 18:06:47 GMT
> From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake)
> Subject: KoS and multiple Argraths
>
> But still the (very detailed for the years 1615-1627 or so) definately
> contradicts the Minaryth timeline. Aargh! Greg you bastard!
Would people be interested in seeing a timeline I'd come up with some
time ago?
> PS It was good to see Leika Ballista mentioned. I think she is a PC from GSs
> campaign. At least some of her exploits are written up in Dragons Past in
> Wyrms footnotes.
Yes, Leika, along with many other names were PC's in the old Chaosium
house campaign. If Ken Rolston ever works on the Pamaltele pack, you
may find some more prior PC's there (from Sandy's newer house
campaign).
Jeff
---------------------
From: okamoto@hpcc90.corp.hp.com (Jeff Okamoto)
Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 15 Feb 1993
Message-ID: <9302161811.AA02363@hpcc90.corp.hp.com>
Date: 16 Feb 93 18:11:45 GMT
One interesting coincidence that even Greg hadn't noticed until I
brought it to his attention: the year that contained "The Day the
Magic Changed" was 1625 (8/1) and corresponded to the year that RQ3
was published!
Jeff
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (alex)
Subject: Re: Lots of Fri, 12 Feb Stuff.
Message-ID: <9302162248.AA05289@carcass.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 16 Feb 93 22:48:00 GMT
From: Alex Ferguson
John Dallman:
> Our priestess has had the same shadowcat companion (a SIZ 6 one) for
> many years. "Ghost" started as a familiar, but got promoted to Alied
> Spirit. Not all shadowcats are suitable for familiars; some are only
> "ordinary" large cats.
Waitaminute. Does this mean: the [deleted] stats are only applicable
to the cats especially favoured as familiars, to wit the Kero Fini
ones? Or... what? At any rate, you could still choose to use any old
moggy (or whatever else) as a familiar/ally/whatever, according to my
understanding.
Clay L:
> > "And," continued the player, "our heroes have no real chance to become true
> > Gloranthan heroes and have their names hailed by future generations."
Steve G:
> So what's new - it's been open knowledge since 1978 that Argrath
> Dragon(spear|tooth|friend) would free Sartar (probably around 1640ST,
> according to the earliest references I have) - not Kathreda of the Three
> Earths (my own favourite Gloranthan PC), or Thane Duntris of the Brenholme
> clan (the notional leader of that PC group).
How many lines in KoS does, say Jor-eel get? And her stats are
approximately . There's clearly
ample room in the future history storyline to accomodate pretty
heavy-hitter Heroes without having to change things around, even if
you stick to every single last printed self-contradictory word of the
Official Line. Trouble is: how are you going to run characters like
this under RQ{2,3,4}? Or under any other game sytem known to man?
"Next year, under 'HeroQuest'..."
> > but is Raus a shaman?
> Certainly not in the RQ2 material. The big cult thing has made it difficult
> for RQ to support things like the Chinese style of ancestor worship.
Too true. I think the temple sizes concept needs to be loosened quite
a bit. If only one person in some country engages in ancestor
worship, then hard cheese. But if lots do, this must generate lots of
"mythic ripples", even if they each worship a different ancestor at a
different site. Any thoughts on how the much-vaunted Dawn Age
Seshnelan Ancestor Worship worked?
Tom Zunder:
> I think that the 18 POW requirement in RQ2 was too hard. I like the current
> rules. No priest would reduce his POW that low, it would allow too much
> chance of spiritual defeat and would screw his spirit magic.
I was thinking of non-adventuring priests-- i.e., most of them. (Not
necessarily PCs.) They wouldn't ordinarily run much risk of being
bopped in spirit combat or whatever. My point is that priests
_should_ need a high POW, purely for their priestly functions, and
under the current rules, there is no such mechanism. Would you
HeroQuest with a POW of ? Then should you be leading a
worship ceremony, which is a "mini-HeroQuest", after all, with a POW
of ?
> Also they can't sacrifice POW that quickly
We're still only talking about 1 POW per season. Not terribly fast at
all, really, and not the kind of activity that falls outwith a
Priest's ordinary functions. (Praying, gifting POW... "No, stop that
immediately!" cries the god :->). It's the perverse nature of the
incentive that bothers me: a non-adventuring priest, who gets most of
his POW gain rolls from worship ceremonies will have a much greater
chance of obtaining divine magic, if (s)he keeps his/her POW as low as
is feasible. Odd, n'est-pas?
> If power
> gamers play in your campaign, then one should limit them in ways which
> don't adversely affect NPCs and good PCs.
Having been running my current RQ campaign for 1 (one) week now,
power- gaming isn't beyond the "latent" stage, so that's not my point
of view at all. And I'm _not_ advocating "bring back 18 POW mins!",
I'm looking for a feasible, or at least believable, alternative.
> Rules: Could we have more chat and fewer rules?
Bah, humbug. :-) Let's have more chat _and_ more rules, or at least
discussion of the odd game mechanic here and there. Ticking "much
more" to every box is perfectly valid in this case, up till the point
that Henk's machine starts blowing a gasket or two, at least.
But sign me up for the AD&D posting lynch mob. :-)
Alex.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (alex)
Subject: Re: The Sunday RuneQuest Daily, 14 Feb 1993
Message-ID: <9302162317.AA05299@carcass.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 16 Feb 93 23:17:23 GMT
Clay {God} L{earner}: :-)
> Was there really a GodTime?
Tricky. But if the Godtime wasn't, what was it? If you see what I
mean. Prehistory? Just a lota myths?
> Did Orlanth really kill the Yelm?
From my reading of the mythology bit in KoS, the Orlanthi don't seem
to believe the Lesser Darkness was entirely sun-free, or at least it's
not stated as such. Just an irrelevant (and false?) observation.
> Probably not...though perhaps for several years Glorantha fell into
> near-synchronous orbit with another planet(oid) and the sun was eclipsed.
Planetoids? Orbits?? Another round-earth krank, obviously.
Reconcile Glorantha as a planet and the Elder Secrets stuff on the
(substantially whacky) Gloranthan sky, and I'll give you a coconut
(among other things :->).
> "Everything Stafford says is wrong."
> If it doesn't illuminate you, at the very least it will pacify your players.
Tsk. "Ignorance and fear, fear and ignorance!" Oops, wrong Rolston
project.
Ghostey:
> In my campaign Count Solanthos Ironpike has an identical twin brother who
> is in prison in Pavis and is opposed to the PAX Lunar
Yay! The Count in the Iron Mask! Quick, where's my Novel Factory?
Carl Fink:
> One thing that Mike, Oliver, Mike Dawson, and Martin Crim and myself
> all agree on: the problem with most RQ3 products has been a startling
> lack of playtesting. We don't plan to let that continue.
You'll be surprised to hear that I agree.
This week's Mammoth RuneQuest Continuity Error:
In episode 3 of the Troubled Waters scenario, anyone notice that
Gautama actually _talks_ to the player characters? Whoops. And this
from the man who follows his cult vows "excessively". (As the Light
Keeper, he is only allowed to deal with other Light Priests, if we
believe the cult writeup.) More honoured in the breach than in the
observance? Or do I misparse the phrase "Non-Light Priests", which
could be taken several ways?
By the way, no specific credits are given for the scenario. Who do we
blame? Greg, since Everything He Says Is Wrong? {\extrabroad :-)}
Alex.
---------------------
From: mace@lum.asd.sgi.com (Rob Mace)
Subject: Re: HIGH FANTASY vs LOW FANTASY in RuneQuest
Message-ID: <9302170008.AA20755@lum.asd.sgi.com>
Date: 16 Feb 93 08:08:37 GMT
csh019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Faust) writes:
>
> Clay's posting got me thinking about styles of play and wondering on what
> level of power most RQ-Gloranthan campaigns are running. How powerful in
> terms of the setting are the PCs in your campaign? Are they major figures
> in world history e.g. kings, princes, high priests, powerful sorcerors,
> mighty warriors; or are they minor figures e.g. common thieves,
> mercenaries,merchant-adventurers, apprentice sorcerors, initiates or
> priests? Are they the mere footsoldiers in the Hero Wars or are they
> leading the armies?
The campaign I am in has been running for 12+ years. We started out
playing Lay Members and are now playing Rune Levels and Heros. There
are currently four acknowledged Hero's in the Campaign.
- Julliete, Hero of Yelm. Her followers can call down the fire of
Yelm on Yelms enemies. (Character of Ray Turney from RQ2)
- Adraen, Lord of the Cleansing Flame, Husband, Champion, and
High Priest of the Star of Morning Skys(youngest daughter of Yelm).
- Gorbic, Duck Hero of Humakt, Protector of Duck Point. It is said
that he can kill people with a glance and that no spell can effect
him.
- Rolf, Hero of Humakt. Rolf is just amazingly tough.
> What kind of impact do the actions of your PCs have on the world -- very
> little or a great deal?
The biggest impact so far has been in and around Duck Point and the
Upland Marsh. Here is a really sketchy outline of the events.
- Gorbic returns to Duck Point after first Hero Quest.
- He is outlawed and escapes to the Swamp.
- Fought war with Lunars from Swamp.
- Founding of Humakti Temple.
- Took over Death Tower(old Humakti holy place) to get a more secure
base of operations.
- Succeeded in Hero Quest to uncurse Tower.
- Delecti rises and goes on campaign in local area to get more Zombies.
- Delecti marches on Tower.
- Second Hero Quest begun to break Delecti's Power.
- Stalemated on second quest.
- Lunars broker a piece deal. Delecti gets back tower. Gorbic made
ruler of free Duck Point.
It can be very interesting to take a really tough character and force
him to deal with arbitrating fishing rights disputes.
> Do your PCs struggle to survive against a pack of
> hungry wolves or do they effortlessly brush off legions of Lunar hoplites?
Lots of people avoid you when you are really tough.
> Do broo strike fear into their hearts or do they sigh and wonder when the
> Crimson Bat is going to show up so they can have a *real* fight?
None of the characters want to get any where near the Crimson Bat.
The only one with much of a chance against the Crimson Bat would be
Julliete and she would need a 1000 followers to have that chance. In
Dragon Pass scale the Heros would range from 1/2 to 2 with some
special powers.
> And to add some contention: which style of play do you think is superior
> and why is it superior?
I don't think either style is superior. If something works for you
and your group then thats fine.
Rob Mace
P.S. I went to DunDraCon this weekend. Greg Stafford and Ken Rolston
had a seminar about RQ and Glorantha. I also had a couple of
discussions with Greg. I will try to write up what I learned when I
have a chance.
---------------------
From: tsl@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Tim Leask)
Subject: Re: The Glorathan Question
Message-ID: <9302170522.24188@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: 17 Feb 93 21:22:33 GMT
Peter,
you have entirely missed the point I was trying to make. If you take
away Glorantha from Runequest you are left with Chaosiums "Basic
Role-playing System" not RQ. you are no longer questing for Runes so
why call it Runequest. Questing for Runes is something that comes from
the world of Glorantha and thus has no place in the "Rules".
> 2) I PLAY RUNEQUEST BECAUSE RUNEQUEST IS THE BEST FANTASY RULE SYSTEM THERE
> IS, BETTER THAN GURPS, BETTER THAN AD&D (ICK!), BETTER THAN ROLEMASTER,
> BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE. Get it? NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR SILLY WORLD SHAPED
> LIKE A LOZENGE. (Ok, I DON'T hate Glorantha, just Gloranthan purist twits)
You play the "Basic Role-playing System" which I agree is an excellent
system which is extremely flexible, so much so that it under pins
nearly all of Chaosiums range or RPGs, Hawkmoon, Call of Cthulu,
StormBringer.
> 3) RQ3 was a failure NOT because it was not so Gloranthan, but because the
> new rules were badly playtested (if at all) and REALLY STINK in a large number
> of respects. The one good thing is that it is a modular system. If you don't
> like a section, you can chuck it out and not break the whole system. That is
> what I am doing.
RQ3 was a failure for many reasons, one of which was dropping
Glorantha. Glorantha made RQ stand out from the multiplicity of
generic systems on offer. Runequest was strikingly non-Generic and had
no real competition for it's niche the arena of generic systems was
however extremley crowded even before RQ3 appeared on the scene.
> 4) RQII was all fine and well, but I LIKE THE RULES, and I REALLY DON'T CARE
> ABOUT HOW MANY POINTS IT TAKES TO BECOME A RUNELORD, so, stick the Runelord
> stuff in the Gloranthan book (well, most people know it already) and stick
> the RULES IN THE RULE BOOK. That way, you please everyone (include the
> Gloranthan book (a GOOD version) with the RQ box if you want to.) - you are
> not destroying Glorantha, but you gain the market of NON GLORANTHAN PLAYERS.
So are you saying that all you want is a set of rules, no modules, no
background supplements nothing ? If that's the case fine. The Basic
Roleplaying System rules are probably still available from Chaosium.
If however you want modules and supplements you are out of luck. AH
aren't going to waste the time because there are not enough dollars in
it.
> I happen to like creating new scenarios, maybe you guys like Glorantha.
> Just don't try and hi-jack my game system.
No-one is hi-jacking your game system.
>
> > He prefered to spend his time working on Glorathan adventures becuase
> > there was more material and more interesting setting provided.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> obvious subjective value judgement
So what? Sorry I left off the "in his opinion"
> The problem with Viking etc. was not that they were bad, or not RQ, but that
> they were published at the expense of Gloranthan stuff.
They were published at the expense of Gloranthan which proved to be a
mistake and they were not RQ. They were "Basic Role-Playing System"
plus mods. The magic system for Vikings was not RQ (only loosely).
Ki powers certainly weren't RQ in Land of Ninja
> As a non-G DM, I
> don't think I need supplements like that: go and look up books in Ye Local
> Library, if you want to know about Dark Ages Europe (that's what I did for
> Germany). BUT TO STATE THAT THEY ARE NOT RQ, WHEN THEY USE THE RQ RULE
> SYSTEM, IS STUPID!!!!!!!
The use the Basic Role Playing system which RQ also uses. What has
questing for Runes got to do with Land of Ninja or Vikings ?
> Rant rant rave rave BLECH!
It's a question of semantics and you entirely missed the point.
> Anyway, to conclude: RuneQuest is a very good rule system for fantasy gaming
> in pretty well any world you want to design
> system separated into the 3 types - most worlds can fit that mold). Just
> because the standard setting is Glorantha does not mean we all have to use
> it. ICE does not force us to use Shadow World or Middle Earth - most Rolemaster
> games I've played in use the DMs own world. Come on: Subcreation is half the
You might like sub-creation others may not - I rather spend the
limited time I have available playing the game not re-inventing the
wheel.
> fun. Play whatever world you like, just KEEP THE WOLRD OUT OF THE RULE SYSTEM.
As someone else pointed out the Rules system must influence the world
so you can't KEEP the WORLD OUT OF THE RULE SYSTEM
Tim Leask, the bleating,ranting, purist
---------------------
From: STEVEG@ARC.UG.EDS.COM (Entropy needs no maintenance)
Subject: Orlanth's Secret ID // RQ mechanics "misfeatures"
Message-ID: <01GUT7GNZ0RM000D9Y@UG.EDS.COM>
Date: 16 Feb 93 17:47:27 GMT
>> My personal (God Learneresque) theory is that Orlanth is Argrath.
Obvious, I suppose when one stops and thinks about it.
= = = =
As one who has found that while RQ looks nice in theory but doesn't
actually satisfy my playing group in practise (and actually can say
the same thing about Glorantha, which is why I prefer theorising about
that too... :-) ), I've been giving some thought to the areas that
seem to have caused most dissatisfaction.
1) "I keep getting skill ticks, but never make the improvement roll"
Perhaps the somewhat sarcastic "negative karma" approach might
actually work - any time you make a skill roll and fail (probably
excluding fumbles), gain +1% to the skill. Skills > ~100% can be
handled in a way dependent on whether you take RQ2 or RQ3 as your
guide, but could in principle be stated as checking where in the
95-99% range would qualify as a successful roll for gain, and acting
accordingly.
This would have the psychologically valuable result that all skill
checks apart from fumbles would achieve some benefit. It would also
remove the cumbersome "between adventures" bit, which in a
continuously live campaign (as opposed to one in which the individual
episodes are well separated - e.g. by years as in Pendragon) is often
hard to judge.
2) "I'm not fighting that troll - it might kill me!" or "This is it,
we're all going to die".
**** This discussion contains language that some might find offensive ****
**** Those of delicate sensibilities may wish to skip ahead to the ****
**** next posting in this issue. >:-) ****
Consider a none-too-large troll with his favourite maul. 2D8+2D6 will
usually ding harmlessly off a reasonably protected fighter (calling a
good roll 6 on each of the D8s and 4 on the D6's, we have 20pts for a
good strike - but this could be faced by 12 points of shield, 6 of
armour and 4 more of magic). But if you miss your parry, you'll
typically be maimed for 10 points, and a critical will ruin your whole
day! It'll also ruin the day of the swashbuckler in light leathers
who fails his dodge.
On the other hand, against the RuneLord in full iron plate(12), Shield
IV (8), protection IV (4) and a large iron shield(24), even a maximum
crush (40) points will ding. Anything (short of criticals) that
worries him will turn the other characters into smush! The only thing
short of a lucky critical that ends a duel between two of these guys
armed with bastard swords, Bladesharp IV and +D4 (max=19, max slash =
30) damage bonuses is player fatigue (RQ2) or the fatigue rules (RQ3)
Meanwhile, the average guy with his D8 sword or weapon will be waiting
for specials or criticals, since they're the only thing that will get
any damage through even the 10 points standing armour.
The brittle nature of characters - anything that will moderately wound
a character in moderate armour will need to be doing ~10 points on
average (and expect to ding on a parry), but will be sudden death on
special hits or those who are lightly armoured - has always served to
discourage players who like to leaven their gaming with some cathartic
violence to work out their frustrations : and if we're going to do a
low-violence campaign, we don't really need a combat system (or much
of any system really). And the result is inevitable as soon as it is
possible to armour up with more armour points in a location than hit
points.
Some might argue that this is realistic; but in what is primarily a
form of entertainment, perhaps this is a bit too much realism. A
definite case of looking good in theory, but washing out in practise.
The worst news is that I don't see a fix to it; I beleive it's an
inherent property of all absorptive armour systems. Whatever else one
might say about D&D style armour class systems, they are capable of
setting up threats which may worry the folks in heavy armour (by
having a good THAC0), but which don't smear those who prefer not to
play human tanks (by only doing damage in the D6-D10 range). Being
amongst players who prefer D'Artagnan over Sir Lancelot as their role
models, a system which makes the "DEX fighter" concept viable is a
boon to me, and I've only found the one system amenable to this.
If anyone has managed to find a work-round to this problem, I'm eager
to hear it.
---------------------
From: pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za (P A van Heusden)
Subject: New Sorcery system for RuneQuest (Ars Magica based)
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Feb 93 08:51:09 GMT
The following is the new system we are going to use for sorcery.
A new magic system for RQ3
This system is intended to replace sorcery.
Magic is known as the Art, and is governed by Laws (which we will not go
into here). The operations of this Art are discussed below.
The Art consists of the Five Techniques (The Five-fold ways), and the 8
greater and 5 lesser forms of being.
The Techniques are:
Create/Destroy
Form/Transform
Sense/Mask
Summon/Abjure
Bind/Unbind
The Forms are divided into 2 greater and 1 lesser school.
In the school of the Elements: Earth, Air, Fire, Water
In the school of Nature: Animal, - The essence of animate motion
Plant, - The essence of live
Matter, - The essence of being
Spirit - The essence of will
In the lesser school of the Senses: Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell, Taste
Each school is named after the field of study that first isolated the
school's forms. Thus:
For the Elements: Alchemy
For Nature: Witchcraft
For the Senses: Illusioncraft
Note:
In our world, based on Earth, the following Laws hold true. (These are a
subset of common real world 'laws of magic', found to be common to many
cultures.
1) The spell has 3 parts: Thought, Word and Deed. (Mantra, Mudra, Mandala),
or the Will and knowledge of the spell, the Word of Power to shape the
spell, and the Shape (symbols, diagrams or movements/gestures) to direct the
spell.
2) Law of Similarity - "Like produces Like"
3) Law of Contagion - "Once together, always together"
4) Law of Disjunction - "Iron is death" - Good 'ol anti-magickal iron :)
A spell may be cast in two ways: Spontaneously, or from a Formula.
Spontaneous Magic
Spontaneous magic is the caster's use of his knowledge of the Art and the
Laws to cast a spell 'off the cuff'. It takes the syntax 'Technique + Form'
with the mage's percent skill in the technique being multiplied by his skill
in the form to give a base percentile chance of success. To this is added
the mage's magical skills bonus, and penalties and bonuses for other
factors, ie. conditions, materials, etc. As per Sorcery, the spell's success
chance is the lowest of his chance at the spell or any magical skills used.
(ie. intensity, range, etc) (Free INT is replaced by the system designed, I
think, by Andrew Bell, where each point of magical skill drops the chance in
that skill by 5%).
Finally, after all this has been calculated, the spell is cast. As per
Sorcery, it takes MP cost strike ranks to cast as spell. If the spell fails,
the spell misbehaves, with effects up to the DM (a spell failure chart is
included). If the spell fumbles, the magic points dissipate. In the case of
a success, the caster gets spell gain rolls in the skill which constituted
the lowest chance of success in the spell (ie. a spell skill, eg. intensity,
or if the lowest chance was the chance to cast the spell, skill gain rolls
are made for all techniques and forms used.). If a critical success is
rolled, all skills used in casting the spell get a skill gain roll, and the
caster can try and make a formula spell from the spell cast.
Magic Point cost is up to the DM. Suggested is 1 MP for a moderate effect
eg. lighting a fire uses Create and Fire, costing 1 MP. This allows the
casting of minor spells using fractional MPs. (Discussed later.)
Formal Magic
The magic most of the world knows is the elaborate recitation of formulae,
from memory or from a magical tome. This is called Formal Magic, and is a
more structured and more certain version of magic than Spontaneous Magic.
The spell formula tightly defines the limits of a spell, and whilst that
spell can still be altered using magical manipulation skills, its form must
stay the same. Thus, one could have a spell called Create Fire, and use this
to create a Fireball by pumping in lots of intensity, and this is the
preferred way of creating Fireballs, or one could do the same using
Spontaneous Magic (a rather insane thing to do). However, one cannot use
Create Fire (the formula spell) to create a wall of fire, since fire doesn't
naturally expand into walls.
The system of casting formulaic spells is similar to the current Sorcery
system. (And all Sorcery spells are maintained as formulaic spells, at the
DM's discretion) The chance to cast is the lowest of the magical skills and
the chance to cast the spell (magical skills handled as per spontaneous
magic). If the roll fails, the magic points dissipate. If a critical failure
is rolled, the spell goes out of control. In the case of success, a spell
gain roll for the spell or the magical skill (whichever is lower) is gained.
In all cases, the spell gain roll for the skill is rolled as if the skill
were at normal player level (since the player will only get to process this
knowledge when he is calm and collected, not on the spur of the moment when
the skill was lower). Any notes on the skills learnt during casting take 10
minutes per added % to write down. If the notes are not written down within
a day or so after the skill was learnt, the experience is lost. If the notes
on a particular spell are lost, and the spell is not in the magician's
memory, the caster must write down the spell again, as if creating it, and
his chance to cast is 1/2 of what it was previously.
Not any formulaic spell may be cast, the spell must reside in memory (or be
available for easy reference eg. on a scroll or in a book). Each spell that
the Magician memorises lowers the chance of casting other formulaic spells
by 5%. No more spells than the Magician has INT may be memorized, and it
takes 1 hr per minimum MP of spell to memorise a spell. It takes 1 minute
per minimum MP of spell to forget the spell.
Formula Spell Acquisition and Usage
A new and unique spell can be created when a Magician casts a Spontaneous
Spell and gets a critical success. This process takes 1 hr per MP used in
the minimum casting of the spell. (Some spells cannot be cast below a number
of MPs greater than 1) Suitable materials and conditions are also needed.
This process must take place immediately after the spell is cast. (So,
casting spells for research makes sense.) The resulting spell can be used by
the mage, and the resulting base chance of casting is the same as if the
spell was cast spontaneously without any magical skills being involved. (Ie.
Technique * Form + Magic Skill bonus)
Using Other's Formulae
A spell formula is not a simple analytical text, such as eg. a chemical
formula is. It can best be compared to a poem, or a work of art - something
where the meaning is not entirely contained in the symbols on the page, but
rather in their application and action. Thus, understanding and using
another magician's formula is a difficult task.
One can cast another's formulae directly from their spellbook or scroll (or
a GOOD copy thereof), but the initial skill is only 1d6% + magical skill
bonus. Success doesn't bring increased skill, and while the formula can be
copied, it cannot be memorized. Critical success is required to 'understand'
the spell, ie. the caster gets a 1d6% chance of casting the spell, can
memorise it, and improve it, as if it were his own.
An exception to this requirement for critical success is the magical bond
between Master and Apprentice. This bond allows the master to convey his
understanding of a formulae to the student with a increased chance of
success. Indeed, the spell of bonding is a variation of Form Spirit, since
the Apprentice's mind is formed into a similar cognitive alignment as the
Master's. This explains the close similarity of Magi of any particular
school of magic. The teaching requires 1-6 hrs of teaching, and an INT
check. The Apprentice gains the 1d6% casting chance, and the chance to
memorise and improve the spell. This magical teaching is similar to that
undergone when a supernatural being (eg. a spell spirit) 'teaches' the mage
a spell - this is why a POW sacrifice is normally needed.
Another approach to the use of another's formula is to use it as a guideline
in creating your own spontaneous spell. 10 minutes study of a formula, and
having it open in front of the caster trying to replicate its effects, will
give a +25% bonus to the casting of the spontaneous spell. Of course,
critical success is needed for the caster to write his own version of the
spell, as usual. Having the original creator of the spell to instruct the
caster in creating the new spontaneous spell gives an additional +25%
chance.
Spontaneous Spells and Visualisation
A spontaneous spell is an imposition of the caster's Will upon the World
(the process envisioned is rather like Crowley's). Thus, the more specific
and clearly focussed the Will, the tighter controlled and more exact the
spell effect. In game terms, the player describes to the DM what he is
trying to do, and how he visualises this taking effect. The DM estimate the
required power, by comparison with other spells, and the describes what
actually occurs (of course depending on the rolls). Note that more subtle
spells are harder to visualisem and thus more difficult and time consuming.
Losing Control
Critical failure of formula spells, and normal failure of spontaneous
spells, causes a loss of control of the spell. The amount failed by, and the
power used in the spell modify the mishap roll.
Here is a table of effects [entirely optional]. As always, the DMs word is
final.
Roll percentile, add MPs used, and subtract caster's magical skill bonus
[option: add amount failed by]
01-05 spell delayed 1-6 strike ranks
06-10 spell works but requires 1 more MP
11-20 spell appears to work, but actually just uses the MPs to no effect
21-50 MP's used, nothing happens
51-75 spell takes effect, but the targeting fails. Choose random target
76-90 spell works correctly, but requires double MPs
91-95 spell reverses effect (if possible)
96-98 spell internalised, could be nasty
99 spell behaves bizzarely, DM can be creative.... :)
100+ spell forgotten, or spell text destroyed. MPs used, no effect (if
spontaneous spell, see 99)
Magical Rituals
Most Rituals work by normal RQIII system. Enchantment rituals fall away till
we have a useful enchantment system in place.
Summoning rituals follow the rule that it is easiest to summon the more
concrete things. So, the easiest to summon are the Natural Forms: (Animal,
Plant, Matter, Spirit), the next easiests the Elements (Air, Water, Earth,
Fire), and everything in DM designated order after that. The exception to
the rule are demons. They are easy to summon (they want to come) but
difficult to control.
Also, note: Magic does not work on iron in our world (-75% modifier), and
both gold and lead have -50% modifiers. Silver, on the other hand, is
helpful in the working of magic, with a +10% modifier, and copper has a +5%
modifier. All other metals are neutral. Of course, this will have no
relation to Glorantha.
Fractional Magic Points and Minor Magics
Magic Points can be broken down into 10ths, for minor magical effects. These
small magics (cantrips) are easy to perform, and less prone to
uncontrollability. They are often taught to Apprentices to ease their chores
and practice their skills. Both formula and spontaneous magics are possible,
using from 1/10th to 9/10ths of a MP. The success chance equals the normal
success chance of the spell multiplied by 1/(the fractional MP cost). Also
note that fractional MPs will be regained rapidly, so such minor magics can
be used freely. Useful application include Create Fire to light candles,
requiring 2/10ths of a MP to light 1 candle, and Abjure Earth, requiring
1/10th of a MP to remove 1/10 of a SIZ of dirt from clothes, etc. Power
increases rapidly, eg. 1MP of Abjure Earth could remove 1 SIZ of stone.
Minor magics take 1 strike rank to cast, and only 1 per strike rank can be
cast. Magical skills cannot be used in conjunction with such cantrips.
Fractional magic points are also used if a mage doesn't have enough power
for the spell attempted. A spell will always consume its full number of
magic points if the mage has them, but failing that it will 1) attempt to
use hits instead (make a POWx5 check, failure means 1HP = 1MP - check
seperately for each HP) or, if the initial POW check is successful,
fractional MPs will be used, resulting in an unstable spell. Multiply the
success chance of the spell by the % of MPs needed available, ie. if 90% of
the MPs were available, multiply by 90%.
This can be dangerous when forced to cast spontaneous magic at low levels of
power. Many a magician has died by overexerting his powers. [Also note that
for each MP spent, a Fatigue Point (or Wind Point if you use Paul Heinz's
system from the RuneQuest Digest Vol 6 no 4) is spent.]
Conclusion
Well, that's all folks. The above is a mishmash of a system written by
Andrew Sturman (asturman@casper.cs.uct.ac.za) for his Byzantine campaign
(which is now going to be run in Ars Magica), which I modified into a magic
system I'm going to try using this week for a demo game. I'll report how it
worked in practice then. Any comments to me at pvanheus@frodo.cs.uct.ac.za
or to the Daily Digest. I also have available a list of most RQIII sorcery
spells converted into this system, email me for a copy.
Peter van Heusden