Bell Digest v930312

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 12:40:56 +0100
From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Digest Subscriptions)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: The RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 12 Mar 1993

	[This issue is dedicated to Greg and Suzanne.  
	 Best wishes to you both.		-HL]

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: staats@MIT.EDU (Richard C. Staats)
Subject: RuneQuest Campaigns
Message-ID: <9303112108.AA25203@MIT.EDU>
Date: 11 Mar 93 11:20:57 GMT

Just some curiosity questions for this august body.  I have been
playing RQ since 1980, and when the RQ III rules came out, I was in
the midst of GMing a campaign in Stuttgart, Germany.  I converted to
RQ III, but I did it selectively.  The result was a mixture of RQ II
and III.  I hardly ever use the fatigue rules, but I do let initiates
make power gain rolls for attending special worship services.  I use
the old POW gain table for gaining POW from adventuring.  And, I
always thought the spell potions, crystals, etc. from RQ II were
really well done; so, naturally, I hung on to those.  I think the
sorcery rules were a little complex and tended to impede atmosphere in
a combat situation; so, I used some of ICE's Spell Law for would be
sorcerers.  I allow items to be enchanted, but depending on what the
item is, I might require that some spirit(s) be bound into it to allow
it to operate/fuel its MP requirements, etc. I also didn't allow folks
who did not achieve "Rune Status" to progress beyond 100% skill level.
Etc.

How many other folks did the same types of things in their own
campaigns?

From what I have seen discussed in the Digest and read on the "net",
RQ IV sounds like it swings back more toward the "simplier" rules of
RQ II.

Is my perception of RQ IV correct? 

If RQ IV shifts back more toward RQ II on the complexity scale then it
won't be much different from what I do now.

        In service,

        Rich

---------------------

From: carlf@Panix.Com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Odd groups, and spell spirits
Message-ID: <199303120314.AA16125@sun.Panix.Com>
Date: 11 Mar 93 17:14:20 GMT

rog@insignia.co.uk (Roger_Nolan 336) writes:
 
>>Whilst we are on the subject of Lunar characters, does anyone
>>have a strange mix of races/religions in ther group? 
 
Well, during the last dart war in Bikhy, our semibicoastal game
(crossing Oliver Jovanovic's here in New York with Steve Maurer's in
California) I played in a group with a Danfive Xaron Rune Lord, a
Humakti Sword, a Donandar cultist, a Kralori Exarch (well, at least
the son of a Kingdom of Ignorance Exarch), and a disciple of the Black
Reader of Nochet.
 
  ...but our *current* party is *really* weird.
 
 
peterw@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Peter Wake) writes:
(">>" is me, ">" is Peter)
>>snip snip
>>  Well, under the current rules the Humakti will have a very
>>hard time defeating the spell spirit (average POW 28).
>This seems like a mistake: Spell Spirits have a 3d6 POW roll and
>a limitation that POW must equal or exceed the points in the
>spell.  There are no POW 28 spell spirits in the current rules
>(or is there something in the errata?)  As a consequence 18 is
>the biggest spell that anyone can have, but it seems to be the
>only limit (apart from the INT to fit it in).
 
In _Gods of Glorantha_, a cult spell spirit is defined as having POW
of 1d3 per point of the spell.
 
 
 
                                        Carl

---------------------

From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
Subject: a force for Good?
Message-ID: <9303120329.AA25707@hp3.zycor.lgc.com>
Date: 12 Mar 93 03:29:02 GMT

re:
>>    One of my old player's comments on the recent "Argrath" book:  "I knew
>>  we should have killed him when we had the chance.  I had a perfect shot lined
>>  up..."
>>    - Paul Reilly

You should have!

We did.

I'm trying to figure out how to follow up that campaign, as we mucked
up a few other things as well.

(How about a troll, who finds out, after drifting from religion to
religion, that one of his ancestors was Arkat. Who then is turned by
some of Arkat's magic into a human, and later goes on to become a
pretender-Pharoah?
 
Never mind. I won't tell you the rest..... )

Daka Fal, Arkat & Trickster, three great tastes which go great together...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-     -     -     -     ---john j medway-----------     -     -     -     -
--   - -   - -   - -   ---jmedway@zycor.lgc.com--- -   - -   - -   - -   --
--- -   - -   - -   - ---landmark/zycor----------   - -   - -   - -   - ---
----     -     -     ---512/292-2325------------     -     -     -     ----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------

From: gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell)
Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 11 Mar 1993
Message-ID: <9303120546.AA14846@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>
Date: 12 Mar 93 20:51:25 GMT

 
> From: peterw@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Peter Wake)
> This seems like a mistake: Spell Spirits have a 3d6 POW roll and a
> limitation that POW must equal or exceed the points in the spell.
> There are no POW 28 spell spirits in the current rules (or is there
> something in the errata?)  As a consequence 18 is the biggest spell
> that anyone can have, but it seems to be the only limit (apart from
> the INT to fit it in).

No, according to Gods of Glorantha the strength of a spell sprirt is
equal to 1d3 x the points in the spell it teaches i.e for a 4 point
spell spirit, average POW is 8, for a 14 point spirit, average is 28.
This is changed from the values given in the basic set.

This, IMHO is something I would like to see in RQIV: inclusion of the
rules in the supplements. Fortunately, this problem isn't as bad as
many other games where each new supplement presents new rules.  After
a while you don't know whether you are playing by the same rules as
everyone else. Anyone out there ever a "Star Fleet Battles" player?
For RQ, I don't know of much outside of the GoG rules for spell
training and acolytes that need to be included. Can anyone else think
of any?

> It is easy to defeat spell spirits, pay the priest to cast Spirit
> Block on you.  It's on the common divine magic list, available to most
> cults.  Smacks of Jrusteli practice to me though.  The spirit might
> refuse to enter combat under such conditions.  On the other hand the
> purpose of the whole ritual is to teach the spell, and in the case of
> divine magic it's a cult spirit doing the teaching, it expects to be
> beaten.  It's all a matter of taste (IMHO).

There was a long thread about this in rec.games.frp.misc a couple of
months ago, which has been archived on soda.berkeley.edu for your
edification, if you have that great spiritual uplifter, ftp.

> 
> Re: RQ4 (do we want it?)
> 
> The changes of RQ3 almost killed RQ.  Now we have a RQ4 on the
> horizon.  Will the game muatate wildly again?  Why can't we have a
> smooth continuum of small changes like CoC.  Why does AH (and Ken

Actually, a lot of people (including yours truly) think that what
nearly killed RQ was lack of support. One supplement per year put a
lot of people off RQ more than poor but easily modifiable rules.  If
you look at the racks at games stores you'll see that many of the most
successful games have crap rules but plenty of supplements, modules,
campaign packs etc. AD&D and Shadowrun spring to my mind as examples.
Call of Cthulhu, which has a simplified RQ system with more than a few
holes, is more successful than RQIII IMHO due to the much greater
volume of modules and supplements produced for that game.

> I think that a few small fixes and hole fillers are required, that
> clarification of some rules would be useful but I don't want any big
> changes, especially to combat!  Combat is mostly fixed now, RQ2 combat
> was badly bug ridden.  I'd like some clarification on how magic
> effects Special/Critical/Fumble chances and that's about it.  In the

What clarificatios do you need? Are you talking about Bladesharp
affecting to-hit chances etc?

> magic section I'd like to see a few changes to the Shaman rules,
> preferably in the direction of RQ2.  The RQ3 Shaman rules are
> terrible.  Shamans outgross sorcerors anyday.  Anyone want me to
> explain why?  Don't tempt me.  I don't want to see sorcery dissappear,
> I like it much as it is. 

OK. I'll tempt you. I agree that a shaman with a powerful fetch is
immune to direct magical attack, but so is a Tapping sorcerer, and the
POW used to build up the fetch is better used on binding and
strengthening enchantments. I think that the RQII shaman rules seem to
be fairly unbalanced as well (especially the ability to heal yourself
after death), and someone posted recently (Loren Miller?  Tim Leask?)
that Chaosium admitted that the shaman rules had NEVER been
playtested, in any edition of RQ. The sorcery rules are broken IMO:
your final ability is restricted by INT, an unchangeable
characteristic, and a sorcerer who spends his time enhancing the
stats, damage and protection on the rest of his party will have gross
effects on party effectiveness.

Sorry, I just deleted your signature: I don't know who I'm replying to
here.

I posted this to rec.games.frp.misc, but I thought I'd put it here for
those who don't or can't read news:
 
I can't find the cost of characteristic training in my edition (the GW
hardback books) of RQIII, nor can I find it in the Errata, nor can my
GM find it in the AH deluxe boxed set. The training times for
characteristics and skills are given, but only the cost for training
skills is included. Can anyone point me to where we are told the
value? My GM has ruled that the cost per week is equal to that of a
skill 5 x the value of the characteristic, but we would like to know
the official RQIII cost; we can't use the RQII rules because the
training rules seem to have been completely rewritten.

Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au

---------------------

From: pvanheus@cs.uct.ac.za (Peter van Heusden)
Subject: Killing with a dagger
Message-ID: 
Date: 12 Mar 93 11:17:12 GMT

An interesting problem came up in a discussion here a couple of days
ago.  Can you kill someone with a dagger in RQ? We all agreed, if he
is wearing any substantial armour, the answer is no, but the problem
arises in close in combat where your opponent is unarmoured, and
possibly unarmed. (Eg. a bar fight, a knife in the back.) It should be
possible to kill the person with one dagger thrust to the gut. (And if
you twist around a bit, you have a near certain kill.) So, should we
have a 'assasination rule' to cover this situation?

On a related strand: I was reading the rules for the Skyrealms of
Jorune roleplaying game. Jorune is skill based, so is similar to RQ in
a way. They have 3 ranges of melee combat: polearm, sword and dagger,
and you move between them. At dagger range, eg. a sword is useless.
This sounds like a good idea, especially since you can use this system
to hold off a wild animal. (A wolf at polearm range - I'd call a long
spear a polearm for this case - is not going to do much damage)

Peter

PS. RQ4: It looks too complex, too many new rules. I want a fix for
Sorcery, and a fix for the other RQ3 problems (fatigue, character
development), not a new system (anyway, I won't be able to buy it
because it probably will cost too much - RPGs in South Africa costs
STACKS). At present I am working out a fix myself - and am nearly
there. So why should I want a new system?