Bell Digest v930517

Date: Mon, 17 May 93 17:15:13 +0200
Message-Id: <9305171515.AA25020@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>
From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Mon, 17 May 1993
Precedence: junk

The RuneQuest Daily and RuneQuest Digest deal with the subjects of
Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha.

Send submissions and followup to "RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM",
they will automatically be included in a next issue.  Try to change the
Subject: line from the default Re: RuneQuest Daily...  on replying.

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 enquiries and Subscription Requests to the editor:

RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld)

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

From: curtiss@netcom.com (Curtis Shenton)
Subject: White Moon
Message-ID: <9305151545.AA20996@netcom2.netcom.com>
Date: 15 May 93 15:45:21 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 775

 Well if the White Moon will someday rise as it's predicted it seems
 Glorantha will have to offer up the missing piece, the Green Moon! After
 all we've got red and blue now we need the last primary color. Has this
 ever been discussed before? I'm can't really think of anything in
 Gloranthan lore that comes close to being a "green moon" but it does
 make a certain amount of sense.
-- 
Curtis Shenton curtiss@netcom.com internet              Too lazy to do a
	       4@3091 WWIVnet				"real" .sig file
Currently working on a war of the gods adventure for WotC. If you're
intrested email LISTSERV@wizards.com with SUBSCRIBE LOC-L 

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

From: resmith@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Smith)
Subject: Re: RQIV Comments
Message-ID: <199305151630.AA24211@donald.cc.utexas.edu>
Date: 15 May 93 06:30:20 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 776

>>New fatigue rules look pretty good.
>>1) Finally, fatigue affects movement! But why only when exhausted? This

-(stuff deleted)-

>>order. I would suggest that instead of dropping to 1/2 move at
>>Exhaustion, one should drop to 2/3 rate when Weary and then to 1/3 rate
>>when Exhausted. This would also be easier to calculate, since most
>>creatures have a movement rate of 3m.
						    
>Because it's simpler.  The rules are already way too complex for
>some tastes.  If you want more complexity, add it in your game.
>Some of this would be handled by GM judgement.

It is easier to divide a movement of 3 by two than by three? In addition, 
for those who use hex grids, the scale is usually use 1m to the hex. Moving
1.5 meters per strike rank becomes a real pain. It seems to me that it
would be *simpler* to work in thirds, as far as the mechanics go.

 J>>2) Melee
 J>>However, like all systems that I'm familiar with, there is too much
  >>attack, parry, attack, parry, attack, parry, etc. This may simulate a
  >>practice session, fencing, or a SCA battle (all of which are highly
  >>formalized simulations of combat), but I doubt that life and death
  >>stuggles look like this. Where is the kicking, scratching, hitting
  >>with shields and weapon butts, etc.? The combat system lacks feeling and
  >>excitement. I guess I want my combats to look like the Michael York
  >>"Three Musketeers" rather than the Gene Kelly version.

   >Talk to the GM.  This stuff is not in the rules - it's the responsibility
   >of the person playing the character, and of the GM.

OK, I'm open to suggestions here. Since players tend to be rational people,
at least by their own definition of rationality, they are going to spend
the majority of their time learning to do the most damage that they can with
the least cost in training time. This always is some heavy duty weapon.
Why bother learning how to kick and grapple, when these cause little damage
and you always prefer to hit with your primary weapon? What actions of the 
GM can encourage players to act contrary to their interests (inflicting as
much real damage as possible on a deadly opponent) without seeming arbitrary?

"OK, this round you may only kick." 
"Why?"
"Because it will be more interesting."
"It might also get me killed."
"Well, either kick or do nothing."
"Grumble, grumble, #$@^&!!"

Maybe things will be different, now that weapons skills have variable
difficulty, but I doubt it.

Armor

(Opps, accidently deleted some stuff, but I'll summarize.)
Here I mentioned that leg arm should slow character's movement and cause
greater fatigue and that arm protection should interfere with some missile
accuracy.

Carl agreed, but responded that the rules are already too complex.

I agree that complexity is a problem, but that is what optional rules are
for. For many of my critisism, the response has been that the GM and players
should fix the inadequacies of the rules through role-play. That does not seem
very satisfactory to me. The game system defines the physical reality of the 
world. Characters' action will conform to the reality created by the game
system. That is what the game system is supposed to do: create the game
reality.

We pay the designers, through our purchase of their material, to do the 
work of creating a system that is both playable and "realistic." (Yeah,
these are sloppy terms, but you know what I'm talking about.) To say to'
the consumer, "Yeah it may not be right, but it's up to you to fix it," is to
me something of a cop out.

If we all had the time, inclination, information, and experience to create a
roleplay gaming system of our own, why would we pay game designers? After all,
a unified game system is not necessary to have common interests in a game
world (Think of Tekumel, wherein there are many gamers actively envolved in
the game, but there is no unified game system, each group creates its own
from its favorite rpg.). 

I don't know maybe I'm too mechanistic in my thinking, but I want the system
to deal with most of the physical stuff in the world (combat, damage, etc.)
so that the GM and gamers can concentrate on roleplay (character interaction).

This is not meant as a personal attack on any one in particular, or even the
RQIV design group as a whole. Simply my own thoughts on games design
philosophy. Of course, it's impossible to satisfy every want and desire
of your consumers, but I just thought I would make mine known and increase
the chance that they will be addressed.

I certainly do appriciate Carl's promt response to my querries and I hope
others will continue this thread.

Rob


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

From: kokko@eemeli.enet.dec.com (The Stars Are Right)
Subject: RE: RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 14 May 1993, part 1
Message-ID: <9305151649.AA12559@vbormc.vbo.dec.com>
Date: 15 May 93 20:49:27 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 777

Hi, 
My name is Hannu Kokko and I come from Finland. I have been running Rq in
Glorantha since 1980 on a monthly, biweekly or weekly basis during most of
that time. RQ Daily has now very informed and lively, interesting discussion. 

Re: publishing schedule
I think that the current trend of getting regular, NEW material out in a 
form that gets new players to enjoy and play RQ is absolutely vital to the
resurrection of RQ. Of course old information out of print would be nice 
and old scenarios 
republished would be kind of nice but most of the oldtimers already have them
or can gain access to them ? but NEW NEW material and campaign stuff is 
Hi, 
My name is Hannu Kokko and I come from Finland. I have been running Rq in
Glorantha since 1980 on a monthly, biweekly or weekly basis during most of
that time. RQ Daily has now very informed and lively, interesting discussion. 

Re: publishing schedule
I think that the current trend of getting regular, NEW material out in a 
form that gets new players to enjoy and play RQ is absolutely vital to the
resurrection of RQ. Of course old information out of print would be nice 
and old scenarios 
republished would be kind of nice but most of the oldtimers already have them
or can gain access to them ? but NEW NEW material and campaign stuff is 
absolutely needed to get the new players in. 

Re: Rq4
I also think that Rq4 playtest discussion could benefit RQ4 more if it had
its own automated mailing list dediacated exclusively to the playtest. 
It would be interesting to see which direction
the rules are moving and what people think of them so that we could get the
best possible set of rules without any heavy baggage or unplaytested features.
best possible set of rules without any heavy baggage or unplaytested features.

Re: Humakti

In my campaign I have given the Swords a sort of sixth sense when it comes to
being in battle, not exactly a sense ambush but an edge in sensing an opponent.
 For example if the Sword is fighting  
against opponent/opponents that are say, invisible, the Humakti could sense
where the opponent is slightly before the opponent makes his move and then 
Humakti could state or start an action against it.

I really like the comparison of Humakti to some kind of Eastwoodesque 
character,
certainly they are grim people and the Dorsai could also stand as some kind 
of rolemodel.

Has anybody done an index to all the Gloranthan stuff. That could be a useful
thing if I could for example to look up the pages in all the Gloranthan stuff,
including the scenarios where something is said to 
happen in 1620, or all the places where the Spike is mentioned

It would be nice to have that kind of thing available in electronic form
so it could be updated easily


-- hannu 



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

From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
Subject: good worshipper/bad worshipper
Message-ID: <9305151856.AA12061@hp2.zycor.lgc.com>
Date: 15 May 93 18:56:17 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 778

>>  Paul Reilly here.  Here's a document my friend Finula and I discovered
>>  ... 
>>  From: "Michael W. Timpanaro" <72143.1770@CompuServe.COM>
>>  
>>  	On Bad Worship and How it Corrupt the Gods
>>  			or
>>  		how the gods went wrong

Interesting how this relates to how _players_ corrupt the gods, as well. Ever 
had a player say: "Hmm, it'd be neat to play a Kyger Litor, oh wait, they don't 
get Sever Spirit, like Zorak Zoran. I guess I'll play one of them instead."

Picking cults for their spell lists - yuk!


>>  	Zorak Zoran. Humans are not the only guilty parties.  Zorak Zoran was
>>  historically reputed to be a god of great cunning as well violence. Today
>>  he is viewed as stupid and brutish. He has been poisoned by Bad Worship.

And by players only interested in joy through sheer gross brutal force.


>>  From: 100270.337@CompuServe.COM (Nick Brooke)
>>  Subject: Strength through Joy, and other trivia
>>  
>>  Yeah.  I'd suggest making initiate-style "one-use" Rune magic regainable on 
>>  the High Holy Day.  You'd have to couple this with a trimming of 
>>  eligibility to POW gain rolls unless you want to unbalance everything 
>>  badly, but as the POW gain is my most hated RQ mechanic after strike ranks, 
>>  that doesn't hurt the game too badly.
>>  
>>  Effects are:
>>  [ Nice list of reasons why this makes sense omitted ]

I'd allow _some_ of the Rune magic to be regained on any Holy Day for the 
cult.  I'd probable restrict _regained_ power to 1 pt., or maybe 1d3 on the 
High Holy Day.

This should also work fine with one of my favorite ideas, for a Rune Magic 
overhaul, the one by (I believe) David Cheng. (Essentially: Sacrificed POW 
is held as a reservior. When the character wants to cast a divine spell, 
(s)he just picks one from that cults list, and the POW is deducted from the 
One-Use or Reusable reservior, whichever is appropriate.)

I would also add a roll to govern the god's reaction to this appeal. Results
of the roll range from "Stick-it" where the power is lost, but the spell is
not cast, to "Good Call" where the points are NOT spent, but the spell results
occur anyway. Also allows the god (ref) to say "Wrong Call" and supply a more
appropriate spell.

To me these are prayers to the gods, like spirit magic is calling on another,
lesser spirit, and can go unanswered. I think these "spells" should be treated 
as results of these prayers, rather than a spell from a menu.


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


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

From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Sat, 15 May 1993, part 2
Message-ID: <9305151928.AA02199@bondi.phyast.pitt.edu>
Date: 15 May 93 19:28:47 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 779


 Paul REilly here.

Nick says:
>Yup, I have been won over to the idea that the Lunars can't *break* their 
>oaths; they can just avoid the bad consequences of doing so by 

  This may be the first time that Nick and I had different opinions and
he came around to my ppoint of view.  I am quite pleased with myself since
I have great respect for Nick's understanding of Glorantha, which is
generally superior to my own.  (I.e., if I convinced Nick, I am probably
right.  Now to convince Greg...)

In general I agree with Nick when he says that the Old Gods whose powers
have been subsumed by the Lunars still may have some effect on those
worshippers.  Especially Rune owners.  I believe for example that there
is only ONE Fire, off in Platonic reality somewhere, and that all fires
are instantiations of it.  The Fire Rune owner (now Yelm) controls access
to the One True Fire to some extent, and all who use it may come under
his influence.

  In the case of Etyries, our Spirit of retribution is not Raw Greed Eed
(who causes insane desire for objects possessed by others so that you will 
make bad deals to get them) but instead Miser  (Miser Geyser?  Miser Sizer?)
who causes insane greed for things you already own to the point where each
object is a cherished treasure that you are unwilling to part with, which
puts a damper on trade.  Thus we are using the same spiritual force (greed)
but applied differently.
___________________
Rob Mace:

>Paul Reilly / Michael W. Timpanaro / Finula ? writes about:
>>       On Bad Worship and How it Corrupt the Gods

  The Bad Worship and Storm Bull pieces were written by Finula McCaul.
She and I developed these ideas together, in consultation with Mike Holliday.
Mike Timpanaro let her use his computer to write on.

  Thanks for the comments.  I think that you have some good ideas about Heroes
and should tell us more.  Also, you write:
>Even though Arkat in many ways abandoned Humakt there is no
>indication that Humakt ever rejected Arkat.
 
SPOILER WARNING:  Skip if you are playing in a campaign where Arkati Secrets
should remain unknown to you.  Otherwise decipher:

  (.sohtirB fo sevlE eht yb htuoy a sa detanimullI saw takrA)

Yelmalio / Elmal indeed is a good example and confirmed our theory which
we developed back in RQ II, because we knew that artificial gods had
been constructed by worshippers, and that worshippers of many gods had
to meet strong behavior, skill, etc. restrictions to qualify as Initiates.
This did not make sense if gods just wanted as many worshippers as possible.

  I like your Orlanth and Humakt examples.  Our otherworld adventures are
similar - some see Subere as a great raven, others as a deep darkness.
_____________________
Re: Nick's Runes
  Note that the shapes of the Power Runes indicate that each is contained
in its opposite.  Truth/Illusion and Luck/Fate are the most obvious examples.

  "Have you HEARD the DARK?"  - ZZ missionary

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

From: 100270.337@CompuServe.COM (Nick Brooke)
Subject: Stuff and Nonsense
Message-ID: <930516153637_100270.337_BHB50-1@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 16 May 93 15:36:37 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 780

_____________
for Rob Mace:

> Kill and eat all ducks in sight:
>  If you are going to do this, why have them in the first place?

If you keep hold of the heads (which don't taste too good anyway), it's a 
great tax dodge for characters living in Lunar-occupied Sartar, which is 
the only place you're likely to meet ducks anyway.

_____________________
Loskalm and McCarthy:

One more thing.  Look at the Regional Activity table for Loskalm.  Down at 
the bottom:
_________________________________________________________
RARE EVENTS

o  Infamy perpetrated nearby: Prophet of the Nameless Man
   is sought for hanging by all citizens.
_________________________________________________________

Looks to me like a symptom of a healthy society.  In the UK, politicians 
and police call this kind of thing "Neighbourhood Watch Schemes" or "Active 
Citizenship."  Still, I'm sure the lynch-mobs always get the right man...  
(After all, their hearts are pure).

I'd have thought that if you were living in an integrated society which has 
a witch-hunting mentality at the lowest (popular) level, you'd find the 
formal institutions of the witch-hunt (show-trials, inquisitors, loyalty 
oaths, persecution of non-conformists) in existence at a higher level.

Or don't you want to weed out the enemies of our Hrestoli Faith?

________________
for Paul Reilly:

> What about spells like Bless Crops that you only want to use once a
> year anyway?  Does this one require a Ceremony roll?  If so there is
> still some benefit in getting your priestess to do it.

Yeah, Bless Crops should be a Ceremony Ritual spell, shouldn't it?  Having 
it "instant" makes the spring fertility festival into rather a slapdash 
affair; if you have to take hours or days to get it right, you have much 
more fun sowing your seed, etc.  I'll put this into my next RQ4 
suggestions.  Thanks for raising the question: I'd assumed before that it 
was a Ceremony without bothering to check the rules...

>  What do you hate about POW gains?  Some of the problems I see
> could be addressed without major changes.

I hate POW gain rolls because -- if played by the rules -- they hand out a 
disproportionate reward for what is usually a one-off, insignificant or 
flukey action on the part of a player character.  I'd prefer to play them 
as something like the SAN Regained rewards from Call of Cthulhu -- at the 
end of any adventure, the GM can hand out points of POW based on what the 
characters *achieved* in the eyes of the gods, the spirits and the world.  
Otherwise, it's wide-open to the "let's get a tick in every weapon skill 
every week" effect, only more so (because more gain results).  Players will 
cast the odd offensive spell purely to get a POW gain check; the chance of 
success at this is then very random; the amount of gain also depends on the 
luck of the dice.

Now, as Oliver knows, I am generally in favour of rolling for increases 
rather than taking flat-rate "+3.5%" handouts.  But for something as 
important as the spiritual development of a character to be regulated by a 
rather naff set of rules that make it breath-takingly chancy whether you 
get more reward for defeating enemy demons or spiritual arm-wrestling in 
your own temple, I'd prefer to see some GM fiat and discretion.  Especially 
in awarding points of POW for furthering cult aims, regardless of whether 
you had to fight a spirit combat or zap a foe while doing so...

Is anyone out there *honestly* happy with the current rules?  Have you 
*never* seen them being abused by players, or felt they produce peculiar 
results?  (If so, I'd say you were very fortunate!).

Oh, these objections apply equally to the existing characteristic training 
rules: you spend months training, only to flush it all down the Great Sink 
if you fluff one percentile roll at the end of it.  The two systems should 
be re-thought in tandem, ironing out other anomolies (like no chance of INT 
gain through studying, and no characteristic losses for major wounds).  
I've already suggested something like Pendragon's "+1 to any characteristic 
every year," and may dig this out and write it up for the Daily one of 
these weeks.

> The best solution I can see here is to make Priest an occupation
> that requires a bit more, and reduce the power of Acolytes...

Nothing wrong with that.  I've always felt that "Acolytes" should be what 
we usually call "tough initiates" -- the guys who work for their cult most 
of the time, and intend eventually to become Rune Lords or Priests or 
whatever.  They ought to get better Rune magic access (like the seasonal 
renewability, or whatever) while they are dedicating themselves to cult 
service.  These benefits are lost (temporarily, perhaps) if they then take 
time out to work for their clan or city or tribe or whoever.

Acolytes are the guys who follow Priests and Lords on their cult duties, 
always dress in cult gear and colours, aspire to own Rune-metal armour and 
weapons, agonise about their religious obligations, learn Orlanthi 
"Poetry," and voluntarily assume additional geases.  Some cults will have 
loads of them (those grimly determined warrior cults in particular); others 
will do without, or assign them different roles (farmer-cults might have 
village acolytes rather than priests or priestesses to tend the shrine).  
But it's a pro-tem position: to remain an acolyte, you have to spend your 
time working solely for the cult.  You can't take a break while retaining 
the magical (and social) benefits, though you'll get them back when you 
pick up your tasks again.  And *nobody* who wants to keep their family and 
friends can give up 100% of their time to God...

So: Initiates with annual use of Rune magic (renewed at High Holy Days 
only).  Acolytes as an in-between step, seasonal Rune magic (renewed at 
Holy Days), but only if they're working full-time for the cult that season. 
 Rune Lords with seasonal Rune Magic, otherwise unchanged.  Rune Priests 
possibly with tougher entrance requirements: for one, they might have to 
have 5 points of Rune magic that's "useful to the cult" rather than "useful 
in the game"; say, one point each of Worship, Sanctify, Spellteaching, 
Divination, and Initiation (a basic portfolio for most working priests)?  
Then they too would have seasonal use of Rune Magic, perhaps with the 
option of taking days off to pray for faster return (as at present in RQ3).

Hey, and let's abolish the mechanical "Test of Holiness" (POWx3% roll) 
while we're about it!

Comments welcome, as always.  If you think I'm lurching onto RQ4 ground, 
that's because I got damn' all feedback from those guys when I sent a huge 
packet of stuff out there last September (because I wasn't on the Net?  
Well, others here in the UK had the same dispiriting experience...), and 
would like to see what other RQers think of my suggestions at first hand.

Mind you, a debating board for RQ4 *only* looks like a neat idea, and gets 
my backing.  Which is *probably* enough to put them off doing it at all...

====
Nick
====

Role-Playing, not Rule-Playing or Roll-Playing!

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

From: scn/G=Neil/I=NA/S=Harold/O=Siemens_plc/OU=Congleton@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: RQ Digest
Message-ID: <9305161627.AA05527@Sun.COM>
Date: 16 May 93 17:23:05 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 781

I would be grateful if you could explain what the RQ Digest is, and more importantly what I can get from it.

			Looking forward to hearing from you

				Neil Harold

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

From: ade@insignia.co.uk (Adrian Brownlow)
Subject: ??
Message-ID: <26048.9305171011@piglet.insignia.co.uk>
Date: 17 May 93 03:23:19 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 782


Mail*Link(r) SMTP               ??
> Consider APP.  Is a maximum appearance human (21 = Ingrid Bergman etc.) 
> ONLY twice as attractive as an average guy off the street?
Ah, but wasn't she a she rather than a he?



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

From: awr0@aberystwyth.ac.uk
Subject: Magic
Message-ID: <9305171310.AA22534@uk.ac.aber.fronta>
Date: 17 May 93 15:10:55 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 783

Nick Brooke:
Thank you! It is very difficult to get hold of information concerning 
the history of Glorantha. 

Sorcery:
The idea of an invisible god strikes me as being very weird. Maybe 
its me, but I don't like it.

Magic in general:

It's probably better to say that the further you move away from 
Sartar, the more unusual the magical system will be. I don't see why 
Glorantha should only have 3-4 magic types. 

It allows the GM to place more unusual obstacles in the way of the 
player. 

Strike Ranks:
Has anybody ever tried having 100 SRs rather than just 10? The idea
that somebody goes in SR2 then in SR5, then SR8, then SR2,rather than 
SR1, seems a bit illogical. It would require more book keeping, but 
over all would be more realistic. It would also allow poisons to 
take effect within an alloted time rather than at the end of a combat
round. 

Adam