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, 15 Nov 1993, part 2 Precedence: junk --------------------- From: watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk (Colin Watson) Subject: sorcery runes Message-ID: <9311121703.AA18831@condor> Date: 12 Nov 93 17:03:48 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2300 _____ Lewis replied about Rune Sorcery: >Overall this is an ambitious plan but I think it needs a complete Rune Related >Character sheet so that we can tie runes and skills (I think Nick has been >working on one)? Sounds intriguing. It crossed my mind that the principle could be applied to all skills, but as you say this is an ambitious undertaking. I'd be interested to hear if something comes of this. The main problem as I see it is getting a consensus about what each rune means and where it can be applied. >I've annotated my ideas: Thanks for these. A couple of points: (My additional comments tagged with "#") SORCERY_SPELL____________ ASSOCIATED_RUNE(S)_______________________________ Cast Back Magic + Disorder? --> Fate or Luck? # Ok, which one? Are we deterministic and say that # the result is destined (therefore Fate) or do we # say "there's a dice roll involved" and plump for # Luck? FYI: I suggested Disorder because of the # reversal effect of the spell. Damage Boosting Mastery? + Death --> Disorder # Not sure about this... Damage Resistance Law? + Stasis? --> Stasis + Luck # I see. Luck from the point of view that "there's # a dice roll involved". I opted for Law as a # symbol of "resistance and protection", but this # could be bollocks. :-) Diminish (XXX) Definitely NOT Mastery (Hunger? Disorder?) # Good, I wasn't too happy about using Mastery. # What does the Hunger rune look like? STR --> Darkness? # I always thought of Strength as a Fertility spell CON --> Fertility? Stasis? Water? SIZ --> Disorder (giants)? # Novel. :-) DEX --> Movement APP --> Illusion # Fair enough. Drain Mastery? + Fertility --> Disorder (Close to Chaos and therefore Tap! # Ok, I'm convinced. Neutralise Magic Magic + ? (Mastery again??) --> Luck? # Another dice roll... Palsy Stasis --> + DISORDER # I'm not so sure that Disorder is necessary here. # If Palsy has Disorder, then Hinder would too # (and Hinder shouldn't IMHO :) Phantom (Sense) Illusion + Sense (see below) (Sense) Projection Truth + Stasis --> Replace Stasis with Rune for Sense (Air = Hear, Light/Fire = See, Beast = Smell etc.) # Associating Air with Hearing is a bit advanced # for Glorantha. What would the Grey Sages say? Regenerate Fertility + Harmony? (restore the harmony of the whole) # CA runes. Fair enough. Smother Death + Air --> (or could be WATER) # The smother effect is fairly gentle (compared # to drowning), hence I opted for Air. Stupefaction Disorder? (for confusion?) (maybe AND Harmony for Harmonization?) ^^^ IMHO # OK. Tap (Characteristic) Chaos & See above for stats. INT --> Truth # POW --> Spirit # OK. Venom Death + Luck? # Dicing with Death. In general I'm not sure about attributing Luck to spells just because the game mechanics require dice rolls for them. I would have thought a Luck based spell would be one which modified the chance of something occuring (like the spirit magic Silence etc). ___ CW. --------------------- From: watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk (Colin Watson) Subject: shields; battles Message-ID: <9311121821.AA21622@condor> Date: 12 Nov 93 18:21:43 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2301 ___________ Clay Luther wrote: >during the archaic Greek period, >body armor gave way to the large circular shield and linen shirts. It seems >the shield actually offered more protection than the body armor (presumably >because it was more mobile). The spear become longer and they stopped using >it for throwing. [I've never been able to convince my players that a shield >offers more protection than body armor...a weakness of game systems It's true, RQ gives heavy emphasis to armour. A shield is only as good as your parry skill and it only fends off one blow (normally). Armour doesn't require any skill to use and defends against all attacks. It might be better if larger shields were easier to use (higher base %) and could defend against more than one attack. This would be instead of having higher AP. (Anyway, were hoplite shields really *that* much thicker than heater shields?) I'm sure ancient soldiers would have chosen shield&no-armour because they felt more agile, but this isn't really reflected in the rules. (Ok, they're better at dodging; but this isn't a great help when their main defence is shield parry.) Maybe ENC should be subtracted from parry chances. This way there is some advantage to running around with a big shield and no armour. Make base parry % higher to compensate for the loss; so people in armour have about the same chance as always to parry, but lightly armoured chaps get a better parry chance. _____ Sandy sez: >I really hate random factors in wargames, myself, and would vote >against this random factor business. Seconded. The outcome should depend on troop strength & strategy, not luck. I haven't played Dragon Pass but we did hack together a set of mass-combat rules of our own for RQ. It was smaller scale than DP: it worked for tabletop battles with armies of less than ~1000 men. The troop stats were derived directly from RQ (stats/weapons/armour/skills mapped almost exactly). There were no dice rolls involved except for a Battle Lore skill which determined the order of statement/action for each round. One day I might type these rules up if there's interest... >Incidentally, the Empire's PR is >that they can control chaos, A friend of mine had some insight into this. He drew an analogy between the Chaos rune of Glorantha and the Radiation rune of the real world... ___ CW. --------------------- From: 100270.337@CompuServe.COM (Nick Brooke) Subject: Lunar Balance Message-ID: <931112212822_100270.337_BHB45-3@CompuServe.COM> Date: 12 Nov 93 21:28:22 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2302 A disjointed rambling post, this time. Sorry, Henk! ________________ Sandy suggested: > Perhaps the Empire should have, to make up for its shortcomings in > diplomacy, a bunch of points they can spend to "buy" units from their > exotic pile, (the Vampire Legion, Moon Boats, Arrolians). Or perhaps the Lunars should choose whether to outrage public opinion by "spending" Diplomacy Points to bring on their Chaos atrocity units, or play down the vileness of chaos (i.e. not committing such units) by using DPs for their designated purpose. You get the idea: it could cost DPs to bring the Bat into the game, which wouldn't be available to get allies from in that case. Long run, if the Lunars get all *their* strengths onto the board, the Sartarites will have everyone else in the Pass allied against them... The Diplomacy Points and Lunar Special Points are from the same pool. > Rightarm Island -- probably no magicians. Maybe provide the exotic > magic ability for the Pharaoh to control the tides or something. That's a Blue Moon speciality, and incidentally one that would be *really* dangerous against flat, low-lying Esrolia -- perhaps launching a flood as a prelude to invasion, or to cover up after a disaster? (Scenario idea for free). I'd give any such power to the Lunars; the Rightarm special is the navy, which is going to be better than those cruddy Corflu triremes. (Think of the Lunar navy as like the Romans' in the Punic Wars: they may have the plans to build ships, but lack the skill and practice they'd need to sail them well). > Traditionally Hrestol's revelation occurred in A.D. 1. > Whatever that means. Well... it suggests that dating by "Solar Time" is a Jrusteli invention: the Jrusteli might connect Hrestol's "Restoring the Light of Faith" with other cultures' mythical reappearance of the Sun after the Great Darkness, and conflate the two for convenience. "Solara Tempora" Dating is, of course, suspect, as an apparently worldwide phenomenon... thus likely to be a God Learner Construct. Easier and saner by far to date events as "X years since King Grozz defenestrated Harl Half-Ear". The Lunar Conquest of Sartar I put almost wholly down to the desire for Greed and Glory on the part of Lunar officials on the spot. Compare with Caesar's unnecessary campaigns in Gaul. And (bringing back an earlier thread), we should remember that tax collection in the Lunar Empire is likely to be privatised to some extent -- else why have Tax Demons? Though there will of course be an ideological driving force as well. Nice to see the Doraddi oasis-dwellers shifting between cults as they get older, as mooted and discussed here a couple of weeks ago. > For my next magical trick, should I give some more Pamaltela data, or > some of my information on the Wastes? Although I'm a Genertelan myself, it looks like Pamaltela is Flavour of the Month (what with Tales #11 due out "soon"), so I'd prefer to see some more of that for now (so I can read it all at the same time, and ponder). We can shift back to the eternal verities of Dragon Pass and Prax once this present faddish craze blows over...________________ Graeme Lindsell: >> Should the Lunar Empire have been expanding in the Seventh Wane? > I'm not sure it was. I think it was Tarsh that was expanding. A very good point; with Fazzur Wideread the driving force behind the late stages of the advance. I like this view of history immensely, and will see if I can put it to use somewhere. But what about Pavis and Corflu? > Do I get the feeling you don't like the Empire much? I *love* the Lunar Empire! Honest, guys, I really do! It's done *so much* for me, really opened my eyes to the meaning of everything in the world... Sarcasm apart, I like the Lunars (Pelorians, Dara Happans and Carmanians alike), just as much as I like the Sartarites. But the Lunars have Aims and Missions, so naturally I think about them in terms of Master Plans and Secret Agendas: which isn't so easy to do for the Barbarians. Sorry if the Sinister Overtones are unwanted: but writing in a frothingly idealistic style makes it less easy to get the ideas across... The Empire's aim would be explicitly self-defeating. if my belief is true. The question is, how many people running the Lunar Empire realise that they should be trying to abolish their own jobs? __________________ Paul Reilly wrote: > ... It is pretty obvious that the Pentans (and thus the Char-Un) are > based on Mongols. I see the east Pentans as Mongols, the west Pentans as closer to Turkic tribes, and the Char-un as Cossacks. But that's just me... Get hold of the Osprey Elites book, "Attila and the Nomad Hordes", if you want a look at a Pentan champion in all his glory. ________ Klaus ?? asked about Pharaoh/Pharoah. In my case, it's a careless typo. Unforgivable in a proofreader, I know -- I get confused by "Pharaonic". There may be a Qabalistic significance to others' usage, but who knows? While I'm grovelling, can I apologise for the "Skeletal Shark" in TotRM#10, p.14? We tried to get it changed to "Cartilaginous" for greater accuracy, but it slipped through at the last minute... Tsk tsk, Steve! ___________ Clay Luther (no relative of Lex) writes: > I've been reading a bit lately about bronze-age warfare. Anyone wanting to know *everything* about Hoplite warfare, go for Victor Davis Hanson's "The Western Way of War". That, plus the follow-up collection of articles he edited, will bring you bang up to date on current theory. And a very good book it is, too... ____________ David Cheng: I believe infantry units used to have 2 MP in WB&RM, and were then speeded up for Dragon Pass as the game dragged too much... John's suggestion (+1 MP to move into a ZOC) looks sensible and playable. Speaking of whom: ____________ John Medway: > Who better, but an accountant? Fuck you. I'm a historian. I just work as an accountant... BTW, Peltasts largely for (a) the historical correctness of having them with Hoplites; (b) the *perfect* shape of their shields, for the Lunar army. > A creature *that* annoying, *that* grating, *that* whining... > No wonder the Lunars put a bounty on their beaks! I have a sneaking (unfounded) suspicion that this was Greg's attempt to create a Final Solution for the "Duck Problem". Imagine the outcry if Tolkien had committed genocide against his hobbits, just 'cos they were a bit of fun that got in the way of the Silmarillion... > Misfits and losers are some of the most fun characters you can have. Make that "misfits, losers, and cretins", and I'll agree. Most of my favourite characters (Ungor the Unwashed, Big Hralf, various others) have been numbskulled illiterate barbarians. But you can have just as much fun being *really* parochial and going around with a closed mind. Oh, and another fine thing is to ham up the extraordinary nature of adventuring: make it plain that you'd rather be at home with the wife & kids... Yeah, I'm a little bit prejudiced against ergonomically efficient player character parties! Some might even say "awkward"... ==== Nick ==== --------------------- From: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham , via RadioMail) Subject: armor/ENC; scenarios; slavery Message-ID: <199311122154.AA15391@radiomail.net> Date: 12 Nov 93 21:54:04 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2303 >From: clay@cool.khis.com (Clay Luther) >On armor: the Minoan-Myceneaen culture started producing heavy bronze "tubes" >that the soldier wore as armor. However, during the archaic Greek period, >body armor gave way to the large circular shield and linen shirts. It seems >the shield actually offered more protection than the body armor (presumably >because it was more mobile). ... >[I've never been able to convince my players that a shield >offers more protection than body armor...a weakness of game systems, I guess, It's probably because we don't really have a good game mechanic for dealing with the heat of wearing armor. (My simple proposal for ENC is that the only time it matters is right before a fight -- most melees simply don't last long enough. Simply make a roll for all ENC carried -- doubling the ENC of armor worn. At the very least, you can improve your odds by not wearing a helmet full time, which seems realistic. Coincidentally, this may also favor shields. The idea being, if you've been tromping around Prax wearing heavy armor, you're not in good condition to fight.) I too have always been bothered about the Greek shift from what looks like bronze to linen: "In the middle of the 6th century [BC], the bell cuirass [this is far less crude looking than the Mycenean "tube"] was abandoned in favor of the linen cuirass." [Peter Connolly, _The Greek Armies_] >From: watson@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk (Colin Watson) >Ok, but I think one or two context-free scenarios would be nice amongst the >heavy Gloranthan stuff. These scenarios could still have a Gloranthan flavour, Context-free doesn't have to mean non-Gloranthan. Any group of people could wander in on a dispute between two Orlanthi clans, and be asked to help one side or the other. You could show a lot about the Sartar clan structures, but not require Orlanthi or even Lightbringer PCs. >>A scenario written to fit a specific part of the world is at least going to >>be instantly usable in that location. Actually not so Nick, since the River of Cradles scenario requires a Zola Fel initiate. None of our PCs worship said cult. BTW, Sandy Petersen once ran a nice travelogue-sort of game at a convention. I remember my Babeester Gor initiate being boggled at Teshnos. >From: graeme.lindsell@anu.edu.au (Graeme A Lindsell) > One of the Theyalan's major complaints about the Dara Happans is >the practice of slavery. Oh? From Cults of Prax, p. 109: "The Sartarite tribes of Dragon Pass had a system whereby captives were slaves, and specialists occasionally were purchased as well. Captives commonly were put to work as field or herd workers and allowed to worship most of their own deities except for Orlanth or any sky deities. "The Holy Country included Sartar-like customs among most of their populace. A cult of freedom was there which opposed the practice, but did not try to force freedom upon unfeeling owners. The cult was popular among many of the Holy Country elite*, and several large landholders did not practice ownership of humans." * In other words, the elite could afford this luxury. Owning slaves is presumably an economic plus, even if perhaps expensive, like owning a tractor. --------------------- From: henkl@yelm (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) Subject: Re: Harmast's retirement, Pamaltela Message-ID: <9311122217.AA02155@yelm.Holland.Sun.COM> Date: 13 Nov 93 00:17:03 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2304 john_medway@zycor.lgc.com wrote: >SP: suddenly Harmast balked. "I've got to go back!" he cried, "I can't >SP: leave my people without a leader." and the player promptly retired >SP: Harmast from active play. This was a difficult decision on his part, >This sounds like one of the better experiences you can have in a game. Jeff Okamoto played in this campaign, and kept a log, of which I've read parts. I think that a copy of it was auctioned at Convulsion last year. What about it Jeff, should we start a serial "Harmast in Pamaltela" in the Daily/Digest? Henk -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | My first law of computing: "NEVER make assumptions" --------------------- From: C442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (Newton Hughes) Subject: sorcery skills and runes Message-ID: <9311122221.AB06655@Sun.COM> Date: 12 Nov 93 21:07:48 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2305 This is in response to Lewis' article X-RQ-ID 2201, giving runes corresponding to sorcery spells and skills. I don't know the technical vocabulary for these things, lacking RQ2 as I do (sigh), but if you take the runes for the weeks of the season (the 8-week season, sorry Greg), pair up opposites, and match the pairs to 4 unopposed runes, then those runes in turn corresp. to the four sorcery skills, like so: rune pairs encompassing rune sorcery skill ---------- ----------------- ------------- Disorder, Harmony Mastery Multispell Truth, Illusion Magic Range Fertility, Death Law Intensity Statis, Movement Infinity Duration The explanations: Mastery consists of combining things, knowing when to break and when to join The magic rune governs communication, which occurs over a distance, and the difference between truth and illusion depends on your point of view, how far away you are Both fertility and death are inexorable, occur in differing intensity Statis and movement are measured over time on other subjects: Clay Luther's point about large shields & linen corselets: ought to take the wind out of the rq4 people who were trying to cut the armor points in large shields. Sandy Petersen - Prax or Pamaltela? Do we have to choose? Newton --------------------- From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Subject: Sorcery and Runes Message-ID: <199311122254.OAA28789@mail.netcom.com> Date: 12 Nov 93 06:54:57 GMT X-RQ-ID: 2306 >From: JARDINE@RMCS.CRANFIELD.AC.UK >Subject: Sorcery & Dwarves > >Overall this is an abitious plan but I think it needs a complete Rune Related >Character sheet so that we can tie runes and skills (I think Nick has been >working on one)? Actually, I think you are taking the wrong approach to the task. If you want Sorcery to be based on runes, it might help if you start with the runes, and derive spells from them, rather than the reverse. Also, being a RQ2 person, I find the old style runic groupings to be usefull concepts. For the RQ2 impaired, here they are: Elements (obvious) Forms (Plant, Beast, Man, Dragonewt, Spirit, Chaos) Conditions (Mastery, Magic, Infinity) Powers (Harmony, Disorder, Fertility, Death, Stasis, Movement, Truth, Illusion, Luck, Fate) Thus the typical spell would be based on a Power or Element, and possibly modified by a Form; Conditions should only be found in powerful spells. (By the way, RQ3 Sorcery spells have a conspicuous lack of elemental magic. This would seem deliberate). It is also useful to think of a spell as either enhancing a Rune, or supressing one. In the case of Power runes, they are grouped into opposing pairs, however this framework doesn't always work when thinking about spells. For example, I would consider Enhance to be based on Life (Fertility); the inverse, Diminish would logically be based on Death, although this seems to contradict Gloranthan theology. Supression of Fertility, or use of the Undeath rune would seem more appropriate. The big problem I see is that the runes are a framework for describing mythology, rather than magical effects. In particular, I think it is wrong to associate Spell Manipulation skills (intensity, etc) with runes. I recommend taking a look at Steve Maurer's Sorcery rules, which are probably available on some ftp site. They are a bit complex, but it does have some good ideas. -steve