From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest-Rules-Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #47 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest-Rules-Digest Wednesday, March 18 1998 Volume 01 : Number 047 RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Than Complex Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcery Re: [RQ-RULES] Than Complex Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks Re: [RQ-RULES] Mabelrode's Bloodbath [RQ-RULES] Re: Sorcery Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Sorcery Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Sorcery [RQ-RULES] Thanatar's Chef/Gardener RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. 4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready to stand by it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:00:06 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Than Complex Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > I see the temple layout similar to that of the Kali temple in the > "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". The outside above ground > levels resembling a place, although one which had seem better days > and underground passages leading into a mountain stronghold. This works for me. After watching the various discussions the past few days, I don't think it matters anymore exactly WHERE it sits physically (my game isn't on Glorantha, anyway, so it's as likely to be somewhere on the outskirts of the Anauroch as the Cairn Hills IMC). Everyone is going to do the same anyway, so why tie our hands? stancliff@commnections.com wrote: > > Chaos temples this big are hard to hide near holy days, several > local communities provide worshippers and many of the locals must > be terrorized into silence. Depends on where you put the complex IYC. Doraster covers alot of territory, and most of it has local communities COMPRISED of chaotics. They hardly need to hide their temples. Put it someplace close to say, Sun County, and that's another story. :) Nikk Effingham wrote: > > Otherwise I'm sure the cult enemies (re: Ralzakark) would discover > it and invade it. Unless, of course, it is a face of Ralzakark > that is high priest.... Doesn't have to be high priest, just high enough to keep a good eye on what the temple as a whole is up to. . *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:22:52 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcery stancliff@commnections.com wrote: > Would someone clarify the position on why RQ3 sorcery is > broken? I have allowed a small amount in my game and it has some > definite power. Also, why is Sandy's better? As someone who was also once surprised to learn that others felt RQ3 sorcery was broken, I think I might be able to shed some light. RQ sorcery, as presented, had some basic problems. First and foremost was the concept that on a lucky roll, an apprentice could cast a spell every bit as powerful as a learned magus. Next was the book keeping - for GM and player alike, long duration spells could turn into a nightmare. Other objections included Free INT limitations, and alot of the RQ2/RQ3 antipathy. Why did I convert to Sandy's system? The skill/10 idea made alot of sense, as no longer could a lucky roll give an apprentice as powerful a spell as a magus. Book keeping was lessened signifigantly, as if a spell won't fit in your Presence, you can't maintain it. It also added a slew of interesting arts, a plethora of Saints for those who like religious Sorcerers, and a variety of new spells (always a big seller for me ). *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:22:49 EST From: Delecti Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Than Complex > I see the temple layout similar to that of the Kali temple in the > "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". The outside above ground > levels resembling a place, although one which had seem better days > and underground passages leading into a mountain stronghold. > This works for me. After watching the various discussions the past few > days, I don't think it matters anymore exactly WHERE it sits physically > (my game isn't on Glorantha, anyway, so it's as likely to be somewhere > on the outskirts of the Anauroch as the Cairn Hills IMC). Everyone is > going to do the same anyway, so why tie our hands? I agree. If you remember the Kali temple had ALOT of members in it. And it was pretty well hidden being far off the usual british patrolled area, or so it seemed. Let us assume similiar circumstances surround the temple we are making, and have it have a small knowledge cult (LM, or IO or whichever) as the facade. Delecti, Lord of the Upland Marsh aka Scott Knowles, USA Coordinator for The Chaos Society http://members.aol.com/delecti/UpMarsh.html Delecti@aol.com http://members.aol.com/Glorantha/chaossoc.html ChaosSociety@juno.com "What if life actually *was* fair, and we somehow deserved all the truly awful things that happened to us?" -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:43:00 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks Michael A. Pastorello wrote: > > In my game I use the rules as stated in RQ3. I like the fact that > they are so deadly because: > 2. It makes them think about the future and plan for it instead of > the gm just throwing events and scenarios at them. IMG it seems > that they become more their characters than the players. This is not always a "good" thing. I was forced to rethink my initial campaign, not because it was "too tough" or "too complex", but because the players were basically running from every HINT of adventure! "A tower, you say? A whole tower rose up in the middle of the river a few miles to the north? WE GO SOUTH!" They wound up finding out about the things they'd avoided early on when those things got big enough to start having repercussions they couldn't run away from fast enough. > BTW you all were busy for the week that i was gone. I came back to > 140 postings from just you all. Man am i behind. Ahh well back to > reading all of them. Oh and sorry if this is a bit late, I still > do not know if these discussions are going on...guess i will find > out as i continue to read. Heh. I think everybody gets behind once in awhile. I've got maybe 20 messages saved against time to reply (or delete) on further reflection. And the convention trail ooms ever larger before me... , *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:51:29 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Mabelrode's Bloodbath Hibbs, Philip wrote: > > Tal Meta: > >Sorcery Arts > > Bloodbath ... the caster annoint himself with the blood of > >a 'worthy' opponent that he himself killed in combat > > It would seem reasonable for the blood used to come from a foe of > a power appropriate to the task being performed. For example, > using a minor opponent's blood would do for one's personal > maintenance spells. Granted, when I originally thought up the Art, all it required was blood... anybody's blood. It was originally intended to be for NPCs only. But the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to tinker with the power level it allowed should a PC decide to take up that cult. (Especially since Mabelrodians know the spells to summon & control a variety of demons). I fully expect that anyone else who wants to use it will tinker with it further. :) , *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:31:57 GMT From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Sorcery > Would someone clarify the position on why RQ3 sorcery is broken? I >have allowed a small amount in my game and it has some definite ower. >Also, why is Sandy's better? The RQ3 rules have three major flaws. Firstly, a Magus with 5000% in EVERY magical manipulation skill (Intensity, Duration, Multispell and Range) but with a piddly free INT of 15 is capable of casting less powerful spells than the apprentice with 16% in all skills and an INT of 18. Of course, the Magus has matrices and a higher Ceremony but, still, this does not solve this gaping flaws in the system. Secondly, Duration. When I played in a sorcerous campaign the GM never bothered for people to recast spells. 1 day, 3 days, two weeks, getting sorcerors to continuely recast spells can clog up a game pretty quickly. Lastly, a Western sorceror from the Rokari Church was just the same as an Eastern Sorceror, who in turn was just the same as asn Otkorioni sorceror, or a Carmanian Sorceror. Boring. The rules stopped personalization of sorcerors, so each one wandered around with the same sort of spells. Sandy's rules fixed all of these. Firstly, the maximum manipulation of a spell is now limited by your percentage skill in that spell. Secondly,Duration is eliminated and replaced by a system whereby you can have cast a varying number of spells - apprentices have less, Magi have more. Thirdly, Vows and Specialization sorcerors allowed for indepth personalization of characters, and additional Arts allowed for even more. Lastly, the addition of new magic skills (Hold, Speed, Ease etc...) and a huge variety of spells was just excellent. RQIII stinks. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Having played a Western Campaign for a while now, I've seen the difference and am now content that converting to Sandy's Sorcery was worth all the hassle. Nikk E. Nikk Effingham eng7nje@leeds.ac.uk http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/ "If absolute power corrupts absolutely Where does that leave God?" -- George Daacon *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:30:46 -0600 From: Marc Robertson Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Sorcery Nikk Effingham wrote: > > Would someone clarify the position on why RQ3 sorcery is broken? I > >have allowed a small amount in my game and it has some definite ower. > >Also, why is Sandy's better? > > The RQ3 rules have three major flaws. > > Firstly, a Magus with 5000% in EVERY magical manipulation skill > (Intensity, Duration, Multispell and Range) but with a piddly free > INT of 15 is capable of casting less powerful spells than the > apprentice with 16% in all skills and an INT of 18. Of course, the > Magus has matrices and a higher Ceremony but, still, this does not > solve this gaping flaws in the system. I have to disagree with this. If said Magus really had 5000% in all the magic skills, he could have sooooooooo many matrices and other magic items that he would not need to have any spells in memory, and would have all the 15 points of INT available as free INT. OTOH, said apprentice would likely have no matrices and need to hold spell in mind all the time. Plus the Magus' spells will WORK 19 time out of 20, while the apprentice has only 1 chance in 6 of a success!( assuming no ceremony, of course ) > > > Secondly, Duration. When I played in a sorcerous campaign the GM > never bothered for people to recast spells. 1 day, 3 days, two weeks, > getting sorcerors to continuely recast spells can clog up a game > pretty quickly. That sounds like a problem with the GM, losing control of the game. I ran a couple of campaigns with RQ3 and never had that problem. If the player was really boosting the duration up that much, how much time could it really take to roll some dice a few times every ( 1 day, 3 days, 2 weeks, take your pick ) of game time? > > > Lastly, a Western sorceror from the Rokari Church was just the same > as an Eastern Sorceror, who in turn was just the same as asn > Otkorioni sorceror, or a Carmanian Sorceror. Boring. The rules > stopped personalization of sorcerors, so each one wandered around > with the same sort of spells. Again, I see this as a problem with the GM, not the system. There is no reason that the GM can't limit the spells( or even skills ), a character has access to, based on the culture the character grew up( or lives ) in. Thats a question of world design, not game design > > > Sandy's rules fixed all of these. Firstly, the maximum manipulation > of a spell is now limited by your percentage skill in that spell. > Secondly,Duration is eliminated and replaced by a system whereby you > can have cast a varying number of spells - apprentices have less, > Magi have more. Thirdly, Vows and Specialization sorcerors allowed > for indepth personalization of characters, and additional Arts > allowed for even more. Lastly, the addition of new magic skills > (Hold, Speed, Ease etc...) and a huge variety of spells was just > excellent. > Some of that does sound interesting, and I'm not saying that the sorcery in RQ3 can't be improved, just don't think its broken! I just found Sandy's Sorcery on the web, and am looking into it. > RQIII stinks. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Having played a > Western Campaign for a while now, I've seen the difference and am > now content that converting to Sandy's Sorcery was worth all the > hassle. > Obviously, I don't agree with you here. Everyone in my 2 RQ3 campaigns had a good time, and liked the system. > Nikk E. > > Nikk Effingham > eng7nje@leeds.ac.uk > http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/ > > "If absolute power corrupts absolutely > Where does that leave God?" > -- George Daacon > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. - -- All opinions expressed are my own Marc Robertson email: Principal Analyst robertson@acm.org DST Technologies Kansas City, MO USA *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:09:47 -0800 (PST) From: allen wallace Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Sorcery Nick, I have to disagree with you on the universality of Sandy's magic. It is great for Western sorcerers but really bites for anything else. Since I don't play Western, it bites. I agree with the basic assessment of the failure of the RQ3 system in rewarding experience, I came up with something else that I use for all skills. I do have to admit I like some of the things Sandy has come up with and will use them. The problem I have with many of Sandy's fixes is that they seem more concerned with keeping the characters less powerful than his favorite heroes than with allowing them to be someone important and able to cause more than token effects. Off the soapbox. Task levels most actions will have a task level, with a numerical value, generally between (1) and (100) If your skill is twice the task level you must roll below the fumble range for success. If your skill is equal to the task level you must roll a standard success. If your skill is less than the task level you must roll a special success if your skill is less than half of the task level you must roll a critical success Task level Description 5 Easy 15 Routine 30 Moderate 60 Difficult 90 Very Difficult Task Levels and Magick If skill level is twice task level a normal success must still be rolled, at this point magic point cost is reduced to 1 on a special roll and not a critical roll. Ritual magic: Varies by ritual, generally 20% to 60% Sorcerers: Task level is manipulation points times 10% ( This is for each type of manipulation, intensity, duration etc. ) Spell success is a simple roll (will probably go task also) Shaman: Simple roll only, POW x5 (+ magic bonus) Adepts: Task level is the magic point cost times 5% Mage Adepts: Task level is OP times 20% Ceremony adds to the effective skill level thus effectively reduces the task level. Thus with the above a reasonably experienced sorcerer in the 50 to 60 point range using a lot of ceremony can cast week long spells with a bit of power to them, but considering the cost of them, he can't do too many, unless he has tons of extra MP from somewhere. If he does have tons, where did he get them? Also I did a complete reversal on the free INT issue. The sorcerer can only manipulate only up to the number of spell runes...memorized sorcery spells...he has in his head. Rituals are knowledge things and don't have spell runes or need memorization. Manipulation is setting up harmonics among your runes. You can't memorize one spell multiple times because it creates negative feedback loops. When a sorcerer has filled his head with runes his only option for continued growth is to go on initiatory quests to -graft- additional spell runes to his spirit. It has worked well for me Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:47:53 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: [RQ-RULES] Thanatar's Chef/Gardener Damask Lizard-Broo Chief Cook & Gardener of the Temple of Heads Race: Broo/Bolo Lizard Age: 31 Dex SRM: 3 Siz SRM: 1 Magic Points: 14 Fatigue Points: 31 Damage Modifier: 1d4 Hit Points: 17 Head: 6 Chest: 8 Arms: 5 Legs: 6 STR: 14 CON: 17 SIZ: 17 INT: 12 POW: 14 DEX: 14 APP: 11 Cook/Gardener ( -1) Agility Boat: 84 Climb: 55 Dodge: 20 Jump: 24 Ride: 4 Swim: 78 Throw: 72 ( 2) Knowledge Evaluate: 27 Cooking: 86 First Aid: 32 Animal: 69 BrooLore: 27 Mineral: 17 Plant: 67 World: 23 Chaos Lore: 30 Read: 40 Gardening: 65 ( 8) Manipulate Conceal: 13 Devise: 13 Sleight: 13 Music: 0 ( 3) Stealth Hide: 26 Sneak: 26 Garrote: 23 ( 5) Communicate FastTalk: 10 Orate: 10 Sing: 10 Speak: 50 ( 8) Magical Ceremony: 43 Summon: 0 Enchant: 0 ( 8) Perception Listen: 49 Scan: 81 Search: 49 Track: 13 ( 8) Attack Fist: 49 Dagger: 39 Sht Sword: 50 Missile: 45 ( -1) Parry Dagger: 30 ShtSword: 55 Special Notes to Skills: Damask's Animal Lore skill represents his knowlege of what local fauna goes good with a nice hollandaise sauce. Similarly, his Plant and Mineral Lores are mostly devoted to sources for local spices, greens, and whatnot. Doom Seeker - Gifts/Geasa Stealth Bonus +10% - Never Harm and Undead & Never Use Minted Coins Spells known: Bladesharp 3, Bludgeon 2, Heal 3 Spells known: Darklight, Devour Book x3, Dismiss Magic Special Notes to Spells: Damask is not really a fighter, so he usually casts his Bladesharp on his butcher knife, and Bludgeon on his meat tenderizing hammer. (Heal is for when he accidentally hits himself). All of his divine spells are one use, and he saves his Devour Book spells for cookbooks. Damask's father Alonz was a mighty Broo war-chief, who in a fit of drunken excess had sport with a passing bolo lizard. After a few years with his father's gang, he was kicked out as a weakling and a coward for not joining the Cult of Porchango. Damask wandered alone for several weeks, until he stumbled on a range of caves where a variety of strange, tasty mushrooms grew. He remained in the caves, gradually becoming something of a mushroom farmer, adding the occasional rat or passing traveller to the pot. It was nearly a year before his explorations into the deeper caves brought him into contact with the outskirts of the inhabited Thanatar temple. He was captured, naturally, as he'd never had to learn much stealth living alone in the caves, and held in the lower warrens of the temple for disposition. The Breath of Thanatar personally visited Damask's encampment in the caves, and after sampling some of the stew he found simmering there, released Damask on the provision that he become his personal chef. And so, at the age of 15, Damask was officially initiated into the Cult of Thanatar. He proved to be a quick study, and his skill in both the preparation and raising of foodstuffs for the tables of the priests earned him a secure place in the temple hierarchy. While cookbooks are a rare find in these parts, Damask has successfully Devoured three of them in his career, and has agents of his own scouring the countryside for more. If an actual Chef were ever to be captured by the cult, Damask would give serious thought to joining the Atyar aspect in order to be able to Consume the mind of one, or, barring that, he hopes to someday make Priest, and have the Heads of Chefs added to his own string of heads. . *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #47 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of Avalon Hill Games. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval.