From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #127 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, July 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 127 RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Rune Spell Matrixes Re: [RQ-RULES] Rune Spell Matrixes [RQ-RULES] Fixing the interaction between Magic Types. [RQ-RULES] Newbie Questions I'm sure everyone asks Re: [RQ-RULES] Fixing the interaction between Magic Types. Re: [RQ-RULES] Newbie Questions Re: [RQ-RULES] Tentacle Sorcery! Re: [RQ-RULES] Newbie Questions I'm sure everyone asks Re: [RQ-RULES] Tentacle Sorcery! [RQ-RULES] Roolz .. seeking game Re: [RQ-RULES] Tentacle Sorcery! 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: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:52:57 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Rune Spell Matrixes From Sandy's latest rules: RUNE MAGIC - enchanting a Rune spell into a matrix means that the caster actually loses his Rune spell permanently. The Rune spell can be cast once from the matrix, but then must be placed within a temple for a Holy Day Ceremony before it recharges. A "one-use" spell placed into the matrix does not recharge, but is used up (and destroys the matrix) when it is cast. So, an Initiate can create a one-use runespell matrix, but a priest cannot. A Priest should be able to create a one-use matrix, but is unable to get the spell back until the matrix has been used, like in spell trading. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:24:46 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Rune Spell Matrixes Hibbs, Philip wrote: > > >From Sandy's latest rules: > RUNE MAGIC - enchanting a Rune spell into a matrix means that the > caster actually loses his Rune spell permanently. The Rune spell can be cast Does Sandy have a Rune Magic system too? Grumble. Sandy needs a website. :) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:00:42 +0100 From: Michael Cule Subject: [RQ-RULES] Fixing the interaction between Magic Types. I want there to be a simple reason why people don't mix and match magic types. Why a Shaman isn't normally also a Priest and a Priest won't normally touch Sorcery with a ten foot Staff of Office. I came up with the following rule (inspired by some ideas from Ars Magica). Since a sorcerer is in the habit of altering the universe to suit his own will, he finds it difficult to allow himself to be used as the channel for a Higher Power. A sorcerer's chance of Divine Intervention or using a Divine Magic spell is reduced by a percentage equal to his highest Sorcery Spell or Skill. I want there to be a similar reason for a shaman to avoid sorcery (and vice versa) given that we are abandoning the idea of Free INT. I've not come up with anything as neat as the above rule yet but I'm open to suggestions. - -- Michael Cule *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:49:37 +0100 From: Michael Cule Subject: [RQ-RULES] Newbie Questions I'm sure everyone asks I finally decided to subscribe to this list after going through my RQ/Glorantha materials and realising how much I wanted to run a RQ/Glorantha game again. But with RQ no longer supported I have a couple of questions: 1) With AH (the morons!) deciding to throw away the RQ system in favour of keeping the name (the jackasses! may their idiotic accountant-and- marketing-lead operation suffer the fate it deserves) who actually owns the rights to the RQ *system*? Does anyone? 2) Is there no way that we can get a revised RQ published? I want a decent rewrite of RQ3 especially one that fixes the Sorcery rules. 3) Is it impossible to get hold of the draft for RQ:AiG? I've got the 1992 draft for RQ4 and I've used some of the more easily adapted rules from it for some time now (especially altering the death point to minus HP and the fatigue rules) but I'd like to see the mature result. - -- Michael Cule *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 21:34:24 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Fixing the interaction between Magic Types. Michael Cule: > I want there to be a simple reason why people don't mix and match magic > types. > > Since a sorcerer is in the habit of altering the universe to suit his > own will, he finds it difficult to allow himself to be used as the > channel for a Higher Power. This is basically the correct reason IMO. I think that each person has a magic portion which he dedicates towards some philosophy of magic; in the case of a sorceror, the High Vow. This gives a certain shape to the magic portion of his spirit, which is suitable for a certain kind of spellcasting but no other, unless you're schizophrenic enough to give two or more wildly different shapes to your soul. Magic is, after all, a discipline. Mixing and matching is certainly possible, but not terribly productive either. Sandy's sorcery actually has some rules against mixing sorcery and other magic which are *quite* useful, and *quite* excellent. A Fetch is made out of the same spiritual material as a Vessel and as one's RunePower. More or less. This is a God Learner POV, anyway, and not necessarily accurate. Some forms of illumination may be able to transcend even these fundamental boundaries. Some lunar sorcerors, notably, use the Arts of sorcery to manipulate spirit magic. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 21:48:19 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Newbie Questions Michael Cule: > I finally decided to subscribe to this list after going through my > RQ/Glorantha materials and realising how much I wanted to run a > RQ/Glorantha game again. Good for you !! > But with RQ no longer supported I have a couple of questions: Ah, but RQ is actively supported, albeit by the fan network. (Although the PDP stats in the latest issue of Tales were an unpleasant new flavour IMO ... Not everyone uses or even knows PDP, but, presumably, everyone is familiar with RQ3) > 1) With AH (the morons!) deciding to throw away the RQ system in favour > of keeping the name (the jackasses! may their idiotic accountant-and- > marketing-lead operation suffer the fate it deserves) who actually owns > the rights to the RQ *system*? Does anyone? No. The rule of Law says that no-one can own the RQ *system*. (This must be partially due to the fact that AH had crappy lawyers, though) But AH owns the name "RuneQuest" and Issaries and/or Greg own Glorantha. > 2) Is there no way that we can get a revised RQ published? I want a > decent rewrite of RQ3 especially one that fixes the Sorcery rules. Yes and no. Yes, if all mention of either RQ or Glorantha is carefully avoided, AND if a completely original text is produced. But even then, the possibility of Chaosium having good lawyers (Chaosium owns BRP, and Issaries is unlikely to feel happy about a serious rival to HW being printed, V. wisely) would be well considered, as well as our loyalties to a mainstream Glorantha and a shared one. I think that it's a theoretical possibility, but a practical impossibility. Gloranthan RQ is, I think, a cut'n'paste internet shareware game anyway, nowadays, or vrtually RQ5. The Age of Print is coming to an end ... So, we can tinker with RQ3 to our heart's content. Sorcery is virtually fixed, although some work has yet to be done. See Sandy's sorcery, from various outlets on-line, and in Ye Book of Tentacles. Also, check out Nick Brooke's website for flesh on the bones. > 3) Is it impossible to get hold of the draft for RQ:AiG? It is now (I haven't got it either), but I have heard that the authors, who hold copyright on the text, wouldn't mind on-line duistribution. Such distribution will, presumably, become easier from a political POV once RQ:S and HW have been released. After all, how many people are going to be interested in obtaining a copy of the manuscript for this failed project? Just us RQ:Glorantha old-timers, that's who. The text exists. With patience, and some perseverance, I'm sure it will come to you. > I've got the > 1992 draft for RQ4 and I've used some of the more easily adapted rules > from it for some time now (especially altering the death point to minus > HP and the fatigue rules) but I'd like to see the mature result. Not sure that there was one. Still, I'd like to see it too !! I dislike the RQ4 rules for fatigue and negative hit points, myself ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:58:38 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Tentacle Sorcery! Hibbs, Philip wrote: > > The latest version is also available at: > http://www.hccweb.demon.co.uk/glorantha/rules.htm#SorceryRules > as Word v6 documents. I don't have YBoT yet, so I don't know if it's > identical, but all Tal's descriptions fit. There's alot more in those docs. Alot more... and some of it looks distrubingly familiar. Remember those Spirit magic spells we were all working on a few months back? Alot of the sect-specific spells read alot like the ones we came up with... namely: Spirit Spell Sorcery Spell ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Spinestrike Stingray Anihilate Lustrous Missile DarkMaul (v) Shadeclout, Shudder & Triumph of Darkness Whisperblow Stutterstrike Not that I'm against the flow of information, but... > Abjure Immersion is not an option to non-Waertagi, neither would Abjure Red > Vadeli Blood Sorcery be meaningful to anyone other than Red Vadeli. "Hey, I > just found out about some strange foreign Art - let's all Abjure it!" I could see my players doing that... :) - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - How come none of my spells got shifted?! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 23:48:57 +0100 From: Nikk Effingham Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Newbie Questions I'm sure everyone asks >1) With AH (the morons!) deciding to throw away the RQ system in favour >of keeping the name (the jackasses! may their idiotic accountant-and- >marketing-lead operation suffer the fate it deserves) who actually owns >the rights to the RQ *system*? Does anyone? As I understand it, the RQ system itself is owned by Avalon Hill. Even though they have rewritten the RQ system utterly, it does not mean they have lost copyright ot the system. So, if you published a system, called it RuneQuest, had the BRP mechanics, had Rune Magic and Sorcery and Spirit Magic, or any variation on the themes, so that the system is recognisably RuneQuest, you are, legally speaking, stuffed. And if AH don't get you, Chaosium will for using the BRP system : ) Nikk E. _______________________________________________________ Nikk Effingham E-mail: nikk@MailAndNews.com WWW: 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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 02:05:41 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Tentacle Sorcery! > > The latest version is also available at: > > http://www.hccweb.demon.co.uk/glorantha/rules.htm#SorceryRules > > as Word v6 documents. I don't have YBoT yet, so I don't know if it's > > identical, but all Tal's descriptions fit. No, the on-line version is better. > There's alot more in those docs. > > A lot more... and some of it looks distrubingly familiar. Remember those > Spirit magic spells we were all working on a few months back? Alot of > the sect-specific spells read alot like the ones we came up with... > namely: > > Spirit Spell Sorcery Spell > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Spinestrike Stingray > Anihilate Lustrous Missile > DarkMaul (v) Shadeclout, Shudder & Triumph of Darkness > Whisperblow Stutterstrike > > Not that I'm against the flow of information, but... Sandy's sorcery is based on work by Paul Reilly, Mike Holliday and Dave Cake. And I know that Paul, at least, has called it Sandy's sorcery himself. Sandy's particular talent is to write sets of game rules that balance well, and are easy to read and use. This is a rare and precious gift, which he has used both well, and generously. (Are his sorcery rules for sale? No, they're freely available on-line.) If we put our ideas on a Digest they will be pinched from. But, as long as we are aware of this, and as long as we remind ourselves that this is, really, what we are after when we post something, this is OK. (Unless it is TSR who does the pinching, which is what happened to me with my first set of wargaming rules .. ) On the other hand, there is no copyright for games *systems*, so we can pinch back and publish what we want ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 20:53:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Al Harrison Subject: [RQ-RULES] Roolz .. seeking game Hi. I'm a student living in Boston (USA), with about two-and-a-half sessions of RQ under my belt - and not even played in Glorantha. So my first contribution is that I'm looking for a game in my area and this is the only place I know of to post... please advise me if there's some other mailing list or USEnet conference to make this announcement.... Second item - I'm really pleased to see that there's an improvement on the RQ3 rules for sorcery, cause those sure left a lot to be desired. But (and I know this will step on some toes), I really think that any system of "sorcery" based on a list of common spells is a denigration to the talent and inventiveness of players, GMs, and their respective characters. I've been fiddling with ideas for a more "experimentalist" set of sorcery rules than anything I've seen around. They would be based on Runes (I gather that I can get away with doing that... ?) ... the concept is that once a sorcerer had "learned" a particular Rune, (s)he could create spells within that Rune's field of authority. If this system was based on Glorantha (TM) Runes, some fields would overlap ... like Mind and Illusion spring to my thoughts. It seems like this rule set wouldn't be all that necessary - I've looked at Sandy's system and it seems playable, with a continually expanding spell list. But if anyone would be interested in it as a God Learner sort of thought-toy, I'll be very happy to post whatever segments I complete. Thanks all. Al Harrison (no sig) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:08:49 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Tentacle Sorcery! Julian Lord wrote: > > Sandy's sorcery is based on work by Paul Reilly, Mike Holliday and Dave Cake. Of this I am quite aware. When I found them, I diligently waded thru the 2+ megabyte archives of the playtest list. > Sandy's particular talent is to write sets of game rules that balance well, and > are easy to read and use. This is a rare and precious gift, which he has used > both well, and generously. (Are his sorcery rules for sale? No, they're freely > available on-line.) Please don't get me wrong - I am one of Sandy's biggest fans. One of my biggest "thrills" in my gaming history was calling up Chaosium to order something, and placing my order with "THE Sandy Petersen, the CoC guy?!". I am not out to create some big hairy deal out of this; but when I read those spells, I _knew_ where they'd come from. > If we put our ideas on a Digest they will be pinched from. But, as long as we are > aware of this, and as long as we remind ourselves that this is, really, what we > are after when we post something, this is OK. (Unless it is TSR who does the > pinching, which is what happened to me with my first set of wargaming rules .. ) I am as guilty of this as anybody; hell, I cross so many copyright borders with my Greyhawk posts, I have to chuckle. On the rare occasions I plan on using someone else's writeup as a base for my own, I generally try and ask 'em if it's okay, and give credit for the ideas. > On the other hand, there is no copyright for games *systems*, so we can pinch > back and publish what we want ... Ain't it grand? :) - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - *************************************************************************** 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 #127 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.