From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #170 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Saturday, October 10 1998 Volume 01 : Number 170 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Copyright violations can hurt you. [RQ-RULES] Owning games and Hasbro Re: [RQ-RULES] Conditional enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Controlling Gnomes [RQ-RULES] Excess healing RE: [RQ-RULES] Owning games and Hasbro Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: RQ Worlds RE: [RQ-RULES] Owning games and Hasbro RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: RQ Worlds Re: [RQ-RULES] Flexible Sorcery Re: [RQ-RULES] Huge targets [RQ-RULES] (no subject) Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Re: [RQ-RULES] Conditional enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest 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, 9 Oct 1998 09:59:31 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Copyright violations can hurt you. Please, for your own good, do not put up copies of large sections of the RQ rules, any edition, on the Web. While these things may be out of print, they are still in copyright, and large corporations are notoriously nasty about little details like this... *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 10:04:45 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Owning games and Hasbro Regarding Hasbro: I spoke to customer service reps who relayed my question up the line, answer relayed down the line. Since I work for living, I haven't the time to track down senior corporate hoohas personally. The ownership of a game *system* has actually never been legally defined with utter rigor. A US court decision has come down that game mechanics are not subject to copyright, but that a game could be seen as "derivative" of another game (in other words, yes and no). But, if a game is a set of "instructions" or a "method", then it cannot be copyrighted, since "methods" cannot be copyrighted, only the specific descriptions or "expressions" of those methods. In other words, it's a lot nastier and more complicated than you would believe. *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 10:13:33 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Conditional enchantments > So remind me about conditional enchantments. Is this simply a superb way to > aid the adversaries without risking player-character inflation [by acquiring > such good magic items after the inevitable defeat of the enemies]? The PCs > can't subsequently distort the [conditional] enchanments to include > themselves, can they? The conditions of a restriction are supposed to be permanent; they can be tightened, but never eased. If a condition does not apply to a character, they can not even know what the magic is without mystic vision or powerful knowledge spells. Someone claimed several months ago that one special group of conditions had inverse logic that made them ease instead of tighten (for that small group). They might have been right, but that would still violate the intent. > And also remind me about enchantments [without conditions] by the > player-characters. Is there more than the Adversary who usurps Control of > the bound spirit in the PC's ring? What other ways might we [ the GMs] > pester the PC's unconditional enchantments? > Brad Furst This isn't as easy as first glance. I see nothing in the detect spells that would show at a glance that a magic item is a bind except mystic vision, or whether a spirit is currently in that bind (POW will not show until the spirit leaves the bind). If the magic item is not clearly visible, some of the detect spells will not even show that magic is there. So the Control idea only works if the enemy knows his opponent well or the character is blatantly obvious about the location of his spirits. Your best bet is to have a spirit attack the enemy to touch his magic items and try to use his items against him, or for you, or to release all of the spirits, etc. This brings up the intriguing idea of dueling Control<> spells. Someone throws a Control and the other guy throw one back with a MP boost to break the first. Logically most of the enchantments in the world are made by rune levels for themselves and their followers, not for outsiders, no matter how rich. A few items get traded to repay favors and reward special service. The well established rune levels will have restricted their items to their family, friends, or cult so that the items become heirlooms. Most temple leaders carry items that are heirlooms with cult restrictions already on them. During their service they may add something to the item and give it similar restrictions before passing it on. Clan leaders do the same thing with family restrictions, as do some mercenary groups with membership restrictions. This would imply that there is a fairly large number of small items floating around that anyone can use, a moderate group of items used by leaders in their day-to-day lives, and a small group of artifact items that are very special and limited. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http:\\commnections.com\upgrades *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 10:22:02 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Controlling Gnomes > Does the underground location of a gnome really alter the use of Controlling > Gnomes. Dirt or rock is said to be difficult for magic [e.g. control] to > penetrate. Travelling gnomes leave a trail of overturned (ploughed?) dirt. > Does this imply that gnomes are only used at or very near the surface? > Brad Furst Ahh, a gnome is only a threat when at the surface, at which point they are vulnerable to spells. their passage is very similar to a HUGH plough furrow (like a mole),and they are excellent at bringing the rocks to the surface to be carried away, or for digging trenches and making embankments. They are the perfect farm and excavation tool as long as you don't need a delicate touch. You would also want a good extension on the Command spell to do big jobs. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http:\\commnections.com\upgrades *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 10:37:56 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Excess healing PCs are on the path of herodom. Heroes routinely got themselves killed and came back in Gloranthan myth. Therefore, even though healing may be much less common for the world, there is some Gloranthan basis for making it more available to PCs and NPC hero-types. *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 16:45:08 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Owning games and Hasbro >since "methods" cannot be copyrighted, only the specific >descriptions or "expressions" of those methods. >In other words, it's a lot nastier and more complicated than you >would believe. To be (probably!) safe, you would have to re-write the description of the rules, but not the rules mechanics themselves. I suppose we could start up a committee to write up a set of rules, call it "Basic Fantasy Role Playing", and share out the work of writing up rules mechanics. We'd probably end up with 7 magic systems, though. I propose that we have 7 characteristics, rolled on 3d6 or 2d6+6, and divide percentage-based skills into 6 categories, with different bonuses based on the characteristics... philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk 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, 9 Oct 1998 12:05:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Al Harrison Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: RQ Worlds I know there's a number of resources out there to coordinate shared creation of a game world - Loren Miller's page on matrix gaming comes to mind. If everyone feels a need for a new RQ world, why not all collaborate to create a shared, fairly original setting? That way we all get surprises & the pleasure of sharing our imaginations. Al Harrison www.coe.neu.edu/~aharriso/ *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 12:41:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Al Harrison Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Owning games and Hasbro Actually, I'd prefer percentile characteristics, and broadly-defined percentile skill categories with rules for specialization to give a sort of "skill tree" character generation.... Al Harrison www.coe.neu.edu/~aharriso/ On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Hibbs, Philip wrote: > mechanics. We'd probably end up with 7 magic systems, though. I propose that > we have 7 characteristics, rolled on 3d6 or 2d6+6, and divide > percentage-based skills into 6 categories, with different bonuses based on > the characteristics... *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 17:39:38 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: RQ Worlds >If everyone feels a need for a new RQ world, why not all >collaborate to create a shared, fairly original setting? Personally, I like Glorantha, and will continue to play that - probably using Hero Wars. However, I do feel like I miss the old days, with the cast-iron certainty of the Monomyth, spirit magic spells, and experience ticks, so I'm game if anyone else is! Lets start out with a shopping list of game-world features that we want. Here's mine: 1. Magic everywhere - everyone has access to low-level magic of some sort 2. Spirits everywhere - a normal, natural part of life. 3. Predominantly pantheistic worship 4. Divine magic 5. Godless heretic Sorcerors 6. Pious, godly Sorcerors 7. Trolls (exactly like Gloranthan ones!) 8. Elves (not quite as extreme as Aldryami, a *bit* more like 'normal' elves) 9. Dwarves (not quite as inhuman and mechanistic as Mostali) 10. Ducks, anyone? philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk 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, 9 Oct 1998 14:53:30 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Flexible Sorcery > I've actually been half-considering doing something along the lines of > allowing the various Dominate spells operate in line with the Animate > spells (in Sandy's Sorcery). Thus you could have Dominate Mammal, that > would work against any mammal, but would be less effective than Dominate > Squirrel or Horse. Conversely, Dominate My Dog Spot would be much more > effective than Dominate Dog. If you are playing with skill difficulty levels, then Dominate could be a progression: Easy Medium Hard Very Hard or it might be better to restrict it further: Order/Family/Genus/Species. I don't remember much about the classification of specific animals so this would require a good biology book or reference to set up. *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Oct 1998 15:00:24 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Huge targets > If the gap is so big, the character's two handed great sword must be > considered as a toothpick for damage purpose ! > > I know that the use of SIZE in the calculation of HP try to take into > account this huge size aspect and reduced damages. But I am not sure > it is really proportional ! I will concede to the argument that even though a character gets a 'critical hit' it is clearly not fatal. In fact, this is the only damage that can get through the armor to hurt the beast, and due to it's incredible hit point total, this counts as a normal hit would to a lesser being. Let the hero do his 30 points of 'critical' damage, the beast will ignore it unless he persists. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http:\\commnections.com\upgrades *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Oct 1998 11:06:03 +0100 From: Andy Dick Subject: [RQ-RULES] (no subject) unsubscribe runequest-rules *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Oct 1998 12:20:32 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Paul Bestwick wrote: > > If we are looking for suggestions of a new homeworld for Runequest, > what about Midkema, home of Ramond E Fiest's Riftwar Saga, I'm semi-certain that Midkemia might already have an official RPG world. I know Midkemia Press (associated with Mr. Feist and Chaosium) released the Carse and Tulan and Jonril(?) cities that originated in the books. - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - Alternate Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Oct 1998 12:22:23 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Bob Stancliff wrote: > > modifications I want, then keep playing. When 'Hero Wars' comes out I will > read it carefully to see if I can run that style of game or if I can add > elements from it into my version. Same here; I'll likely buy HW and all the supplements for ideas to borrow, but continue with the RQ/BRP mechanics. - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - Alternate Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Oct 1998 12:27:23 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Conditional enchantments Brad Furst wrote: > > So remind me about conditional enchantments. Is this simply a superb way to > aid the adversaries without risking player-character inflation [by acquiring > such good magic items after the inevitable defeat of the enemies]? The PCs > can't subsequently distort the [conditional] enchanments to include > themselves, can they? PCs can either find a way to break the conditions on an enchantment (Sandy's Sorcery has a spell for this, very rare), find a way to comply with the enchantment (join the cult, marry into the family, etc.), or something else I can't imagine, but the players will if they want it badly enough. > And also remind me about enchantments [without conditions] by the > player-characters. Is there more than the Adversary who usurps Control of > the bound spirit in the PC's ring? What other ways might we [ the GMs] > pester the PC's unconditional enchantments? On at least one occasion I placed an area of "anti-magic" in a room that negated all magic that existed within it's boundaries. Maintained magical defenes failed, enchantments were (temporarily) neutralized, and so on. I ruled that bound spirits crossing the boundary inside an enchamtment could flee if they had INT, and many did so, to the utter horro of the group in question. - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 TANJ Lives! - Alternate Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 7 Oct 1998 20:44:01 +0100 From: "Dom Twist" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest I expect thats what most of us reading this page will do.... we all love the, somewhat gritty, feel of RuneQuest. Still isnt HW meant to be based on the Pendragon system? I'm told it's a OK one? Anybody got any ideas about how the FEEL is going to be? Hero Wars sounds a little to large scale a name...OK OK so it would be nice to have HeroQuesting down solid but the most fun I get out of the game is the little skirmishes and back ally brawls...rather than epic save/alter the world stuff... Thaz - -----Original Message----- From: Tal Meta To: runequest-rules@MPGN.COM Date: 10 October 1998 17:35 Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest >Bob Stancliff wrote: >> >> modifications I want, then keep playing. When 'Hero Wars' comes out I will >> read it carefully to see if I can run that style of game or if I can add >> elements from it into my version. > >Same here; I'll likely buy HW and all the supplements for ideas to >borrow, but continue with the RQ/BRP mechanics. > >-- >talmeta@bellatlantic.net - I *am* one of the Chosen Few! >ICQ - 12594453 >AIM - talmeta1 >TANJ Lives! - >Alternate Homepage - > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** 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 #170 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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 Hasbro/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.