From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #175 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Wednesday, October 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 175 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Spell Categories [RQ-RULES] BFRP [RQ-RULES] New System [RQ-RULES] Spell Names [RQ-RULES] Rules codification RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell Names, Metals [RQ-RULES] Runic magic [RQ-RULES] The Glow Ring RE: [RQ-RULES] Runic magic [RQ-RULES] Magic Systems RE: [RQ-RULES] Magic Systems Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer Re: [RQ-RULES] Spell categories RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:01:00 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Spell Categories >For me Fertility and Life are smilar IMO and could be grouped. >Therefore, 2 categories would now be missing ! True. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:50:56 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP >they cannot be made universally valid, Simplicity is, however, a virtue. >hey Guys lets try something radical, how about just using the >Rune affiliations................. Too specific, this is not a Glorantha roleplaying game. We need something simple and intuitive. >Lets drop BFRP and call it 'Legends'. Any other suggestions? 'Legends' is ok, but a bit ostentatious, and possibly a WotC trademark. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:59:26 +0100 From: tomz@writeme.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] New System Let's be clear, this is an attempt to create a system wholly compatible with RQ3, so we can't wander off into a new system. I think fatigue is irrelevant but feel free to work on it. - --- Tom *************************************************************************** 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, 14 Oct 1998 10:59:26 +0100 From: tomz@writeme.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Spell Names We should drop all RQ names, that's a very specific thing that is part of that rules group and replace them with our own. We don't need to replace all of existing stuff for the existing BRP games, just have fun creating new bits. I always liked very specific spells that heightened the chances of impales and criticals. We will have to be careful to write such spells to cope with both RQ definitions of such terms but also Stormbringer and Elric. - --- Tom *************************************************************************** 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, 14 Oct 1998 10:53:57 +0200 From: Alain.RAMEAU@total.com (Alain RAMEAU) Subject: [RQ-RULES] Rules codification >Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:56:34 +0100 >From: "Hibbs, Philip" >Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer >We are not writing a new roleplaying game, we *have* a base set of >attribute >and skill mechanics, which we are just bringing up to date. Obvious >problem >areas like fatigue and sorcery must be addressed, but other than >that, I >want to keep the *basic* game mechanics as they are, so that RQ3 >characters >are instantly compatible with *no* conversion required. Where rules >differ, >such as possibly Sorcery, the RQ3 rules can simply be used as an >add-on. >Maybe we will include traditional RQ3 sorcery as well as a Sandy's >variant, >and Runic, and Meldek, etc. Hey, that's what I have done two years ago ! I "codified" all my house rules (main part being character creation with a mixed of points/dice roll system) into a 50 pages Word document ! I tried to keep a Chapter/Section/Sub-section format. Except for the character creation (but even for that, i do not consider it as an heresy toward Runequest and Glorantha), I did not change fundamentally the system. Only some additions, clarification, classification. Unfortunately, for most of you, it won't probably be useful, as it is in French ! Anyway, if you want to have a look, you can download the document from my web site : http://www.btinternet.com/~karamo/rq3bis.doc Alain. *************************************************************************** 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, 14 Oct 1998 11:19:54 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell Names, Metals >We should drop all RQ names, that's a very specific thing that is part of that >rules group and replace them with our own. I think we are fairly safe with attribute names and skill names, but other than that, I agree. No reference to Gloranthan runes, spell names, etc. >We will have to be careful to write such spells to cope with both RQ >definitions of such terms but also Stormbringer and Elric. But "Elric!" uses the terms the other way around - a critical is one tenth of your chance, and a special is a 01. I say keep Special and Critical as they are, the terms have been used before in other games. Terje Tollisen wants to work on: >Metals (Properties, enchanted and unenchanted) That is Glorantha specific, BFRP must be generic. If you want to use it for Glorantha, then you need to get the Gloranthan info elsewhere. I would like to include rules for and examples of naturally-occurring magic, along the lines of crystals and metals, but it would have to be generic. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 08:39:36 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Runic magic It's been tried and generally abandoned. What if you aren't running in Glorantha? What if your world has half a gazillion different "mystical" alphabets? If anything like this is to be done, the smart thing would be to write a system that the GM could use to CREATE his own classification, rather than make up a classification and say "do your own using ours as a model". *************************************************************************** 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, 14 Oct 1998 08:42:04 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] The Glow Ring The Glow Ring, a webring for Glorantha, Runequest, and Hero Wars, is always looking for new members. The URL of the home page is "http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/gloring.html". *************************************************************************** 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, 14 Oct 1998 13:54:52 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Runic magic >If anything like this is to be done, the smart thing would be to write a >system that the GM could use to CREATE his own classification, rather >than make up a classification and say "do your own using ours as a model". I'm not interested in creating a system for designing magic systems, I just thought that listing spells in broad categories would be nice. If it's going to cause this much contention, let's just drop the idea and keep it alphabetical. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:21:23 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Magic Systems I have to admit I have my doubts about this project. If the idea is simply to rewrite RQ3 then I don't see the point. It's an archaic and overly complicated game system which has seen the end of it's natural lifespan. BRP's strengths are as a lightweight and intuitive system that is easily adaptable between settings. Surely the objective of BFRP should be to produce a BRP based core game system that will appeal to a modern audience. From a practical points of view, it needs to be a simple system for one vital reason - size. People won't want to download and print something the size of the RQ3 rulebook. A net published game system needs to be small and readable. I'd be much more impressed if this project was based on the old Basic Role Playing rules booklet Chaosium used to distribute with RQ2. Fatigue Rules I'm afraid any fatigue rules which involve keeping track of fatigue points are pretty much guaranteed to be ignored by most players and GMs. There's enough book keeping in RQ as it is (too much for me in fact). If you must keep Fatigue Points, why not use them as a modifier on a fatigue roll, a la RQ4? In RQ4 there were several levels of fatigue, with penalties to skills depending on your current fatigue level. After X combat rounds you make a CONx5% roll to avoid gaining a fatigue level. If you have Y rounds of rest you can make another CONx5% roll to recover a fatigue level. You could use the Fatigue Points a modifier to the roll, so encumbered characters will be at a penalty and will tire more quickly. No book keeping, no points to keep track of, just one calculation to work out the FP total before play and the occasional roll to see how tired you are. Nice and simple. Runic Sorcery If you're going to do this why use the Gloranthan runes? There's no such thing as Runic Sorcery, in the sense beign discussed here, in Glorantha, so it seems pretty pointless to me. I would be interested in seeing an adaptation of the Ars Magica system to RQ though. I've got a hardcopy of a runic sorcery system someone came up with years ago, but it's not very good - the game ballance is awfull and it's very AD&Dish. I wrote up some ideas for one myself ages ago, but wasn't realy satisfied with the results. I would be interested in a project to do an authentic(ish) set of ritual and hermetic magic rules. I was playing with some ideas along these lines before the Liber Ka rules for Nephilim came out. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** 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, 14 Oct 1998 15:16:44 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Magic Systems >I'd be much more impressed if this project was based on >the old Basic Role Playing rules booklet Chaosium used to >distribute with RQ2. That's a bit hard to get hold of nowadays, most peoples' copies fell apart years ago. I agree with your size considerations, and it needs to be modular so that users can just download parts of the system and print them, so they don't end up with a bunch of magic systems that they don't want. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:19:20 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer > I think characters are defined primarily by their background, expressed in > skills and stated ethos. > For skills, I favor a system built from "root skills" using points. > Root skills: > motion / agility > sensation / perception > manipulation / ? > communication / ? > information / knowledge > spiritual / magic These will be similar to the Categories in RQ, which is OK: Movement (Agility/Stealth), Control (Manipulation), Lores (Knowledge), Senses (Perception), Expression (Communication), Essence (Magic) > The root skills are clearly(?) too broad for game play. Therefore, I > suggest that the GM should devise or acquire a standard list of skills > subordinate to these roots, the default values in the skill to be set by > the character's root value or by some other means ("cultural > occupations"?). Specific skills will be posted to each category later. It is essential to keep the number of different skills to a useful minimum. If two skills share a common theme or are variations of something, then the larger skill should be the one kept and it will contain the smaller sub-skills. All skills should have a difficulty rating based on the breadth, depth, and clarity of the field of knowledge. By evaluation these factors, all skills can be placed into one of four levels: Easy = 1d6+2 exp., Medium = 1d6 exp., Hard = 1d3 exp., Very Hard = 1d3-1 exp. > craft / - no equiv. in RQ - > * As you will see, I am serious that "my" craft skill has no RQ equivalent. > Let's take "craft: noble" and "craft: stonemason" characters for an > example, which will follow in my next post when I have time. You are clearly mixing the concepts of Craft with Profession. Get a copy of Champions and look up the differences. A Craft is the ability to make something, a Profession is the knowledge of a career field such as noble or mason. It is possible that characters should have Professions instead of Crafts, or perhaps they should have both to earn a living. > _In addition_, the players should be encouraged at each character creation > to devise new subordinate skills which neatly sprout from one of the root > skills. This is particularly true for the "craft" root skill. Specific skills can be created, but should not encumber the game with distracting add-ons. Try to fit a concept into the existing skills first to see if it is derivative, then create a new skill, if needed. > Al Harrison www.coe.neu.edu/~aharriso/ An e-mail address is greatly desired so that we can take it off this site... unless everyone wants to see everyone's ramblings. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 10:27:33 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Spell categories > The problem with _a priori_ spell categories is that they cannot be made > universally valid, unless you want to take the incredibly simple-minded > expedient of insisting that all worlds have a single monoculture a-la the > worst of AD&D-type "world design". > Quick, how many "elements" are there? > And that is an EASY question. When we get down to more explicitly social > categories, it's even harder. We could go with the 'Design Your Own' style from Champions with point costs assigned to powers and modifiers. The special effects and elements involved are part of the spell described at definition time. Pre-defining spells reinforces the definition of a cultural background and should be consistent across a region. Changing the definitions in a different region is desirable if the spells come from a different source. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:35:40 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer >All skills should have a difficulty rating based on the breadth, >depth, and clarity of the field of knowledge... >Easy = 1d6+2 exp., Medium = >1d6 exp., Hard = 1d3 exp., Very Hard = 1d3-1 exp. Ugh, RQ4 tried that and I stopped using it. If we are going to change the level of complexity relative to RQ, it should be generally downwards. Are there any skills in the RQ list that should be anything other than Medium? >It is possible that characters should have Professions instead of >Crafts, or perhaps they should have both to earn a living. I think the stuff under Craft in RQ3 lists things like Blacksmith, Cooper, Boatwright, etc. It's not just Craft Wood, Craft Bronze, Craft Ivory. 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: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:37:16 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer >An e-mail address is greatly desired so that we can take it off this >site... unless everyone wants to see everyone's ramblings. Do you mean an email list specifically for BFRP development? That might be a good idea. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #175 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.