From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #96 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Sunday, May 30 1999 Volume 02 : Number 096 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" Re: [RQ-RULES] Rune Points Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword SV: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" 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: Sat, 29 May 1999 11:23:34 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Rich Allen: > > Hm. Well, RQ3 2H weapons do more damage than 1H ones, > > with the exception of ... 2H Bastard Sword vs. 1H !! > > > > Probably, 2H Bastard Sword should do 2D6 + 1 base damage. > > Actually, I think the high-end damage for the two styles of Bastard sword > should be the same. Weapon damage is a reflection of how hard it is to > dodge than how much physical harm the weapon does; Well, I think of the varying damage of light vs. heavy weapons as one term of a BFRP rules system dichotomy, with the other being light vs. heavy armour. In RQ2 it was fairly useless baggage, because virtually all characters wore armour (although it did give that game a very nice & clunky "feel") (and characters might sometimes be caught with their bronze/iron pants down, so to speak); less so in RQ3 which introduced the Dodge skill. If the unarmed/unarmoured combat rules were improved in a virtual/online/Hasbro Inc. RQ4, the dichotomy would be fully operative, and also excellent rules. Irrelevant, perhaps, to the current discussion. > I do think the two-handed style would score more damaging hits more often so > I would propose something like 1d10+1 for one-handed (as written) and 1d8+3 > (or _maybe_ even 1d6+5) for two-handed. Max damage remains the same, but > average damage is higher for the two-handed style this way. I don't like this. I think that low damage rolls should remain possible, if only to preserve the "realism" of RQ sword-fighting, and the possibility of Zorro-style slashing through fine linen shirts, etc... "Ha-Hah! A mere scratch!" "Curses!" Admittedly, with the standard damage bonus rules, this actually can't happen very often (magic factored out), but the idea's there, which is nice ... ... and should be kept, so as to be fixable in house rules !! (For example, look up my ideas for Defense AKA other peoples' ideas for Natural Armour (which I really *should* post on my Web site) in [RQ-RULES] passim, which fix this bug) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 12:54:33 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" Erik, who hoped it was possible to make some sense out of his post: It was ... WOW !! Excellent ! Some members of the Glorantha Digest would undoubtedly come up with cries of "Straw Man!", but even so, it is immensely pleasurable to see chaff so brilliantly separated from chaff ! "But, but ... where's the #%@$ WHEAT ??!" > ... the 'mystical knowledge' of these cults isn't really > supposed to give you supernatural powers, although that > can of course be changed for a campaign. Hm. Only because such powers didn't exist in RW, except as metaphors. Fantasy RPGs take these metaphors for literal truths, so I think that they probably *should* give powers in FRP. > And if it does, nothing says the mechanisms of sorcery > or spirit magic aren't better suited to represent it in game terms. In some cases, yes; not always, obviously. > Again, back to your MG campaign. Here you do have priests, > but they are AFAIK more like civilian government types. > They are not supposed to be able to use magic. > Certainly the public rituals they perform are supposed > to bring material benefits (fertility for the fields, > victory in war, etc) but it is not 'spells' per se. But in game terms (remember the Good Guess version of the GLS : "It's only a game." !) they'd basically work as spells (the "priest" has to perform certain actions; he needs the support of his congregation; a magical/miraculous event occurs if successful). You'd have to change the spell list so as to define the rituals of divine magic, though, and which "spells" you wanted to chuck. All very interesting !! > Especially, the idea that you toss in a couple of POW > and get the ability to do a magic deed _once_ is > a gaming construct. Yep. > Why shouldn't a player be allowed to make a vow, > or sacrifice umpteen oxen, and get a magic benefit, > since that is what the heroes (and villains) > of the literary and historical background do? Because RQ has no effective rules for economics. Here's a basis : Look at the value in Lunars (in Glorantha; adjust this in other game worlds where price ranges are radically different) of the thing sacrificed, and make a cross-reference on the kg column of the SIZ equivalency table. This gives an objective SIZ value for the sacrifice. You can adjust this for appropriateness or not; purity/filthiness of the item; etc... But rule of thumb would be that the sacrifice will give you X points of divine magic equal to this SIZ, adjusted by how successfully your ritual was performed, and other cultural elements, etc ... (-: > "Well, I can't invoke Pallas Athene's Aegis to protect > myself anymore before I go to one of her temples > and stay there for at least a day, and it must be > a BIG temple, mind you, since you only get the ability > to bless craftswork in smaller temples. However, > I can use the Medusa ability to petrify people by invoking > the rites of Perseus twice more. It _is_ strange, since it > has four times the power of the Aegis, but I have > specifically sacrificed 1/4 of my soul twice to get it." :-) > One thing that has struck me is that in almost all settings, > there are two kinds of magic around that isn't accurately > modeled by most magic systems, although RQ does indeed come > close: folk magic and heroic magic. Low Magic and High Magic. I like this idea more and more, but RQ is unfortunately still at a distance (yes, closer than other games) from such. I think that low magic should be more or less like Spirit Magic, but with different, and more pagan spells (ie farming, craftsmanship, hunting, fishing, folk medicine, etc.). Also, Steve Martin thinks that there ought to be Low Spirit Magic, Low Sorcery, & Low Mysticism; although the spell effects of all low magic would basically be the same in all three. & I agree. > Such magic needs rules, but they should be decided on > a case by case basis. Well, that's already a rule, isn't it? :-) > If Athena lets the hero borrow her shield for a > limited amount of time, &c. I really like these ideas. The only (minor) problem I can see is GM fiat interfering. Actually, it should be possible to write up a loose rules system to cover this sort of thing. The problem being, which examples to give; it being in the nature of examples for players to assume that they're more limiting than intended by the designer. Too often, creative interpretation of the rules is nay-said by rules-lawyers. Too often, players are rules-lawyers themselves, and never think of being creative outside certain self-imposed boundaries, that they also think everyone else should obey. GM fiat is actually a good thing in this context, though, ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 15:50:30 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Rune Points Simon : > Under the liberal Rune Points system any Rune > Priest by definition has access to at least Thunderbolt 10, > or Shield 10, or whatever. I'm not sure that's a good thing, and > I'm sure David Cheng's original proposal did not allow it. I think it *did*. At least, the printed TotRM version did. Anyway, Erik addresses these points in his LOOONG "feel" post far better than I would ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 20:13:43 -0400 From: "Jim Bickmeyer" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Miguel Angel Cantabrana Salazar wrote: >Sorry, I don't now exactily the rules that you use 'cause I play with an = old version of RQ-4. But for many years I played with a house rule. I = think that when a man hit something with 2 H the hit is stronger than a = 1 hand stroke (think in yourself cutting wood) but if you use a Bastard = Sword you have 1D10+1 Dp in anycase. My rule is, like in disarming's = one, when you use 2 H your damage bonus is (STR x 1.5 + SIZ). Is this = too high? I too have thought about this. But after a little reading and watching a very good special on swords, Arms in Action. I decided that using two hands on the weapon means better control. After all, the so called Bastard Sword was also called the Hand-and-halfer. This is partly represented in rule for weapons when the Str and Dex required to use a weapon is lower for 2 handed than it is for 1 handed. As for two hands on a weapon that is normaly one handed, that is when you roll max damage natrualy. The opponent must have left a big opening and you had time to get both hands on the short sword to thrust harder with. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 04:41:45 +0200 From: "Miguel Angel Cantabrana Salazar" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword > >Miguel Angel Cantabrana Salazar wrote: >>Sorry, I don't now exactily the rules that you use 'cause I play with an = >old version of RQ-4. But for many years I played with a house rule. I = >think that when a man hit something with 2 H the hit is stronger than a = >1 hand stroke (think in yourself cutting wood) but if you use a Bastard = >Sword you have 1D10+1 Dp in anycase. My rule is, like in disarming's = >one, when you use 2 H your damage bonus is (STR x 1.5 + SIZ). Is this = >too high? > Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword >Rich Allen: > >> > Hm. Well, RQ3 2H weapons do more damage than 1H ones, >> > with the exception of ... 2H Bastard Sword vs. 1H !! >> > >> > Probably, 2H Bastard Sword should do 2D6 + 1 base damage. Sorry, but you are wrong. That's the problem, all mixed weapon do the same damage in 1H and in 2H styles. >> >> Actually, I think the high-end damage for the two styles of Bastard sword >> should be the same. Weapon damage is a reflection of how hard it is to >> dodge than how much physical harm the weapon does; > >Well, I think of the varying damage of light vs. heavy weapons as >one term of a BFRP rules system dichotomy, >with the other being light vs. heavy armour. > >In RQ2 it was fairly useless baggage, because virtually all characters >wore armour (although it did give that game a very nice & clunky "feel") >(and characters might sometimes be caught with their bronze/iron pants >down, so to speak); >less so in RQ3 which introduced the Dodge skill. > >If the unarmed/unarmoured combat rules were improved in a >virtual/online/Hasbro Inc. RQ4, the dichotomy would be >fully operative, and also excellent rules. > >Irrelevant, perhaps, to the current discussion. > >> I do think the two-handed style would score more damaging hits more often so >> I would propose something like 1d10+1 for one-handed (as written) and 1d8+3 >> (or _maybe_ even 1d6+5) for two-handed. Max damage remains the same, but >> average damage is higher for the two-handed style this way. > >I don't like this. I think that low damage rolls should remain possible, >if only to preserve the "realism" of RQ sword-fighting, >and the possibility of Zorro-style slashing through fine linen shirts, etc... > > "Ha-Hah! A mere scratch!" > > "Curses!" > >Admittedly, with the standard damage bonus rules, this actually >can't happen very often (magic factored out), >but the idea's there, which is nice ... >... and should be kept, so as to be fixable in house rules !! Yes, I think so in this point even with the great 4H swords of the myrmidons you can do a mere scratch. >(For example, look up my ideas for Defense >AKA other peoples' ideas for Natural Armour >(which I really *should* post on my Web site) >in [RQ-RULES] passim, which fix this bug) > > > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:57:33 +0200 From: "Erik Sieurin" Subject: SV: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" - -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Julian Lord >WOW !! Excellent ! Thanks. >Some members of the Glorantha Digest would undoubtedly come up >with cries of "Straw Man!", but even so, it is immensely pleasurable >to see chaff so brilliantly separated from chaff ! > >"But, but ... where's the #%@$ WHEAT ??!" Duh? >> ... the 'mystical knowledge' of these cults isn't really >> supposed to give you supernatural powers, although that >> can of course be changed for a campaign. > >Hm. Only because such powers didn't exist in RW, except as metaphors. (dhooot!) Wrong answer. A, Although that aint true of earlier mystery cults, many other mystic initiations around the world (including later Hellenic ones) carry with them the idea that using your newfound, generally undefined Mystical Insights to affect material stuff is largely a Bad Thing, since it will make it harder for you to do More Important Stuff later on. As a sidenote, in a weird development of my Dark Ages campaign, the game-mechanical benefit of Christianity was increased POW gain rolls and no upper limit for POW. Sounds strange? Well, I think a man with a POW of, say, 25 would be as wonderful as a man with a, say, STR of 25. Clearly and 'visibly' over the normal human limit. Nice bonus on some skill groups, and then I let POW affect HP (somewhat like in RQII) and fatigue as welll, for those looking for material benefits. And damn useful for resisting the spells of heathens and heretics. MP 25 kicks ass in these circumstances. They still had a 1D100 chance on POW for Divine Intervention, as well. There you have a 'supernatural power', though one that was supposed to represent some kind of increased inner well-being and unity with something Big and Important. B, Supernatural powers was no 'metaphors' or any other strange furring word to my ancestor just two generations back. They did believe in stuff like curing children of rakitis with spells and prayer bringing rain, in littel people and ghosts. Now, I'm not the one to suggest that these beliefs were true, or that history or society would have been exactly the same if they had been, but they certainly affected people's behaviour in a most un-metaphorical way. >Fantasy RPGs take these metaphors for literal truths, >so I think that they probably *should* give powers in FRP. The tendency for FRPG's to stubbornly take metaphors for literal truths is bothersome. You miss wonderful opportunities that way. Interpreting metaphors and un-literal truths is better, IMO. And keep them mysterious, please. The Cult of Jesus Christ shouldn't give you the Divine Magics Turn Water to Wine and Walk on Water. > >> And if it does, nothing says the mechanisms of sorcery >> or spirit magic aren't better suited to represent it in game terms. > >In some cases, yes; not always, obviously. Important clarification: I said mechanics, not necessarily 'philosophy'. With gods and godesses moving in mysterious ways, I see no reason for so damned sure-fire 'Divine Magics' as a 95% chance, with the only modyfying factor being _encumbrance_! Making it dependent on POW-rolls or perhaps skill rolls (representing Unity with The Fertility Aspect of Bacchus, or whatever) sounds better to me - greater differences in Chance of Success. >> Again, back to your MG campaign. Here you do have priests, >> but they are AFAIK more like civilian government types. >> They are not supposed to be able to use magic. >> Certainly the public rituals they perform are supposed >> to bring material benefits (fertility for the fields, >> victory in war, etc) but it is not 'spells' per se. > >But in game terms (remember the Good Guess version of the >GLS : "It's only a game." !) they'd basically work as spells >(the "priest" has to perform certain actions; he needs the >support of his congregation; a magical/miraculous event >occurs if successful). You'd have to change the spell list >so as to define the rituals of divine magic, though, >and which "spells" you wanted to chuck. All very interesting !! Yup, but again: The skill of the 'priest', as well as his piety, has little to do with it. The material benefits are often vague. The social importance might be higher than any material importance - "if the rites aint right the gods must be angry, so we must do'em, no matter what it takes" is good motivation, and no very material benefits might be necessary to spur PCs into action. Being a performer of rites n stuff gives a lot of social leverage, which will make most players very happy. "I'm the high priest of Zeus so you'd better lissen up and lissen good!" No need for Call Lightning on a as-a-spell-basis from that direction. >> Why shouldn't a player be allowed to make a vow, >> or sacrifice umpteen oxen, and get a magic benefit, >> since that is what the heroes (and villains) >> of the literary and historical background do? > >Because RQ has no effective rules for economics. Uhm? You know what stuff is worth to mortals. It has a price in the rules, I believe. And how does this affect vows? >Here's a basis : Sounds fair, but awkward. And why use the correspondence between SIZ and enc? I assume you mean its a nice mathematical relation and we already have a table for it, yes? The trouble is that it doesn't take into account umpteen things, like say that Odin prefers horses but JHVH wants sheep (or your first-born, though that is probably just a trick to test your faith). But it might be a good start. Another side-note: In another curious campaign (GURPS rules) I partook of, you bargained with Spirit Powers to cast spells, and just like reaction rolls can be used to determine the final price in financial price in mortal transactions, so it was here with the magical price (life force in the form of fatigue or damage) for magics. >> One thing that has struck me is that in almost all settings, >> there are two kinds of magic around that isn't accurately >> modeled by most magic systems, although RQ does indeed come >> close: folk magic and heroic magic. > >Low Magic and High Magic. I like this idea more and more, >but RQ is unfortunately still at a distance (yes, closer >than other games) from such. Yes, because its basic assumption is that the average user of magic is a mercenary adventurer, not that such are different from a norm of farmers n soldiers n merchants n craftsmen. > I think that low magic should >be more or less like Spirit Magic, but with different, >and more pagan spells (ie farming, craftsmanship, hunting, >fishing, folk medicine, etc.). Also, Steve Martin thinks >that there ought to be Low Spirit Magic, Low Sorcery, >& Low Mysticism; although the spell effects of all low magic >would basically be the same in all three. & I agree. Sounds reasonable. A third sidenote: I think 'Liber Ka' sorcery, for those with access to 'Nephilim' would be a good start. > >> Such magic needs rules, but they should be decided on >> a case by case basis. > >Well, that's already a rule, isn't it? :-) Certainly, but no need to detail the exact benefits of every cults for the players' benefit - like Rune Magic lists do. > >> If Athena lets the hero borrow her shield for a >> limited amount of time, &c. > >I really like these ideas. >The only (minor) problem I can see is GM fiat interfering. I have no trouble with GM fiat, since such stuff is still rare in the campaign. As you said: >GM fiat is actually a good thing in this context, though, ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #96 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.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.