From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #87 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Saturday, September 23 2000 Volume 03 : Number 087 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade [RQ-RULES] Dragonewts in Glorantha [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules 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, 22 Sep 2000 13:50:34 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules > > Yowza. That's pretty steep. Wouldn't Imbue > > (2) and Bladesharp 3 (3) work equally well? > 5 POW to create a +3 sword seemed way too cheap, considering >that creating a sword with a Bladesharp 3 matrix would cost 4 POW. >Eminently sensible. >Julian Lord Have I forgotten something? This should be 3 POW, not 4. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:19:42 -0700 From: "Timothy Byrd" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules "Joseph Elric Smith Servant to Arioch" aka ken wrote: > Well I just have a couple of thoughts. in a world where you have spells that > simulate magic times i.e. the blade sharp etc. there will be less need to have > an item that is magic by it self. while it is true people especially sorcerer > could and might make magic, when you have the ability to talk to the gods or > draw the power from spirits to to do the magic you need at the moment I would > think you would be less inclined to make a permanent item > just my thoughts You've got me thinking about a David Brin novel called "The Practice Effect". Basicly, as part of an experiment, this guy gets shoved through an interdimentional portal. He's been given a set of camping/survival gear of crappy quality. He complains about it, but as he uses it, his gear seems to work better, the pack becomes more comfortable, etc. It turns out that the world has a "practice effect". You see vendors with signs that say, "Quality tools - all used - nothing new". Well, of course he gets captured, and they take away his gear to examine it. Their conclusion is since his items have a better base (non-degrading) quality, they must have been permanently imbued. (this word is much more popular now that D2 is out...) The only way to do this is with human sacrifice, so he must come from a country that places zero value on human life... A fun read. So how do you simulate *that* in RQ? - -- Tim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:43:15 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules * "Bob Stancliff" wrote: > If you put 2 POW into a magic spirit or ghost > bind, teach it Bladesharp 4 and put the other > 8 POW into a magic point matrix useable by > the bind, you get a slightly slower effect > (the spell has to be cast) but a more > flexible object. True. And if that's what you want, and you're using that sort of magic in your world, cool (actually instead of putting 8 POW into a MP matrix I'd probably just bind a couple of POW spirits, so I wouldn't have to worry about recharging). On the other hand, if you meet a shaman with your spirit-sword you could have problems. Of course you could sacrifice another point of POW for the condition "only useable by wielder", or something. It's just a different style of magic, that's all. > I had this argument with my players twice and > lost both times. Under the old rules the > spells that went into a Truestone might have > been lost permanently, but under the newer > write-up in Elder Secrets it is not > mentioned. The spells appear to return. In either _Cults of Prax_ or _Cults of Terror_ (I think it was the former), the illustrative story definitely showed that spells returned once cast out of the Truestone. And those were both RQ2. * Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk wrote: > Yes, but real value (gold) is not the same as > paper money. Er, I think several economists would disagree with you. "Real value" is a slippery concept -- gold is valueless in itself unless people agree that it has worth, just like any other medium of exchange. It could be argued that the man-hour is the one standard of value which is universal, but even that is certainly open to debate. Have you read James Blish's "Cities In Space" series? He present an interesting take on this issue. Gold is decorative and useful in electronics, but it is scarcity and custom which give it "value". > I think you'd be more likely to get > deflation, which is much more damaging than > inflation. Yes, I believe you're right on that one. My mistake. It's been so long since we've had much of either here in the US... * "Bob Stancliff" wrote: > Unless you change the species maxima and/or > POW gain rules, no one is likely to ever > enchant more than 10 POW. Very true. Although as I recall several versions of RQ4 suggested eliminating maximum POW for all species, with the chance for increase past normal species max being a flat 5%. I kind of liked that idea, though of course it's vulnerable to abuse just like any other rule. * Julian Lord > There are other missing rules, like ways of > enchanting one-use magic items such as > scrolls, potions, medicine bundles, and > whatnot. (Should they really cost permanent > POW ?) I debated that myself, but finally decided to come down on the side of stinginess. Perhaps there *should* be more charges -- 3d4, maybe? Or perhaps a flat number per POW spent? There could be another spell to create actual one-use items, of course. A straight one-for-one potion, or scroll, or some such. But I'd still like to see the magician put more into the item then they get out -- they have to pay for "friction", and wasteage, and for the convenience of portability. Plus, the effect is to contain and maintain an effect that normally would be immediate, and there should definitely be a cost for that. I suggested a "cast many to get one back" procedure for recharging, but what concerns me is that it could be too easily for characters to sleaze their way out of -- you know, "oh yeah, overnight I cast Disrupt 30 times into my wand", sort of thing. It needs to MEAN something, somehow. If we were using spell fumble rules and required that every cast be rolled, that might provide some balancing effect. But I suspect that that would be time-consuming and ultimately sort of annoying. Perhaps a POW cost is best after all, I don't know. > I think that the Strengthening Enchantment > rules *are* unbalanced. Damn! You're right, and I've always forgotten to say so! > Not true, because the item is filled with the > enchanter's manipulation of cosmic POW, which > will return into the cosmos when the item > breaks. Really good point which I hadn't considered. Are we to assume that magic, like matter/energy, cannot be destroyed? Seems reasonable, somehow. Wow, long post. Sorry! =>Peter - -- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ Page! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:50:30 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules rqguru@my-deja.com wrote: > > For example, how quickly does a spirit cast? How complicated can the instructions be? How, in the case of the above example, can the spirit be aware of what's going on behind the wearer's back when it doesn't have eyes or any way to perceive the (presumed) assassin? Can a spirit use judgement, and not cast the spell on the wearer's friends who are backing him up in combat? I've always ruled that a spirit casts a spell at the same rate a character does, but that it uses it's POW as it's DEX SR. Since most spirits can be assumed to have been 'holding action' until activated, they begin when the character fulfills whatever condition would apply. As for perception, that's a little fuzzier. I usually designate some feature of the item as being the spirit's sense organs (a gem in the hilt, the eyes of a carving, etc.), rather than bog down in requiring the spirit to cast another spell to be able to perceive the mundane plane. Not for everyone, perhaps, but it works for me. None of my players have abused the system, so thusfar I've had no reason to change it. > And what about spell matrices with casting conditions -- under one interpretation, a matrix can cast a spell automatically if linked to a MP source, even though there is no spirit or intelligence guiding it. But what is the chance of success, and of overcoming, and how quickly can the spell be cast? I'd probably say in this case that the conditions only make the spell available to be cast, not that they cast it themselves; there has to be something with INT and a casting chance to perform the spell casting. > And on a personal note, I just like the *feel* of "burning in" each level of spell. Whatever works. :) I hardly claim my way as the only way. By popular acclaim in my group, for instance, I'll be implementing a more point based character creation and advancement system in my next version of TalQuest, for example.... - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:42:24 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules In a message dated 9/22/00 3:00:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, talmeta@cybercomm.net writes: > > I've always ruled that a spirit casts a spell at the same rate a > character does, but that it uses it's POW as it's DEX SR. Since most > spirits can be assumed to have been 'holding action' until activated, > they begin when the character fulfills whatever condition would apply. I started with using POW as DEX, but decided that INT as DEX worked better. It gives some variety and the strongest spirit isn't always the fastest. One could say that Spirits work at the speed of thought, and using INT reflects this. > As for perception, that's a little fuzzier. I usually designate some > feature of the item as being the spirit's sense organs (a gem in the > hilt, the eyes of a carving, etc.), rather than bog down in requiring > the spirit to cast another spell to be able to perceive the mundane > plane. Not for everyone, perhaps, but it works for me. None of my > players have abused the system, so thusfar I've had no reason to change > it. > These days (and I am not saying this is what I was doing while writing RQ) I work on the theory that spirits see into the material plane just fine, though perhaps not getting exactly the same picture. Sort of a permanent out of body experience. ONly if they have possessed a creature with its own sensory array is this set aside. A spirit in a gem or weapon would still have its normal spirit senses. Steve Perrin, who is still looking for a really really good way to work spirits... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:53:18 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade >This goes to the game balance thread. >Do any of you allow weapons with Flameblade to impale? If so, do you add >the original weapon damage or the 3D6 of the Flameblade for the impale? >Jim We add the original weapon damage... it is still in there somewhere... Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:46:13 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Dragonewts in Glorantha Brad Furst wrote >I understand that when Dragonewts in Glorantha >die, then they are reborn from the same egg >at some remote location). Assuming that they didn't die near their egg, yes (hmm, I have a sneaking suspicion that this belongs more on the Glorantha Digest, where after hundreds of megabytes and much fierce flaming it will be determined that dragonewts in fact are neither dragons, nor newts, but are instead mammals which in every way are exactly the opposite of what we poor fools *thought* they were). >But what happens to the dead body? Does it >vanish? No. It stays where it was. >Does it decompose like any other dead creature? The bodies of dream dragons decompose by slowly vanishing, over a period of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. But since those are merely (merely?) dreams, and dragonewts are physical, my understanding is that dragonewt bodies decompose normally -- unless someone interferes with the process, for example by removing their skin, tanning it, and turning it into armor. Of course, that sort of behavior is bound to make a dragonewt cranky. :-) By the way, on a completely different subject: I should note that both the Chaotic Features and Found Items sections of the Chaos Project on my site are within a few entries of 100 items each. My deepest thanks to those who've contributed, and please keep those entries coming... - ->Peter - -- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ Page!: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:41:12 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules * "Bob Stancliff" 's friend Glenn wrote: > One of the things which made the Machine City > so terrible was that it was doing just this > thing. The problem with a permanently > activated Bladesharp seems to be that it > draws magic out of the cosmos ... That may be true for Glorantha, but it's not necessarily relevant to non-Gloranthan games that are run with RQ. Since RQ and Glorantha are now officially divorced, there's no reason not to use RQ for any sort of setting we choose -- and there are game worlds in which spirits and powered matrix combinations may not be appropriate. I felt that the option of Imbued magic items was a good one to have for those GMs who want it. Let me assure everyone right now that I don't plan to come to anyone's house and force them at gunpoint to use my system. :-) This is just an option I'm suggesting - if you don't like it, don't use it! The high POW cost of Imbued items is an attempt to reflect -- "balance", if you like -- the idea of cause and effect in RQ. I posted the system in part to see how people felt about the relative cost that I assigned, compared to the cost of creating a matrix or spirit binding. The idea of PCs creating permanent changes in their little corner of the universe doesn't particularly fill me with terror, AS LONG AS these changes are not disproportionate! Build a waterwheel or a windmill, and you can create a mill which will produce far more energy than you put into it -- granted, the energy comes from the wind or water, and ultimately from the sun, but the amount of energy gained is not unbalancing to the total world-system (at least, not on a small scale -- we can talk about magic-pollution and magic-eco-spasm some other time. Personally, I'd argue that those concepts need not apply to every universe). In making a spirit binding, a PC creates a barrier that contains the energy of a being. Is this so different from an imbued spell? Either way, it's a permanent effect. I have no problem with the idea of requiring that magic items be made out of special, "magical" materials, by the way. But that determination should be made by the individual GM to suit his world. I see no point in requiring construction out of pure Styronium-238 if your world consists only of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water! But I'm arguing now, and that's silly. As I said, this is an optional system that I'm suggesting. * "Rich Allen" wrote: > That reminds me! I wanted to ask what edition > of RuneQuest you had in mind for your rules > but forgot all about it when the balance > issue came up. Your use of the term "Rune > Magic" leads me to believe you're using RQ2, > or maybe some kind of hybrid? Basically I use RQ3, with some common modifications. I'd love to play RQ2 again, but it's hard to find players (or time). But I prefer the RQ2 nomenclature (and the sense of fun of Glorantha of that era), which I sometimes use out of nostalgia. Sorry -- didn't mean to confuse. =>Peter - -- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ Page! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #87 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.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.