From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #90 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 090 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] Re: New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade [RQ-RULES] Economics [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) Re: [RQ-RULES] Was 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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:05:25 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Okay, why did all the messages from this thread suddenly appear again on my computer? Did the listserv hiccup? Steve Perrin, who has enough email to wade through.. *************************************************************************** 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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:42:09 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules I got 'em too. Any idea Tal? Rich > Okay, why did all the messages from this thread suddenly appear > again on my > computer? Did the listserv hiccup? *************************************************************************** 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 16:26:07 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules In a message dated 9/21/00 2:57:13 PM Central Daylight Time, Bob comments on magic item creation: << Actually the number of people who can make their own magic items in Glorantha may be less than 5 or 10%. Player characters are almost always in this group, if possible. Personally, I think Bob is off with this number. Its been my experience that if the character has a high enough Ceremony, and what he considers to be a couple of excess POW points, it's really not much of a problem to knock out some type of enchanted item. And if its true for Characters, why then its equally true for the NPCs. Another thing to keep in mind about enchantments is that Characters, being more often than not proponents of the Weapon Bonus school of enchantment, usually monkey with weapon performance. While plenty of NPCs are members of this club too, keep in mind that lots of NPCs are going to be spending their POW on enchantments that revolve not around combat, but more mundane activities, like things that effect their livelyhood. -Ken- *************************************************************************** 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 17:37:22 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules In a message dated 9/21/00 4:28:53 PM Central Daylight Time, Bob writes: << Second, no one can create a magic item with just a Ceremony skill. You really need a ceremony of at least 35% and an Enchant of at least 40%. >> Good point. I had meant to clarify that comment before sending, but sent it anyway :) I meant that with successful use of Ceremony a character's Enchant % could be jacked up to a level where it'd be easier to succeed with an enchanting roll. -Ken- *************************************************************************** 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 05:09:04 -0400 (EDT) From: simon_hibbs@lycosmail.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules I don't realy see the problem. RQ3 already has plenty of ways to make '+1 swords'. For example : 1. Enchant a sword with a Bladesharp matrix. Ok, so the wielder has to spend 1 Magic Point to power the spell, but still. This costs 1 POW per point of Bladesharp. 2. Bind a Bladesharp spirit into the sword. The spirit can then be told to cast it's spell on command. The higher the pointage of the Bladesharp, the fewer castings you'll get per day because the spirit runs out of MPs. This will cost 2 POW for the binding enchantment, but that's the same for a Bladesharp 1 spirit up to Bladesharp 6 or more. 3. Bind a Magic Spirit into the sword and teach it Bladesharp, then use it as above. The advantage here is it can learn (or might already know) other spells too. Costs 2 POW. 4. Enchant the sword with a Bladesharp matrix, then enchant it with a linked Magic Point Matrix Enchantment to power the spell. This will cost 2 POW per point of Bladesharp (1 pt for the spell, 1 pt for the MP storage to cast it). This is the most expensive method, but Sorcerers have it easy with the rest of the magic system, so that's ok. You could probably think of other ways to do it too, perhaps using crystals embedded in the pommel. I like the idea that magic is a product of concious energy, which is pretty much paradigmatic in RQ. All these methods make sense within the logic of the magic system. They're interesting and can be used very creatively to achieve unusual yet sensible effects. I fail to see how making RQ more like D&D with it's bland, arbitrary and modernistic aproach to magic is going the improve it. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** 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 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. *************************************************************************** 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 17:37:56 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules > First off, adventurers are uncommon characters, on a par with Rune > Levels. They invest their treasure in self improvement to a degree that > exceeds most other professions. I agree, but my question was about PCs vs. OPPONENTS. In my experience, PC parties rarely go up against the mundanes you describe. My thoughts are that military outfits which have their own smiths would also have their own enchanter. The enchanter's 'job' would be to enchant the armor/weapons of the company. A few of these kinds of outfits, with a few good battles, and you get quite a few enchanted items floating around. I can also envision a few Broo shamen making permanent protection on scorpian-men carapaces. Imagine a Broo shaman that has a chaos gift of 'regenerates POW at one per day' handing out swords with permanent bladesharp 3 effects on them. Woo hoo! I don't see how any of this unbalances the game though. It's all a matter of GM control... If the PC's can make themselves super weapons, then so can their adversaries. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** 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 08:09:48 -0700 (PDT) From: dabick@excite.com Subject: [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 _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html *************************************************************************** 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 08:45:25 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Economics Regarding game economics, my understanding is that if everyone suddenly had twice as much gold, the result would be inflation with much initial disorder before adjustment took place. Much like what Germany tried to do to the UK by introducing perfectly forged 5-pound notes during WWII. =>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 17:41:02 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) Phil Hibbs : > >It seems to me that balance is an issue of whether or not the PCs > >are more (or less) powerful than their opponents; so adding a system > >that would make everyone, PCs or not, more (or less) powerful would > >keep the balance the same as it was. > > I don't agree - if you gave everyone in the country a large bar of gold, > would the economic balance be maintained? Erm, yes it would (gold isn't 'real wealth', except as a usable commodity) ; but while it's a poor analogy I agree with the sentiment. > If you doubled everyone's wealth > in real terms, that would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. It would have a huge immediate effect on birth rates, a huge middle-term effect on tax systems, and a possibly catastrophic long-term economic effect. Bit like RW 20th century West come to think of it. Ob-RQ, I did experiment with a system that made all of the characters in my game more powerful, and the long-term effects *were* catastrophic ... :-( > Balance isn't just about how hard the opposition is, it's about whether the > situation can spiral out of control in a "rich get richer" sort of way. Certainly, magic would tend to gravitate into the hands of the powerful, or otherwise (in smaller, well-knit communities) be slowly diluted among the populace via population growth (and consequent destruction of the close-knittedness). Wrong list ? ;-) I think that you *can* fiddle about with the game balance of RQ, but you have to be careful ; the balance of the game should mirror the balance of the game world, which is why RQ3 as written ended up being unsuitable for Glorantha. RQ *could* have been re-written , etc... Both RQ and Glorantha are well-balanced, but they don't have quite the same balance as each other. Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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 04:16:06 -0400 From: Joseph Elric Smith Servant to Arioch Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules 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 ken Rich Allen wrote: > > First off, adventurers are uncommon characters, on a par with Rune > > Levels. They invest their treasure in self improvement to a degree that > > exceeds most other professions. > > I agree, but my question was about PCs vs. OPPONENTS. In my experience, > PC parties rarely go up against the mundanes you describe. My thoughts are > that military outfits which have their own smiths would also have their own > enchanter. The enchanter's 'job' would be to enchant the armor/weapons of > the company. A few of these kinds of outfits, with a few good battles, and > you get quite a few enchanted items floating around. > I can also envision a few Broo shamen making permanent protection on > scorpian-men carapaces. Imagine a Broo shaman that has a chaos gift > of 'regenerates POW at one per day' handing out swords with permanent > bladesharp 3 effects on them. Woo hoo! > I don't see how any of this unbalances the game though. It's all a matter > of GM control... If the PC's can make themselves super weapons, then so can > their adversaries. > > Rich Allen > > *************************************************************************** > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 #90 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.