From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #35 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Monday, April 16 2001 Volume 04 : Number 035 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] MNM's elementals in general Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Re: [RQ-RULES] MNM's elementals in general Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 RE: [RQ-RULES] 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 RE: [RQ-RULES] INT/SIZ RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:14:36 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] MNM's elementals in general - --part1_3f.13a6118c.280b693c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/15/01 3:40:35 PM Central Daylight Time, J & Ellen write: > In picking the stats for the lava elementals, it might be good to remember > to try to keep them from being more powerful or otherwise more appealing > than other kinds. Otherwise, why would anyone bother summoning gnomes or > salamanders? Excellent point on trying to keep them in perspective with the other flavors of Elemental available. Mainly I was just skylarking as to their abilities, but if someone were to run with the ball and use them doing the higher level of damage I'd suggested previously, I'd think they'd have to cost more POW to summon in the first place. Of course, there's the somewhat built-in crock of having to have X-amount of cubic meters of lava actually _handy_ in the first place to even summon the things. Assuming the Laval Elemental would be perceived as a "better", and thus more saught-after Elemental; the amount of POW required to this particular type of Elemental could easily increased to whatever the GM feels is fair by assuming the things are _actually_ being summoned from deep within the earth. -Ken- Who isn't using the darned things anyhow :) - --part1_3f.13a6118c.280b693c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/15/01 3:40:35 PM Central Daylight Time, J & Ellen write:


In picking the stats for the lava elementals, it might be good to remember
to try to keep them from being more powerful or otherwise more appealing
than other kinds. Otherwise, why would anyone bother summoning gnomes or
salamanders?


   Excellent point on trying to keep them in perspective with the other
flavors of Elemental available. Mainly I was just skylarking as to their
abilities, but if someone were to run with the ball and use them doing the
higher level of damage I'd suggested previously, I'd think they'd have to
cost more POW to summon in the first place. Of course, there's the somewhat
built-in crock of having to have X-amount of cubic meters of lava actually
_handy_ in the first place to even summon the things.
  Assuming the Laval Elemental would be perceived as a "better", and thus
more saught-after Elemental; the amount of POW required to this particular
type of Elemental could easily increased to whatever the GM feels is fair by
assuming the things are _actually_ being summoned  from deep within the earth.
 -Ken-
  Who isn't using the darned things anyhow :)


- --part1_3f.13a6118c.280b693c_boundary-- *************************************************************************** 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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:26:39 -0500 From: "J & Ellen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Good point. My own campaign takes place in the Young Kingdoms, where magic is comparatively rare, but it's admittedly epidemic in Glorantha. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 12:21 PM Subject: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 *"J & Ellen" wrote: >I don't understand why, in such a world as Glorantha, humans would >evolve in such as way that they'd be more smart than strong or healthy. Magic requires INT. At the cultural level of most of Glorantha, magic could definitely make a big difference between surviving/reproducing and not. In fact, it could easily be argued that evolutionary pressures would be far higher than in our own culture. The usefulness of intelligence in our own pre-history is LESS obvious than in Glorantha. ->Peter - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI *************************************************************************** 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: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:40:11 -0500 From: "J & Ellen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 What are the Group's thoughts on RQ4's character-generation system, specifically the concept of spending skill points on characteristic increases? I don't see why modification should be limited by professions. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Martin" To: Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 I don't know if this is an answer to your question, but my favorite Runequest character EVER started with completely average stats except for two: 17 SIZ and 8 INT. I played him for years (RQ1), and eventually took him from 5% with the Great Axe (only weapon with lots of damage he could pick up) to over 100%, training STR, CON and DEX up to heroic proportions on the way... One of the reasons I play RQ and not D&D now is that stats aren't set in stone. We always had super-PCs in D&D because you could never change that, but in RQ, a decent start and time (and money...) can be built into someone truly memorable. Much more rewarding, I think. That said, we're currently using 4D6 and throwing out the low one. And if I went to a point system (I'm kind of working on one), I'd probably plan for a higher average, maybe 12 each, with extra cost for high INT. INT is just so strong - it gives bonuses everywhere except Agility. Jeremy Tal Meta wrote: > Stephen Posey wrote: > > > > My thought was to give enough points so that someone could be exactly > > "average" for the dice rolled (i.e. they have enough points to assign > > mean values for each attribute). > > I have played in games (both RQ and other) where characters were forced > into the "average" mold, and have never been happy. What's the point of > a 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? > > -- > 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. *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:02:07 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] MNM's elementals in general - --------------65700B6D1D7B4285E599600C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After being a Magic, the Gathering judge for a while, I find the words 'game balance' showing up an awful lot... And one of the Magic pet phrases is 'if something is strictly superior, why would you ever use the other?' I agree that a lava elemental should be incredibly damaging though, especially in case of engulfment. As two possible balancing factors, however: 1. Where does the summoner get that quantity of lava? For Salamanders, you start a forest fire and you're set. For a lava elemental, they'd probably have to find a live volcano and either go exploring/digging for lava or catch it while it's erupting - neither being a particularly safe practice. That way you could keep it for powerful NPCs or characters that are willing to role-play through the collection of the lava. 2. Raise the POW per cubic meter. Tell the players that it requires a lot more POW to keep lava hot, mobile, whatever. Then give it D6+6 POW per cubic meter (or more, depending on what the characters can handle) so that a 2-meter elemental is a challenge and 3 meters is a hugely powerful creature (at POW 29, average it should be...) so you only have to deal with relatively small ones. The player can choose between a 3-meter lava elemental (at 13D6 damage to one or two people it can catch) or an 8-meter Salamander that can engulf 80 SIZ worth of opponents for 3D6 each for roughly the same difficulty (POW-wise) to control. Or both. Thoughts? Jeremy J & Ellen wrote: > In picking the stats for the lava elementals, it might be good to > remember to try to keep them from being more powerful or otherwise > more appealing than other kinds. Otherwise, why would anyone bother > summoning gnomes or salamanders? - --------------65700B6D1D7B4285E599600C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After being a Magic, the Gathering judge for a while, I find the words 'game balance' showing up an awful lot...  And one of the Magic pet phrases is 'if something is strictly superior, why would you ever use the other?'

I agree that a lava elemental should be incredibly damaging though, especially in case of engulfment.  As two possible balancing factors, however:

1. Where does the summoner get that quantity of lava?  For Salamanders, you start a forest fire and you're set.  For a lava elemental, they'd probably have to find a live volcano and either go exploring/digging for lava or catch it while it's erupting - neither being a particularly safe practice.  That way you could keep it for powerful NPCs or characters that are willing to role-play through the collection of the lava.

2. Raise the POW per cubic meter.  Tell the players that it requires a lot more POW to keep lava hot, mobile, whatever.  Then give it D6+6 POW per cubic meter (or more, depending on what the characters can handle) so that a 2-meter elemental is a challenge and 3 meters is a hugely powerful creature (at POW 29, average it should be...) so you only have to deal with relatively small ones.  The player can choose between a 3-meter lava elemental (at 13D6 damage to one or two people it can catch) or an 8-meter Salamander that can engulf 80 SIZ worth of opponents for 3D6 each for roughly the same difficulty (POW-wise) to control.

Or both.

Thoughts?

Jeremy
 

J & Ellen wrote:

In picking the stats for the lava elementals, it might be good to remember to try to keep them from being more powerful or otherwise more appealing than other kinds. Otherwise, why would anyone bother summoning gnomes or salamanders?
- --------------65700B6D1D7B4285E599600C-- *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:05:31 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 Haven't seen it. If anyone would like to share it with me, I'd be happy to offer my NT$1 (little over 2 cents) on the matter. Jeremy J & Ellen wrote: > What are the Group's thoughts on RQ4's character-generation system, specifically the concept of spending skill points on characteristic increases? I don't see why modification should be limited by professions. *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:27:19 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? > Experimenting with NPCs, I have discovered that access to magic and > training skill percentages up can surely compensate for average > characteristic scores. I would rather have a Sword of Humakt with > average characteristics than an untrained 15-year-old with little > magic but high characteristics. > Brad Furst Of course a rune lord is better than a 15 year old kid to start with, but play them both for five years and see if the kid isn't catching up due to better category bonuses. The rune lord will have 2 or 3 skills just over 100 and the kid will have 10 or more in the 80's. Plus, the kid will have enough magic to give the rune lord a decent fight. He will probably still lose, but not by much, and it really depends on who has been playing him. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:37:42 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > I also vacillate on the desirability of randomness (and how > much) in the process. How about some kind of combination of > the two, e.g. roll 2d6+3 for each characteristic, then > distribute, say, 25 points as desired? > Stephen Posey This specific system usually allows any bad rolls to be brought up with a few points left to have a special stat. If you add up the total average points it is 95, 10 more than my suggestion of 85, so you are going to get some pretty good characters, especially if someone rolls well initially. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:04:54 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT/SIZ > Don't get me started on Hero Wars. Pure elitism! Reminds me of the > time I documented the close parallel between the fundamental > assumptions of AD&D and Nazism. :) History has certainly shown Gygax to be a tiny Hitler who climbed over his partners to seize his game empire and hold it as long as possible. The same could probably be said for Microsoft and Bill Gates. At least Gygax and Gates have been creative enough to add something worthwhile as a legacy. > > This reminds me a lot of Champions with their > > Incompetent, Normal, and Competent Dependent NPC's. > Ah yes, the "Aunt May" syndrome. A small amount of this is permissible in any game since PC warriors are superlative in their specialty and most people are not willing to risk their lives, but in Glorantha anyone can be a cult hero without belonging to a fighter cult. People who seem normal and weak may actually be 100 to 150% in all of their farming skills and can produce more food in a garden than most PC's can on an acre of land. Aunt May was probably a master of cooking, cleaning, and sewing... all proper skills for a woman born near the turn of the century. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:11:12 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > That said, we're currently using 4D6 and throwing out the > low one. And if I went to a point system (I'm kind of > working on one), I'd probably plan for a higher average, > maybe 12 each, with extra cost for high INT. INT is just > so strong - it gives bonuses everywhere except Agility. > Jeremy Exactly why I gave 85 stat points and charged double for points over 12. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:36:06 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 > What are the Group's thoughts on RQ4's character-generation > system, specifically the concept of spending skill points on > characteristic increases? I don't see why modification should > be limited by professions. I hated the RQ4 system, just as I hate the Hero Wars system. They lock you into a very rigid framework with only minor chances of personalization. With one significant change, I greatly prefer the background charts from RQ3. I change each of the +1's on the charts to be one experience check. This immediately triples the awarded experience at low levels and inserts a randomization that makes each skill unique, plus it tapers off realistically at high skill levels which no other system I have seen will do. By allowing another 10 to 15 checks per year to be assigned at player whim, each character can have a specialty or a cult skill that isn't on the generic list (like merchants learning Bargaining). My idea takes a while since it is very dice roll intensive, but I have rolled up most of the players this way and several NPC's including a 45 year old shaman who was perfect. The results were fully in line with my expectations. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #35 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.