From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #62 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 Monday, June 4 2001 Volume 04 : Number 062 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions [RQ-RULES] Wind Words Re: [RQ-RULES] Succubae Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Inimitable Tailor Spell Re: [RQ-RULES] Succubae RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengeance RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Lungs of the Herald Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Inimitable Tailor Spell RE: [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengeance [RQ-RULES] Name and Word Generators [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multilpe spirit combat [RQ-RULES] shaman Re: [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multilpe spirit combat 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: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:28:40 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions > No, this is a misunderstanding of the concept of a Gloranthan > illusion. Illusions don't make something transparent or invisible, they lay > an alternate image over the reality, and that image is all that can be seen > or perceived until the spell ends. As it turns out, the Gloranthan reality is simpler than that. Below is a message Greg sent me directly (a few months ago) for forwarding to the Hero wars list. Andrew OK, you seem to be making the first error here, which is to mistake the word "illusion" (an artifact usage) which menas something that doesn't exist; for Glamour, itself usually badly translated as "illusion." *sigh* Glamour creates a temporary reality. It doesn't make something which isn't there. The caster of this would not be making something to confoudn or to be sensed by darksense, he would be making something. Something real, concrete or whatever. If he wanted to make somethign that was visible but insubstantial he would use a specific type of Glamour, like Vision Glamour. But the pictures would have to be there. >Can an illusion be 'programmed'? In the RQ rules, I ran it that any >movement or change in an illusion required active control by the caster. >This makes rules sense, but doesn't fit the way illusion is normally used >in stories. Gloranthan illusions would depend upon what they were to see whether they require control or not. If you made an illusory owl and crw they cold just fly away, pounce on mice, etc. If you wanted to MAKE it do something you'd have to control it with you attention. If you wanted to make somethig that was unnatural (like a vison without apparant substance) then it would also require control to "leep it real." >An old chestnut, I've never seen any rules that have a good answer: does an >illusion of a light source cast light on its surroundings? Yes, of course it does, since it is a real (but temporary) light. *************************************************************************** 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, 31 May 2001 17:28:36 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Wind Words > Wind Words, which is the nearest thing I can think of is a > listening enhancement. And to be honest is one of the least > used Divine spells available to a major god. I've seen Grow > flowers used more often. It tends not be be sacrificed for in standard RQ2 or RQ3 because other spells are more generally useful. In a spell point system such as some people use, I think you'd see it more often. In my first Hero Wars session it was the -most- used magic, used both to overhear an enemy and to get messages from friends. Andrew *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Jun 2001 11:52:04 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Succubae > > Here is a meta-physical Gloranthan question: If an unpunished > > rape > > creates a Succubus, is rape very rare, or Succubae very common? In > > 'Shadows > > on the Borderland', the young shamaness, Penliss, was being abused > > by a > > Succubus, but didn't know quite what it was or how to get rid of it. > > If > > they were common, most people would have heard "don't rape or you will > > summon this evil demon". > > Stancliff > > I do not think that unpunished rape by itself is enough to create a Succubus. > It is rape + unpunished + guilt which summons the demon spirit. > > The case you are talking about involved a rape and murder coverup by > the son of the village headman and the Succubus is there to punish the > entire village and not just the shamaness. The village is slowly dying > because of this and all offspring between the villagers and the Sucubuss > are either ogres or lamias. > > Sucubuss can be killed by normal means. I am wondering if the Sucubuss > is killed but the cause of the problem is not dicovered, if the Sucubuss > will return? > > Leon Kirshtein Another problem in a Gloranthan sense, is that by raping you are also in effect worshipping Thed . . . . Jim Lawrie *************************************************************************** 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, 01 Jun 2001 09:51:25 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Inimitable Tailor Spell > > > Its instant. Thus the effects don't disappear after 5 min. > > Much like Flamearrows are still charcoal at the end of the > > duration. > > With no duration it becomes too powerful for a spirit spell. You have > a permanent change to the amount of a substance. > > I think I will be making all of my clothes out of gold inlaid silks, > and make them lets say S then cast this spell and presto it is now XXXL. > Just think in the difference in price. You could also use it on armor > (in fact most players will) and make a killing in arbitrage:) > > Sorry no go IMW. Not really. The original spell does stipulate that all materials used in alterations must be supplied by the caster. Thus, if you want to make an XXL gold thread shirt, you would need a small one and all the gold thread you will need to increase the size. The spell is really just supplying labor. Granted, the cost is higher than the materials used, so there is arguably a profit to be made here. I would probably a require 'Craft: tailor' roll to sucessfully alter the item (which is what we do for Animate spells with our Dwarves), so it would be a bit more complicated. I'd also probably make it a variable spell, with a limit of 1 ENC in the final product per level of the spirit spell (or maybe per ENC changed, depending on your world). Thus, 30 ENC Chainmail would be out of the question. Hmmm... Jeremy *************************************************************************** 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, 01 Jun 2001 10:43:59 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Succubae > Another problem in a Gloranthan sense, is that by raping you are also in > effect worshipping Thed . . . . > > Jim Lawrie Not necessarily. In Simon Phipp's heroquesting sections, he talks about a 'Gargath and the Earth Nymph' rape myth. It certainly doesn't endear the offending male to any local Babeester Gor cultists, but didn't seem Chaotic... For those interested, the article is at the bottom of a list of Marriage Quests, at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1481/index.html He does it with frames now, so you have to follow links through HeroQuests > HeroQuests > Misc Quests > Marriage Quests. I would also agree that killing and a cover up (and the guilt that involves) would be required for a Succubus to come. Without our current constrained culture, I am sure rape would be more common and accepted by many. Thus, it wouldn't be considered truly Chaotic or evil by many societies in Glorantha. I just read about a related situation in the paper. In an African nation, a woman was raped and impregnated. When the offender was found, the woman's family made him marry her, to take responsibility for his actions and soon-to-be child - never mind the woman's feelings about this man who raped her... Jeremy *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Jun 2001 12:02:59 +0100 From: "Adam Benedict Canning" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengeance > Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:07:36 -0400 > From: Robert Stancliff > > > > Since most mounts have CON over 23, the likelihood > > > of death is usually 5%. > > > Good point. but the CON for a Horse is 3D6 so > it will kill a > > good proportion. If the spell worked on Rhinos > then it would > > have to be CON x2 > Oops, it is only STR and SIZ that are > greatly elevated, sorry. > > I think that if you are going to allow the > spell, it should work on > any mount. I wouldn't change the CON roll just > because some animals are > tougher or healthier than others. More that the original had a good chance any steed could suffer from dying from theafter effects [D&D Saving throws not being generous.] So If I'm going to allow it for Rhinos then it needs to get worse to have the same sort of effect. As is though I wasn't going to let anything beyond Horses and possibly Zebra be valid. Adam *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Jun 2001 12:03:02 +0100 From: "Adam Benedict Canning" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Lungs of the Herald > Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:15:47 -0400 > From: Robert Stancliff > > Wind Words, which is the nearest thing I can > think of is a > > listening enhancement. And to be honest is one > of the least > > used Divine spells available to a major god. > I've seen Grow > > flowers used more often. > True, though we have wished we had Wind > Words on occasion. I was > thinking of the Issaries sub cult of Herald, > which I believe has a speaking > spell. The RQ3 write up in River of Cradles p165 says otherwise, Herald has the same spells as the other Issaries subcults. Not that this wouldn't be an appropriate spell. Adam *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Jun 2001 12:03:03 +0100 From: "Adam Benedict Canning" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Inimitable Tailor Spell > Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:33:35 -0400 > From: "Leon B Kirshtein" > > With no duration it becomes too powerful for a > spirit spell. You have > a permanent change to the amount of a substance. > > I think I will be making all of my clothes out of > gold inlaid silks, > and make them lets say S then cast this spell and > presto it is now XXXL. > Just think in the difference in price. You > could also use it on armor > (in fact most players will) and make a killing in > arbitrage:) Already dealt with by the requirement to supply the extra material and fittings if the clothing is enlarged. Adam *************************************************************************** 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, 1 Jun 2001 08:41:05 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions > Andrew wrote: > As it turns out, the Gloranthan reality is simpler than that. > Below is a message Greg sent me directly (a few months ago) > for forwarding to the Hero wars list. > OK, you seem to be making the first error here, which is to > mistake the word "illusion" (an artifact usage) which means > something that doesn't exist; for Glamour, itself usually > badly translated as "illusion." *sigh* > Glamour creates a temporary reality. It doesn't make something > which isn't there. Seriously Andrew, most of what Greg wrote doesn't contradict or invalidate what I wrote, depending on how you perceive the inner workings of the 'alternate reality' created by the glamour. For instance, if it eats food, does it digest it? Under the official rules, I would certainly say no. As Greg changes his position, I would say it is much more likely to be true. More important, Greg doesn't address the specific issue of overlaying normal objects with a contradictory glamour and how this will react. With the transition to HW he may have invalidated all the material on illusions ever written, and completely changed the nature of the spells or feats. 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: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:58:46 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengeance > More that the original had a good chance any steed could > suffer from dying from the after effects [D&D Saving throws > not being generous.] When you convert something out of D&D you don't have to keep every detail. Descriptions change to match the target system's assumptions or mechanics. If the animal is really dying from shock, then high CON beasts will survive more often. Perhaps you need a flat percent that the animal dies (25%??), or you reduce the multiplier enough that even the toughest mount can die... if x5 is too high, then make it x4. That is low enough to kill many (or most) bison and rhinos. > As is though I wasn't going to let anything beyond Horses > and possibly Zebra be valid. If the spell was coming from a horse cult, that would make sense, but Bab. Gor's only animal ties are through Ernalda's other children. If she can do this at all, the type of animal shouldn't matter. Of course, I am thinking in terms of my player with the Sun County Bab. Gor who rides a bison. 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: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 15:50:43 -0600 From: Stephen Posey Subject: [RQ-RULES] Name and Word Generators I can well imagine that folks here may already be familiar with this site; but I just stumbled across it and thought I'd mention it anyway. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/ It includes a number of "random word" generators, including Gloranthan! The new "Dying Earth" spell name generator is particularly amusing. Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net *************************************************************************** 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, 03 Jun 2001 13:26:08 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multilpe spirit combat If a small group (a party of adventurers?) happens to have more than one cooperative shaman present, can those multiple shamans act in concert to find and defeat spirits? If a spirit engages an adventurer in spirit combat, can a shaman['s fetch] participate also, double-teaming against the hostile spirit? Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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, 03 Jun 2001 13:33:16 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] shaman When a shaman hunts for a spirit to use or capture, I think the rules examples usually demonstrate the discorporation of the shaman with the fetch remaining behind to guard the body of the shaman in the absence of his spirit, yes? Instead, since the fetch is already on the spirit plane, can the fetch do the hunting and capture while the shaman's spirit remain in his body on the material plane? ____ Brad *************************************************************************** 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, 04 Jun 2001 10:00:46 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multilpe spirit combat - ---- Brad Furst wrote: > If a small group (a party of adventurers?) happens to have more than > one > cooperative shaman present, can those multiple shamans act in concert > to > find and defeat spirits? > > If a spirit engages an adventurer in spirit combat, can a shaman['s > fetch] > participate also, double-teaming against the hostile spirit? The rules allow it. It is up to you to determine if the situation permits it. Leon Kirshtein ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com *************************************************************************** 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 #62 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.