From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #77 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 25 2001 Volume 04 : Number 077 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: A Lunar Saint [RQ-RULES] A Hrestoli Saint [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules [RQ-RULES] Bolo lizard rider's lance Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules [RQ-RULES] Glorantha-RQ RE: [RQ-RULES] Glorantha-RQ Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-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 Jun 2001 11:26:49 +0200 From: Alexandre Lanciani Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: A Lunar Saint Il giorno 22-06-2001 17:39, Steve Perrin, steveperrin@surfcity.net ha scritto: > > What the world obviously needs is an RQ-Rules/Glorantha list, but I don't > know of one. (Sad but) true. Though there's only so much you can say about a game system without making any reference to the world that it is supposed to represent. I don't think there are enough RQ players to justify the existence of a separate list for every RQ (or adapted) setting. I thought about posting in the Glorantha Digest, but I have a certain feeling that "POW" could be a flamebait there... - -- Regards, Alexandre. "Cinq Milliards de races d'hommes sur Terre Est-ce assez pour croiser le fer...?" *************************************************************************** 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, 24 Jun 2001 16:59:50 +0300 (EEST) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marko_Per=E4l=E4?= Subject: [RQ-RULES] A Hrestoli Saint Here is my suggestion of a new saint: Saint Foltus: Named after my second most powerful PC ever, who died last year. Blessing of Saint Foltus (3 POW): When this blessing is activated, the character can choose one memorized sorcery spell, which thereafter does not reduce Free INT. Free INT of the spell is released for other purposes and the spell is still considered as fully usable. Ideas, Comments, more Saints? Marko Perälä perala@cc.joensuu.fi *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Jun 2001 09:49:01 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules > > What the world obviously needs is an RQ-Rules/ > > Glorantha list, but I don't know of one. > (Sad but) true. Though there's only so much you can > say about a game system without making any reference > to the world that it is supposed to represent. In the three or so years I have been a member of this list I have seen many discussions, but little agreement. Everyone wants rules that support their game style, and that is not very surprising, but we all understand that no matter how generic Avalon Hill made RQ3, it is intended for Glorantha. Why don't we relax the topic description to allow a wider range of discussion and be a RQ/Glorantha list? For that matter HW is intended to more closely support Glorantha that RQ, and we should be permitted to discuss RQ extensions intended to support HW concepts. I know that my friends and I want to keep the wargame style of RQ while still adding the exceptional abilities of Hero Quests. Here are some ideas I want to see... I want to increase the smaller category modifiers to help sages learn lores and make skill advancement above 100% a little easier for all characters, not just the fighters with high Manipulation. Any character with two or three good stats should have one or two skill areas that he excels in with bonuses at least 15% to 20%. INT and DEX should be carefully evaluated to determine whether they are used in too many modifiers. The Stat training multipliers should be reduced from x5% to x4% and the training time reduced to 20 hours per stat point. This makes stat training a little shorter and easier without changing the mechanics. I think APP should be shifted back toward the old Charisma stat, or perhaps Confidence, so that it includes appearance, equipment, and presentation. It should have a strong influence on Communication, people's reactions, and possibly something like Knowledge or Magic. Perhaps this is a better place for the WILL stat mentioned next. We have added a WILL stat which we are experimenting with (based on Steve Maurer's(?) hero quest rules). It represents your strength to manipulate the magic world, enter the god time or hero world, plus exert self control or dominance. It is allocated (not spent) to permanently add special abilities to the character. As abilities are gained, the character runs out of Free WILL (like Free INT). Further advancement in magic training will add WILL as can the sacrifice of POW to create magic items or learn spells, but these are reducing effects that become harder with each point gained. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:17:14 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules > Why don't we relax the topic description to allow a > wider range of discussion and be a RQ/Glorantha list? My opinion: As long as the discussion is about rules, as they pertain to the RuneQuest game in any of it's many incarnations, it should fit within the scope of this list. To me, the kind of discussions that don't belong are in the "One True Glorantha" genre. My campaign, for example, had a city called Prax that looked almost identical to the one on Glorantha, had cults with the same names, spells, and rituals as the ones on Glorantha, but *did not* take place on Glorantha by any stretch of the imagination. I also had a city called Waterdeep that looked almost identical to the one in the Forgotten Realms, and there was no Lunar Empire at all. So, questions about how illusions work within the RuneQuest framework are fine and fun discussions. Answers that say "Greg Stafford says it's this way so it HAS to be this way." are not appropriate. All just my opinion though! I'm looking forward to Steve's new rulebook and would welcome a new list dedicated solely to it! 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:44:39 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules Rich Allen wrote: > > All just my opinion though! I'm looking forward to Steve's new rulebook > and would welcome a new list dedicated solely to it! While I'd happily foster such a list myself, it probably wouldn't be here; MPGN has changed hands so many times that I'm not sure who is the head of the majordomo software anymore; the guy I originally contacted doesn't seem to be there anymore, and I'm actually kinda afraid that if I ask who is, the answer will be along the lines of - you're STILL here? We meant to phase y'all out months ago!" As for rules discussions, how they relate to Glorantha, Greyhawk, or Dragaera is fine; I just don't want any arguments over how long a bolo lizard rider's lance should be. :) - -- 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: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:00:36 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Bolo lizard rider's lance > Tal Meta wrote: >I just don't want any arguments over how long a bolo > lizard rider's lance should be. Too ..... tempting ..... Must ..... control ..... self .... Must .... not ..... post ..... puns .... Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh Leon Kirshtein (No good deed shall go unpunished.) ___________________________________________________________________ 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:24:49 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules - --part1_53.7c49299.2868ea01_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/25/01 10:53:55 AM Central Daylight Time, Tal writes: > As for rules discussions, how they relate to Glorantha, Greyhawk, or > Dragaera is fine; I just don't want any arguments over how long a bolo > lizard rider's lance should be. :) > > Why, long enough to reach the target, of course! {rimshot.wav} Thank you, thank you...'ll be here til Thursday :) -Ken- - --part1_53.7c49299.2868ea01_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/25/01 10:53:55 AM Central Daylight Time, Tal writes:


As for rules discussions, how they relate to Glorantha, Greyhawk, or
Dragaera is fine; I just don't want any arguments over how long a bolo
lizard rider's lance should be. :)


  Why, long enough to reach the target, of course! {rimshot.wav}
  Thank you, thank you...'ll be here til Thursday :)
 -Ken-
- --part1_53.7c49299.2868ea01_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: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:12:51 +0200 From: Alexandre Lanciani Subject: [RQ-RULES] Glorantha-RQ Robert Stancliff: > In the three or so years I have been a member of this > list I have seen many discussions, but little agreement. > Everyone wants rules that support their game style, > and that is not very surprising, but we all understand > that no matter how generic Avalon Hill made RQ3, it is > intended for Glorantha. Perhaps true, but my best RQ campaign was the Viking one, maybe because it was the first one and thus the most inspired. > For that matter HW is intended to more closely > support Glorantha that RQ, and we should be permitted > to discuss RQ extensions intended to support HW concepts. Indeed that is the reason why I posted St. Makkabeus' description. FWIW, the Makkebean order is the only one featured in Hero Wars: Roleplaying in Glorantha. But if one accepts the fact that Glorantha is now explored through HW's supplements then one must also accept the fact that they are "canon" now, not the old RQ publications, so it makes for an odd list topic. We will argue in RQ quoting from HW books (of course if we care about canon, which is a moving target in Glorantha, even worse than truth). - -- Regards, Alexandre. "Cinq Milliards de races d'hommes sur Terre Est-ce assez pour croiser le fer...?" *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Jun 2001 16:53:49 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Glorantha-RQ > > For that matter HW is intended to more closely support > > Glorantha that RQ, and we should be permitted to > > discuss RQ extensions intended to support HW concepts. > > Indeed that is the reason why I posted St. Makkabeus' > description. FWIW, the Makkebean order is the only one > featured in Hero Wars Frankly, I don't consider the Lunars to be that caught up in the whole Saints concept. They are not Malkioni by any means. I suppose it will be interesting to see where this concept goes in the Lunar Guide. > If one accepts the fact that Glorantha is now explored > through HW's supplements then one must also accept the > fact that they are "canon" now, not the old RQ public- > ations, so it makes for an odd list topic. We will > argue in RQ quoting from HW books (of course if we care > about canon, which is a moving target in Glorantha, even > worse than truth). That is a fair summary of the dilemma. How much of the old game do we give up to gain the flexibility of the new game. We play HW about every other month, but we play RQ every week. My players have already started by allowing one-use rune magic to be recovered once per year. This is already opening access to rune magic beyond previous levels, especially near HHD when it renews. I suppose the next step is to divorce spell knowledge from Free INT for spirit and sorcery spells. This should probably be balanced with more restricted access to these spells (mainly by cult restrictions) so that a character doesn't end up knowing everything available. This would reduce the current reliance on multiple bound Magic Spirits or Ghosts used as spell casting devices. Since a character or spirit could know more spells, it becomes a trade-off of total casting time vs. the expense of several binds. If advanced concepts such as the strength of your tie to a rune is based on your cult runes and the runic ties of the spells that you know, then a character is likely to learn a spell for it's runic ties even if he usually has another spirit cast it for combat purposes. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:40:40 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules > In the three or so years I have been a member of this > list I have seen many discussions, but little agreement. > Everyone wants rules that support their game style, > and that is not very surprising, but we all understand > that no matter how generic Avalon Hill made RQ3, it is > intended for Glorantha. > > Why don't we relax the topic description to allow a > wider range of discussion and be a RQ/Glorantha list? > For that matter HW is intended to more closely > support Glorantha that RQ, and we should be permitted > to discuss RQ extensions intended to support HW concepts. > I know that my friends and I want to keep the wargame > style of RQ while still adding the exceptional abilities > of Hero Quests. I agree. I'm playing in Glorantha at the moment, but the more I hear of variations, the happier I am. Keep it roughly on 'playing RQ or a variant' sound good enough? > > Here are some ideas I want to see... > I want to increase the smaller category modifiers to > help sages learn lores and make skill advancement above > 100% a little easier for all characters, not just the > fighters with high Manipulation. Any character with two > or three good stats should have one or two skill areas > that he excels in with bonuses at least 15% to 20%. > INT and DEX should be carefully evaluated to determine > whether they are used in too many modifiers. Well, DEX is powerful, but I definitely feel INT is just too much... I've been mulling over dropping INT from Manipulation (and thus Attack) and making STR primary. Maybe base spell SRM on INT instead of DEX. And using points instead of rolling dice with INT at double cost helps... > > The Stat training multipliers should be reduced from > x5% to x4% and the training time reduced to 20 hours per > stat point. This makes stat training a little shorter > and easier without changing the mechanics. Good. Just training or 'research' too? > > I think APP should be shifted back toward the old > Charisma stat, or perhaps Confidence, so that it includes > appearance, equipment, and presentation. It should have > a strong influence on Communication, people's reactions, > and possibly something like Knowledge or Magic. Perhaps > this is a better place for the WILL stat mentioned next. I'm already calling APP appeal, not appearance. A stat for how pretty you are doesn't seem too important... Couldn't really justify it for Knowledge, though: "My appeal makes me better at First Aid!" Maybe Magic, though I think DEX works better there. > > We have added a WILL stat which we are experimenting > with (based on Steve Maurer's(?) hero quest rules). It > represents your strength to manipulate the magic world, > enter the god time or hero world, plus exert self control > or dominance. It is allocated (not spent) to permanently > add special abilities to the character. As abilities > are gained, the character runs out of Free WILL (like > Free INT). Further advancement in magic training will > add WILL as can the sacrifice of POW to create magic > items or learn spells, but these are reducing effects > that become harder with each point gained. Sounds like it could be POW x5 to start and roughly use SAN rules, with adaptation. Then certain realizations could cost you WILL (they say HeroQuesting makes you more like your god, with less free will...), and Mastery of a skill or certain magic achievements (like those mentioned above). Maybe, for starting skills, you could let the player roll Skill% or the average of (Skill% and WILL), though then they don't get an experience check. That would help Rune Lords get around the 'I lost my weapon - drat, I never trained up my Fist attack!' HUGE penalty. For Divine Magic, another possibility would be for a Priest to use a spell they sacrificed for be cast as a different (equal or lower POW) spell with a WILL roll? Thoughts? 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #77 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.