From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #78 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 Wednesday, June 27 2001 Volume 04 : Number 078 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules [RQ-RULES] DEX modifier for magic [RQ-RULES] WILL, CHA, APP, POW, Modifiers Re: [RQ-RULES] WILL, CHA, APP, POW, Modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] DEX modifier for magic RE: [RQ-RULES] WILL, CHA, APP, POW, Modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game - Cha and App 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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:43:43 +0100 From: David Ford Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules Bob wrote, 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. (snip) Inspired Bob, I heartly agree that either this list should be relaxed or a Glorantha/RQ/Plus list created. BTW when it comes to HeroWars material I consider RQ2 era material to be canon, and HeroWars material to subservient. *************************************************************************** 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 09:07:50 +0100 From: RAMEAU Alain Subject: [RQ-RULES] DEX modifier for magic This is a multipart message in MIME format. - --=_alternative 002DB73E41256A77_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:40:40 +0800 >From: Jeremy Martin >Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules >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. I agree if one thinks all uses of magic require gestures or precises movements. But I don't think it is always the case. I allow spells to be cast by simple words, songs, contact with a specific item, concentration, and plenty other means that do not necessarily require high DEX. For exemple, I consider that the focus used to cast a spirit spell for Shamanic magic can be of various aspects : playing a tune on a flute, throwing herbal powder in the air, ... as specified by the shaman for each spell. Alain. - --=_alternative 002DB73E41256A77_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:40:40 +0800
>From: Jeremy Martin <vesper@libra.seed.net.tw>
>Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules


>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.


I agree if one thinks all uses of magic require gestures or precises movements. But I don't think it is always the case. I allow spells to be cast by simple words, songs, contact with a specific item, concentration, and plenty other means that do not necessarily require high DEX. For exemple, I consider that the focus used to cast a spirit spell for Shamanic magic can be of various aspects : playing a tune on a flute, throwing herbal powder in the air, ... as specified by the shaman for each spell.


Alain.

- --=_alternative 002DB73E41256A77_=-- *************************************************************************** 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 12:40:25 +0100 (GMT+01:00) From: Thomas Zunder Subject: [RQ-RULES] WILL, CHA, APP, POW, Modifiers a: I think that rules questions re RQ in Glorantha are valid, it is why this list was setup, to split the rules chatter on the glorantha digest from the glorantha stuff. b: I think the APP stat made good sense. I don't like relying on stats for too much, so I say that oratory, fast talk, seduction can all model charisma better than APP. Both POW and APP make up charisma, if you want a simple contest, see which is most appropriate and allow resistance rolls, maybe INT vs APP or INT vs POW or even POw vs POW. c: WILL, I like the SAN idea, although that's to mechanistic for me, I don't need the number to roleplay HeroQuests. d: Modifiers. I agree here that RQ3 was just too stingy here. I think that doubling or even trebling the modifiers would make for a better chance of 100+ skills, and that breaking the 100% impasse should be an important goal for RQ5. (higher starting skills are pretty damn necessary as well) _______________________________________________________________________ FSmail - Get your free web-based email from Freeserve: www.fsmail.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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:20:40 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] WILL, CHA, APP, POW, Modifiers Thomas Zunder wrote: > > d: Modifiers. I agree here that RQ3 was just too stingy here. I think that doubling or even trebling the modifiers would make for a better chance of 100+ skills, and that breaking the 100% impasse should be an important goal for RQ5. (higher starting skills are pretty damn necessary as well) I've been using a concept I pulled of the BFRPG list awhile back; instead of tying the modifiers to stats, characters assign the following modifiers as they see fit: 20%, 10%, 5%, 0%, 0%, -5%, & -10%. - -- 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: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:16:26 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] DEX modifier for magic > I agree, if one thinks all uses of magic require gestures > or precise movements. But I don't think it is always the > case. I allow spells to be cast by simple words, songs, > contact with a specific item, concentration, and plenty > other means that do not necessarily require high DEX. For > example, I consider that the focus used to cast a spirit > spell for Shamanic magic can be of various aspects : playing > a tune on a flute, throwing herbal powder in the air, ... > as specified by the shaman for each spell. > Alain. While I agree that this adds some nice flavor to spell casting, there are several issues that go unanswered. Who decides what is necessary to cast a spell? Is it the same from person to person or from spell to spell? All of your examples above could still have some basic gesture of hand or body required for casting to meet the generic rules for casting spells. It is clear that DEX was considered secondary to the authors, but if a WILL stat is added, it could be a primary stat with POW while DEX and INT become secondary. 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 09:32:31 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] WILL, CHA, APP, POW, Modifiers > I've been using a concept I pulled of the BFRPG list > awhile back; instead of tying the modifiers to stats, > characters assign the following modifiers as they see > fit: 20%, 10%, 5%, 0%, 0%, -5%, & -10%. > talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic... Heretic is right... in practically every game the reason for stats is to determine secondary stats and modifiers. This system marginalizes stats to an occasional resistance check and it sacrifices the more detailed resolution allowed by a computed modifier. While I can see reasons to simplify the game, I have trouble agreeing that this is one of the places where simplification is needed. 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 15:04:46 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules > 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. The game has always been set up to have STR, CON, and SIZ affect combat and a few skill modifiers while INT, POW and DEX had more of an affect on skill modifiers. In a case like this, balance is hard to define, but I do see an over-emphasis on INT and think it should be reduced a little. > > The Stat training multipliers should be reduced from > > x5% to x4% and the training time reduced to 20 hours per > > stat point. > Good. Just training or 'research' too? Both, certainly, unless you removed the other penalties and just had training be faster than research. That would simplify stat training. > 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: The old Charisma had mod's for cult rank, quality of equipment, fame, spirits controlled. It started with appearance and added grooming and status. This was then used to get your Communication skill modifier. I think it made good sense... people listen closer to someone they think is important. There just isn't any second skill group to apply it to, but WILL could certainly be a modifier to Knowledge and Magic bonuses. > > 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. > 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 Hero Questing makes you more like > your god, with less free will...) Currently we use 3d6 (minimum 10: heroes are determined), plus 1 to 5 for magic rank or training, and plus 1 for each power of 2 in the total of all POW ever spent or sacrificed for magic or enchantments (not D.I.). A person who rolled 12, is an initiate (+1), has sacrificed for three 1 point divine spells +1 point for joining the cult = 4 points >= 2^2 (+2) would have a total WILL of 15. With a good starting roll a cult leader can have a WILL in the mid 20's. I generally ask for WILL x 2 to enter a myth on HHD. WILL x 3 or better if the priests aid the attempt. At this point we start borrowing from HW for modifiers to ease the transition or determine capabilities. A character has a list of the powers he has allocated his WILL for, such as: 1 point for an intelligent Sylph follower, comes when called, requires 5 MP sacrifice each call, once per day, can perform difficult tasks. This example is clearly an alternative to the binding enchantment process, but hero powers can be completely unique. An early WILL point isn't as powerful as those spent later, and sometimes Bargaining will help. I am considering characters having a value for each rune, based on their spells and race affiliation, to be a modifier to WILL for calling a spell effect that isn't known, or to use a divine spell without losing it, or reduce total MP cost to 1... at least in hero quests, if not in the physical world. With appropriate costs, penalties, and modifiers, it should be possible in the physical world also. This could get out of hand if everyone could do it, so perhaps it should be an Heroic Ability itself. > 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. The best solution for that is a good Strength and Coordination spell, or have some Iron Hand. I have seen magic bonuses take a starting Axe skill (5%) up to 60. 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:10:56 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game > So I think that Appearance is worthy of being a "stat" > for a game, as it is an important (perhaps the most > important) aspect of such things as "charisma," which > are themselves actually abstract concepts. I have heard people complain about all game stats because they are all abstractions of some perceived ability, are inadequately described, and are used for questionable tests or computations. This is a natural flaw in game design; you have to quantify things at some level of granularity, and that blurs realism. > We should probably remember the general charisma of > characters, based on such things as apparent wealth > and status, appearance, articulateness (as in actual > Comm. skills), and so on, when the character needs to > impress others (at a first meeting or first glance, > say). But the RQ Charisma was rather arbitrary --- > you get a new magic item, your charisma goes up, and > now you can have an extra bound spirit. People tend to follow people they consider impressive. Raw personality, eloquence, persuasiveness, wealth and self image all have a part. Gaining a magic item changes your wealth and self image, so it is possible that more people will follow you. In the old rules bound spirits really weren't bound to you, they were more like a form of follower; loyal as long as you were worthy. So while I might complain about gaining a new spirit or follower every time I passed some arbitrary number, it was a reflection of a more valid idea. If you don't take all of the aspects of charisma into account, you do a dis-service to the character and his persuasiveness. By applying their effects to the stat, you directly influence the category modifier and these aspects are not as overlooked, though it does make their effect rather small. Also notice that I have not asked to bring back the follower rules. Anyone who is reasonably impressive should be able to have as many as he can support. Basing bound spirits on the Charisma stat was purely a game balance rule to control rate of character growth. Our game demonstrates how difficult it is to control a campaign with a large number of spirit binds. By the time you have four ghosts or magic spirits casting spirit magic on you from a pool of 100 MP or more, you have probably become very hard to kill, no matter what your base skills are. 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 07:12:46 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game Actually, we suddenly realized that the Charisma stat had nothing attached to it so we flailed around trying to find something and finally came up with that. But really, Power in RQ very much measures the same thing as Charisma, which is why we changed CHA to APP. I do like the change from Appearance to Appeal, though. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Stancliff" >snip< > Also notice that I have not asked to bring back the follower rules. > Anyone who is reasonably impressive should be able to have as many as he can > support. Basing bound spirits on the Charisma stat was purely a game > balance rule to control rate of character growth. *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:41:54 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game - Cha and App IMC I use both Charisma and Appearance. I view Appearance as strictly physical attribute while Charisma as force of personality. I like to separate Cha from Pow since Power fluctuates greatly through the game and force of a character's personality should not diminish just because he sacrificed for some divine magic Leon Kirshtein (No good deed shall go unpunished.) - ---- "Steve Perrin" wrote: > Actually, we suddenly realized that the Charisma stat had nothing attached > to it so we flailed around trying to find something and finally came > up with > that. > > But really, Power in RQ very much measures the same thing as Charisma, > which > is why we changed CHA to APP. I do like the change from Appearance > to > Appeal, though. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Stancliff" > >snip< > > > Also notice that I have not asked to bring back the follower rules. > > Anyone who is reasonably impressive should be able to have as many > as he > can > > support. Basing bound spirits on the Charisma stat was purely a > game > > balance rule to control rate of character growth. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 #78 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.