From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #79 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 079 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Skills modifiers [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game [RQ-RULES] Canon material [RQ-RULES] D100 or D20 ? RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game RE: [RQ-RULES] Canon material RE: [RQ-RULES] Canon material Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game - Cha and App [RQ-RULES] Which is more valuable? Re: [RQ-RULES] Which is more valuable? Re: [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:55:38 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] Skills modifiers Tal : > 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%. Not that I really *like* RoleMaster, but I personally assign a separate skill modifier to each skill, and allow (stingy) improvement during the course of the game. That is, you can get an experience check in your Greatsword skill modifier, and see if you get to improve it by +1% at the end of the adventure. My method for awarding skill modifier experience checks is of course a conservative one and involves the player actively *deciding* that he wants to augment *this* skill modifier rather than *that* one, so my method lets players make quite powerful choices as to how they want their characters to develop, without getting bogged down in any lengthy and tedious "training sessions" or whatever. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:24:58 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal I've been reading about a lot of posts about dropping INT from this or that, and I'm not sure that is neccessary. If one looks at the attribute composition how many are most a physical.: STR, CON, DEX, and SIZ. POW and APP are up for discussion but at best would only be marginally mental. So, you have 4 physical attributes vs 1 mental. Subsequnetly INT is going to be in everything. If there were mental stats as Memory, Learning, Analysis, etc then you'd see more breakdown. This obviously makes sense from the the perspective of the creators. They were shooting for a good combat/physical adventuring game, not a research game or "Library Quest." Once you understand that basic design descision, implementing a solution to a pereceived problem is certainly campaign specific. I would suggest that for each campaign the Alpha GM decide what INT means to their campaign If is supposed to be the whole sum of ones mental abilities, then by neccessity it will need to be figured into all modifiers to some degree. Alternately, the "Int as memory" apparoach can be used then it would make sense to remove if from the actual combat skill usage. You might get a bonus to the skill when training or on experience rolls, but not during combat. - -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:39:19 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [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. Didn't RQ2 Charisma include Reputation? If it doesn't there's a need for something that does. I found it very useful as a GM to be able to give an instant reward for characters acting bravely in the way expected of their cults. An example was a pair of Humakti characters who knew there was a Basilisk round the corner and agreed to charge it, saying that only one of them would be killed by its gaze and the other would kill it. 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:13:58 +0100 From: RAMEAU Alain Subject: [RQ-RULES] Canon material I think now, only Greg's mood is the canon for Glorantha material. RQ2, and even now HW material, is subservient. Alain. >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:43:43 +0100 >From: David Ford >Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of RQ-Rules >(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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:16:44 +0100 From: RAMEAU Alain Subject: [RQ-RULES] D100 or D20 ? All are 5% increments, which mean you are very close to switching to a D20 based system rather than a D100 one ! Are you going to cross the border ? Alain. >Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:20:40 -0400 >From: Tal Meta >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%. *************************************************************************** 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 15:20:07 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game > > Steve Perrin: > > I do like the change from Appearance to Appeal, though. It Is a nice tweak with a slightly broader meaning. > > Actually, we suddenly realized that the Charisma stat > > had nothing attached to it so we flailed around trying > > to find something and came up with that.(follower limits) > > But really, Power in RQ very much measures the same > > thing as Charisma, which is why we changed CHA to APP. > Andrew Barton: > Didn't RQ2 Charisma include Reputation? If it doesn't > there's a need for something that does. > I found it very useful as a GM to be able to give an > instant reward for characters acting bravely in the way > expected of their cults. I have no problem with App/Cha being the most important factor for the Communication bonus, and Pow can be primary as well, since it can affect reactions, but with Pow being your tie to the magical world, and your luck factor as well, I don't like making it the main stat for willpower or force of presence. App/Cha represents your physical impact while Pow is your visceral or magical impact. You could never justify a Pow modifier for the quality of your armor, the number of magic items you carry, or the number of songs sung about your deeds, but this is rather appropriate for App/Cha. > Leon Kirsten: > I like to separate Cha from Pow since Power fluctuates > greatly through the game, and the force of a character's > personality should not diminish just because he sacrificed > for some divine magic... I strongly agree with this view. As long as Pow is the source of divine magic and enchantments it is inadequate for long term traits like willpower and personality because it is too low or it fluctuates too much. It would be nice if we didn't have to tie magic items to the consumption of a stat, but without this kind of limit coming from somewhere the creation of items would get out of hand. This is probably the single largest drawback to not having experience points... they could be spent to make magic items instead of increasing skills. It may be possible to use Pow instead of my Will stat but many of the above problems apply to this as well. This would also tend to equate Will to all magic items and make them weak Heroic Abilities which would dilute my intention for the Will stat. I need Pow to make the normal magics and Will to secure the grand effects. 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 15:41:46 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Canon material > I think now, only Greg's mood is the canon for Glorantha > material. RQ2, and even now HW material, is subservient. > Alain. As recently as a year ago I didn't want to use any material that wasn't published by Chaosium. That was my definition for Canon law. Now, the more often I hear Greg's opinion, the less I like the directions he is heading. I spent years reading between the lines to try and understand the intent of Glorantha, and I repeatedly find that I was either totally wrong, or that the definitions have changed. In the old days, hero quests could change the core myths or even the nature of the gods, but now all questing seems to do is allow individuals to gain a deeper understanding of their god. If you get a better or worse result than the myth it only affects you and your supporters, not the myths or the gods. And yet, different areas can have many differences to the same myth and these are considered to be equally valid. I can't help feeling this is sloppy thinking and far from clever. Maybe I just don't enjoy a good paradox any more. 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 16:40:07 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Canon material - --part1_127.a3d0ac.286b9ea7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know about the rest of you, but all this talk about what is or isn't Canon strikes me as just plain _silly_. If the focus of all this wasn't on Greg's oh-so-unique vision (which, while for the most part true, is something _I'm_ really sick of hearing), but instead on something a little _less_ "unique", like say, _Greyhawk_ or _Ravenloft_, I think this slavish insistence on limiting one's campaign to what has or hasn't been determined to be holy writ from Greg-on-high, would generally be received with, at _least_ a few snickers. Hell, it makes me. Sure Glorantha is neat. I like Glorantha. But once you start using it as a setting for your campaign, it becomes whatever you want it to be. From what _I_ can figure, with so people involved with Glorantha, Gloranthan Canon seems to be determined by whoever happens to be writing a given piece of material. Of course, I could be _wrong_ (me? Naaawwww...), and it is instead, all run past Greg prior to seeing print. Which strikes me as even weirder in a way. Canon? Who cares? There is such a thing as _winging_ it, y'know :) -Ken- - --part1_127.a3d0ac.286b9ea7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  I don't know about the rest of you, but all this talk about what is or
isn't Canon strikes me as just plain _silly_.
  If the focus of all this wasn't on Greg's oh-so-unique vision (which,
while for the most part true, is something _I'm_ really sick of hearing), but
instead on something a little _less_ "unique", like say, _Greyhawk_ or
_Ravenloft_, I think this slavish insistence on limiting one's campaign to
what has or hasn't been determined to be holy writ from Greg-on-high, would
generally be received with, at _least_ a few snickers. Hell, it makes me.
  Sure Glorantha is neat. I like Glorantha. But once you start using it as a
setting for your campaign, it becomes whatever you want it to be. From what
_I_ can figure, with so people involved with Glorantha, Gloranthan Canon
seems to be determined by whoever happens to be writing a given piece of
material. Of course, I could be _wrong_ (me? Naaawwww...), and it is instead,
all run past Greg prior to seeing print. Which strikes me as even weirder in
a way.
  Canon? Who cares? There is such a thing as _winging_ it, y'know :)
 -Ken-
  
- --part1_127.a3d0ac.286b9ea7_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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:29:36 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] The nature of the game - Cha and App On the other hand, we more or less felt that you were using up your presence by expending POW. The character who has given up a lot of POW for divine spells or enchantments might very well not be very charismatic, though the very fact of his possession of divine favor and nifty magic probably makes up for it in gameplay if not in stats. In fact, a Charisma roll based on POW that doesn't subtract when POW is sacrificed for something the character retains, like a magic item or divine magic, might well be a good idea. Of course, it's just another version of the spirit roll from my rules, or the traditional Luck roll. And I don't see anything particularly bad in that, either... Steve Perrin, mulling over the prospects - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon B Kirshtein" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:41 AM 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. *************************************************************************** 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 17:52:25 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Which is more valuable? Which is more valuable (to a character which has no cult access to these and no enchanting skill of his own), as a lure/reward from an enchanter: - - matrix of Fireblade (which need 4 POW to enchant, yes?) or - - 2 POW of Strengthening enchantment or - - 2 POW of spirit binding enchantment 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:56:30 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Which is more valuable? > Which is more valuable (to a character which has no cult access to these > and no enchanting skill of his own), as a lure/reward from an enchanter: > > - matrix of Fireblade (which need 4 POW to enchant, yes?) > or > - 2 POW of Strengthening enchantment > or > - 2 POW of spirit binding enchantment I'd say it really depends on the character it's offered to, and the situation they find themselves in. I'm doing the Riskland campaign via PbEM, and I'd take on Ralzakark for some way of getting Gnomes to plow, build ramparts and ditches etc. 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: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:33:01 -0700 From: "Steve Perrin" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal And, of course, this is why a high INT and high POW are more costly in Creation Points in my current system of buying attributes... Steve Perrin, who is not sure the breakpoints are right as yet. Anyone have any comment? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:24 AM Subject: [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal > I've been reading about a lot of posts about dropping INT from this > or that, and I'm not sure that is neccessary. If one looks at the > attribute composition how many are most a physical.: STR, CON, DEX, > and SIZ. POW and APP are up for discussion but at best would only be > marginally mental. So, you have 4 physical attributes vs 1 mental. > Subsequnetly INT is going to be in everything. If there were mental > stats as Memory, Learning, Analysis, etc then you'd see more > breakdown. > > This obviously makes sense from the the perspective of the creators. > They were shooting for a good combat/physical adventuring game, not a > research game or "Library Quest." > > Once you understand that basic design descision, implementing a > solution to a pereceived problem is certainly campaign specific. I > would suggest that for each campaign the Alpha GM decide what INT > means to their campaign > > If is supposed to be the whole sum of ones mental abilities, then by > neccessity it will need to be figured into all modifiers to some > degree. Alternately, the "Int as memory" apparoach can be used then > it would make sense to remove if from the actual combat skill usage. > You might get a bonus to the skill when training or on experience > rolls, but not during combat. > > -- > /*----------------------------------------------------------------- > mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.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. *************************************************************************** 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 #79 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.