Bell Digest v930303

Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 14:25:24 +0100
From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Digest Subscriptions)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: The RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 03 Mar 1993

This is an semi-automated digest, sent out once per day (if any
messages are pending).  Replies will be included in the next issue
automatically.

Selected articles may also appear in a regular Digest.  If you 
want to submit articles to the Digest only,  contact the editor at
RuneQuest-Digest-Editor@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM.

	[I have to say this rather bluntly:

	 I've not been able to handle the daily digest due to
	 the death of my mother.  I will be out of the office
	 for another couple of days. The RuneQuest Daily will
	 be less regular until somewhere next week.  	  -HL]

--
Send Submissions to: 		    
Enquiries to:		  
The RuneQuest Daily is a spin-off of the RuneQuest Digest and deals
with the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's world of
Glorantha.  			 Maintainer: Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM

---------------------

From: u9019138@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
Subject: RQ/3rd EDITION
Message-ID: <9302251705.AA04405@lis4>
Date: 25 Feb 93 17:05:31 GMT

I bought the 3rd Edition a couple of years ago and in it they SAID
that because it was based on a fantasy europe and the Glorantha book
dealt with the Gloranthan aspects, some supplements for their Fantasy
Europe would be forthcoming.

When?

I have devised my own setting in the 14th Century but the one
mentioned with Corwin the Pict and Nikolos of Byzantium is set quite a
bit before this.

Does anyone have info on this?  Their own fantasy europe campaigns?

Or am I in the wrong part of the Virtual world?

---------------------

From: dickmj@essex.ac.uk (Dicks M)
Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 19 Feb 1993
Message-ID: <10157.9302231412@solb1.essex.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Feb 93 14:12:33 GMT

I really hate this automatic response thingy!! Actually, I'm
'writing' to ask if anyone out there has got any nice HeroQuests
designed either for specific cults or just to get general abilities??
If so, hows about sending them in??

The reason I ask is because I'm currently trying to compile a list of
'suitable' Orlanthi, StormBull, Humakti, and Zola Fel HQ's and would
be interested in any contributions (even if it's just 'have you read
in the Mythos section of the *** cult that *** did !!! ? Now that
would make a good HeroQuest')

- Arganth

---------------------

From: carlf@Panix.Com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Niggling little rules point.
Message-ID: <199302260220.AA29893@sun.Panix.Com>
Date: 25 Feb 93 16:20:17 GMT

> Even as things stand a good Humakti might have one spell: bladesharp.
> If he decides that bladesharp 14 is better than a mix of smaller point
> spells the rules as they stand don't stop him.  Surely it's good for
> people to have some control of their spell selection?  But I'll say it
> and say it again: NO ONE TRUE PATH.

Well, under the current rules the Humakti will have a very hard time
defeating the spell spirit (average POW 28).

---------------------

From: STEVEG@ARC.UG.EDS.COM (Entropy needs no maintenance)
Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 25 Feb 1993
Message-ID: <01GV5QOV02R600115P@UG.EDS.COM>
Date: 25 Feb 93 17:07:13 GMT

Gloranthan trivia
=================

> Does anybody have any inside knowledge or educated guesses about the
> "Invisible Orlanth" cult or the reversed air rune? I'm fascinated by
> these little bits of Gloranthan trivia.

My guesses on these subjects are

Reversed Air rune - mirror image of the standard one.  It seems the
sort of thing that ought to be a little "left hand path" but the
stated use as decorative motif in Orlanthi culture speaks against this

Invisible Orlanth - A combination, I would guess, of the Malkioni way
with the cult of Orlanth, with priest (or sorcerer-priest) instead of
wizard.  One would have farmer-thane-priest-chief rather than
farmer-knight-wizard-lord.  Knowing the freedom inherent in Orlanth,
I'd guess at this being a Hrestoli interpretation.

> Suppose an Elmali goes on the Elmali heroquest, but actually sets out to
> fail, so he can re-define the God's role.

Sounds eminently reasonable.

RQ4???
======

> I think that RQ is basically a pretty simple system with a few well
> chosen ornaments that make it plausible. I would like it to keep these
> characteristics (simplicity, elegance, plausible) in future editions.

Hear, hear!  RQ2 is simple enough to outline on a postcard (except for
a few messy bits like training and spell costs).  RQ3 lost this.  Over
the last few years there has been a noticeable tendancy for new
systems to be much more concentrated on a simple core mechanic as RQ2
was, with breadth of application of that mechanic (ShadowRun,
especially in its 2nd edition, is a good example of this).

If people want an RQ-like system with hard,medium and easy skills, it
already existed (Lands of Adventure, as I mentioned a while ago).

Armour&such
===========

> The way to handle two high level Rune-Lords fighting is simple -
> have one of them cast Fanaticism on one of them.

Not necessarily so - Remember, 9 points of iron, 2 points padding +
8-12 points magical protection exceeds the amount of damage likely to
be inflicted by a human (bastardsword max 11, damage bonus, say 4,
magical enhancements about another 4).  (What happens if the
combatants are e.g. Zorak Zorani - more damage, lead armour - are
another matter) The 24 points of large iron shield are merely an
outrageous luxury for fighting things with 6or8 dice damage bonus.

>>> "But the point of this is that the low level characters get creamed,"
>> The point is actually that the reasonable fighting type, with skills ~60%
>> has maybe six points of worn armour and then a 60% change of twice as much
>> again - you have to calibrate damage against that - and as the skill %s get
>> higher, the chances of critical match those of a failed parry.
> But how does this represent a problem?  The answer isn't "low level
> character's get creamed" by any chance is it?  Correct me if I'm
> wrong.

The point is that whatever the level of the combatants, anything that
trickles damage through when parrying is a one-hit stopper should the
parry fail.  The problem is the same whether we're talking low vs low
OR high vs high.  My concern was the effect of mixing the styles of
the armour worn (or trading off dodge vs. armour&parry), not the
combatant skill.  The 2D8+2D6 could have been done by a beginner dark
troll character.

At low level (30-40%) you can expect expect parries to fail so can
pitch the damage at the static (worn+magic) armour.  At mid levels
(60-70%) doing so means two times in three a hit dings; or if you
pitch at the shield parry, one time in three you have sudden death.
Unfortunately, as the starting dark troll alluded to above goes to
show, sudden death can lurk just around the corner.

Too much magic???
=================

>>To the average Sartarite, the typical shaman is at best one of those
>>Chaos-tainted Telmori (Wolf Hsunchen), or possibly an elf or troll.  Not the
>>sort of person one goes up to and cadges spells from.

>In one campaign perhaps.

Precisely!  Assuming that big spells of arbitrary nature are freely
available is just as bad in its own way as my "magic items corrupt"
posting.  The world being as it is, I can only quote from my own
imagination or my own experience.

The availability and social stature of shamans so far as the PCs were
concerned was derived from the last (and most developed) Gloranthan
campaign I was involved in.

> Let's see an end to the 'ONE TRUE PATH' idea of roleplaying.

Shall we also aim for world peace?  I think achieving the one means
enough of a transformation of human nature to achieve the other.  :-)

Just assume that I've bothered to waste an extra 6 bytes per sentence
to prefix it with "IMHO, " which is all anything said here ever can be
when we're not discussing objective reality, .

My opinion on the corrupting effect of copious magical power is the
result of well over fifteen years bitter experience in a variety of
systems and campaigns, and discussion in various fan fora; and DESPITE
having a personal hankering for high power and "expensive special
effects" type magic in quantity.

> Oh dear...  You seem to think that there is a right amount of power or
> magic in a campaign.  Fact is I allow exactly the right amount of
> magic in my campaign.  You allow exactly the right amount of magic in
> your campaign.

I'm awed at your certainty.  The fact is, I personally never have been
satisfied that I _have_ let the right amount of magic in : too often
it seems that "too much" starts well _before_ "too little" finishes!

One of the few things I liked about RQ3 was the restriction of the
spell lists - players actually have to think a little when they can't
all just pull out the obvious spell and blast away.  Restricting
Befuddle and removing Harmonise (RQ's answer respectively to Sleep &
Charm Person) reduced the prevalence of the one-hit takedowns that
also gave POW ticks.

> Even as things stand a good Humakti might have one spell: bladesharp.
> If he decides that bladesharp 14 is better than a mix of smaller point
> spells the rules as they stand don't stop him.

True.  Tactical considerations and the hard laws of economics will
perform their own harsh selection procedure.  The last Humakti PC I
saw in local play (under RQ2) went for Healing6, Bladesharp6 (local
ruling that the sword cult would have a better version than the
standard issue).  He did tend to look rather silly when, having cast
BS6 from his own POW, the trollkin proceeded to Befuddle him.

> The GM doesn't have to give them away.  A priest, sorceror, or shaman can
> make them, and a non-adventuring priest who just keeps his pow at 11 or
> thereabouts can make 2-3 Pow spirit binders or an Int spirit binder every
> year.  And if you adventure and get POW checks...

Just goes to show that I speak/think RQ2+ rather than RQ3. Permitting
the manufacturing of such things would change the dynamics totally, if
your players directed the play of campaign into such sedentary
persuits.

The amusing thought occurs to me that there is a precedent for
discouraging this if you don't want it - remember what last happened
in Glorantha when the mass production of magic items was attempted...

---------------------

From: SPB1@vms.bton.ac.uk (Ghost Dancer)
Subject: Use what you will
Message-ID: <9302261342.AA18780@Sun.COM>
Date: 26 Feb 93 13:42:00 GMT

On the point of what is best RQII, RQIII etc... I personally think
that the most important thing is the flavour of the game.

I was running my campaign last week and the party, a group of novices
(both player wise and character wise) had their first combat. They
were attacked by a group of Tusk Riders and I wanted to slowly
introduce them to the rules without boging them down. What I opted to
do was to first explain how combat worked (as many of them neither
have or have read the rules) and then went on from there.  I used the
normal combat rules, including criticals etc.., but I left out fatigue
and neglected to let the Tuskers attack. The reason I did this is that
I wanted the players first experience of combat to be fun but not be
to overwhelming in terms of the combat or learning new rules. It
worked well, one member of the party died (Tusk rider lance did a
critical to the abdomen on the charge) and four of the TR's were
slain. Crits, specials and fumbles were rolled, and everyone
understood how combat works and what SR's are all about.  The battle
still took 2 hours to run, but everyone enjoyed it, next time I'll use
fatigue as well.

So what has this got to do with the rules you may ask.

Well as I see it both RQ and Glorantha are a learning curve, at the
start your players know very little about either but with care you can
introduce both in such a way that eventually everyone knows a lot
without realising they have learned it, and if you choose to not use
or change something it doesn't really matter as long as everyone goes
away feeling that they have had a good time playing. If the group on
my campaign spend 5 minutes talking about their battle with a smile on
their faces then the fact that I didn't use all the rules doesn't
matter, they enjoyed themselves and that's what will keep them coming
back for more.

Well that's my opinion for what it's worth. I look forward to RQIV and
hope it irons out some of the things in RQIII that I have had to
change for myself but I certainly won't be throwing my RQ out the
window if it doesn't.
   ._
  /! \  Alternative
 /-!-/  Realities                Jarec
/  ! \  Games Club               e-mail: SPB1@VMS.BTON.AC.UK

---------------------

From: SPB1@vms.bton.ac.uk (Ghost Dancer)
Subject: Figures
Message-ID: <9302261540.AA28599@Sun.COM>
Date: 26 Feb 93 15:40:00 GMT

Can anyone recomend a good source of figures for RuneQuest. I have
most of the Ral Partha range and while these are excellent they are
somewhat limited so if anyone can suggest any other sources that are
of a similar size/type I would be most appreciative.
   ._
  /! \  Alternative
 /-!-/  Realities                    Jarec
/  ! \  Games Club                   e-mail: SPB1@VMS.BTON.AC.UK

---------------------

From: MILLERL@WILMA.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU (Loren J. Miller)
Subject: Rumor and names
Message-ID: <9302262138.AA15728@noc2.dccs.upenn.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 93 20:38:00 GMT

Rumor:
   The Lunar Empire's Broos have been united under a skybull-broo hero
   named Wakbotha Osenthed. If he is as dangerous as his name makes
   him sound, the resistance fighters in the hills are in for lots of
   trouble.

Also...

I found a cool random name generating program. It's in volume 11 of
the comp.sources.misc archives, and is called names2-2. As input it
takes a file of names or even a file of real text, and it outputs
names or text in the style of the input file. I typed in a bunch of
godnames and other names from genertela and input them into a file and
then ran this name generating program on them. The only problem with
the program is that if you have a short input file it will output
mostly names from the input file, and even if you have a large input
file a lot of the words will be directly from the input. The following
was the raw output. I didn't remove any bad names.

                                * * *

humct worlang umavoxor salmons xarchulanthi furichaza blanni
rastalkarstar mastangalatap veil garzeen vis jana-ilor orelatap
harasul varchmoor siglolf xarchulanthaladrust bor yinkin suamchow
mashargenea junor vargor los ter karec jhor tana-aranier leona shavaya
nortar moiradesta lumathed valkion harroin mastos arftia dina dro
fralatarinorumakastakos mal dendar ann jar-eel osenteshnos tha styx
gon humct yelm chamagastal murtle yelm garint ragnagle mikaday imoloi
pasos terlanelatarnoran-gor artmal yanmor fonrit fron anorathgerlic
gorma kygernal jalkion syranthir aro flinabang ora jara teshnost darax
arandaro siglat pir chalurzni kuihui jugger harp armorn kolat dina
arrox vis pamalkaree dal somastor palbara asrelat pharundyer wongo ann
issarth galorna loomshappa fles argan-tor cong blanela goloi pelo-nor
moons furanshin hon-eel wildman joralia larn arreken armortaris raiba
malames corma ipharonius karrethilris humavoxor koth drosh destar
deezolaran pochow acodemons faramak artool umakastarinscion eirit kim
fox lux per hos sola dilius praxalurzni dar lhanace tha solango hos
garun easvalisor-eel thed iphara xanfivex tesh drantholango mol palath
salindle arastar teel meriatap wonga gatam banis flind argar
mikadayzatar yola-umbaranwolf calatheobliath yamsab karnora-tek
grundrostau issarin alda wolf

                                * * *

whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
S sign lists littles what wetland received in phire bonuse    --1M Monkeys

---------------------

~From: jeff@cotopaxi.Stanford.EDU (Jeff Freymueller)
~Subject: Re:  The RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 25 Feb 1993
Message-ID: <9302262212.AA15153@cotopaxi.Stanford.EDU>
~Date: 26 Feb 93 22:12:22 GMT

>From Andrew Bell (bell@cs.unc.edu):
> In the Chalana Arroy write-up in "River of Cradles," it says that CAers
> may only learn bindings for Power, Healing, and Intellect Spirits -- at
> least from CA.  First, why Intellect spirits?  One would think they were
> intelligent -- they aren't described as not being such -- and thus if
> any spirits are restricted, these should be.  Second, why not spell
> spirits?  Spell spirits are specifically described as not being capable
> of rational thought, but simply of being able to hold a spell.  Seems
> more reasonable that spell spirits would be acceptable -- especially
> since CAers must periodically beat them up anyway to gain new spells.
> Thirdly, do you think CAers would be willing to use elementals or other
> spirits with no intelligence rating?  What about riding horses?

I hadn't thought about this before, but I have a nice explanation.
Making a binding is not the same as forcing a spirit into it. Mindless
spirits can only be bound by force, but intelligent spirits like
Healing and Intellect spirits can choose to allow themsleves to be
bound. This would be particularly true of Healing spirits which would
want to cooperate with Chalana Arroy healers. So I would say that CAs
can only make bindings for spirits which have the intellect to choose
whether or not to be bound. For the actual binding, they would only
bind spirits which chose to be bound. They cannot make bindings for
spirits which they could never possibly bind.

But I don't know how Power spirits fit into this scheme. Also, it is
not clear how CAs would feel about using unintelligent (fixed INT)
creatures.  Presumably they could do so as long as they did not abuse
the creatures.  So it would be up to the individual.

From MILLERL@WILMA.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU (Loren J. Miller)
Subject: Uniform Skill System in RQ

At first reading, it was not clear what you meant for Skill system
number 2.  Now that I understand it, I notice that it is very similar
to the system used in the Harnmaster game. The system has a certain
appeal, but I haven't played it enough to know if it works better. I
would prefer to keep something more like the traditional RQ skill
system - if I wanted another system, I would play another game!

The number of skills in RQ3 strikes me as just about right. Adding too
many more skills, especially semi-redundant skills, would be a bad
idea.

I am one of those (the few?) who don't want to see major revisions in
RQ4.  Just plug the holes and tighten it up. I don't even hate the
previous experience system, although you generally have to fudge it a
bit to make it work. It works very well for characters who have
something like "10 years" of experience (whatever age they are). It
doesn't work for middle aged farmers, who will be close to mastery of
their cultural weapons.

Jeff

---------------------

From: csh019@cch.coventry.ac.uk (Faust)
Subject: Lunar Empire as a force for Good?
Message-ID: <10829.9302261606@cch.coventry.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Feb 93 16:06:47 GMT


Just to get another thread of debate up and running, I'm interested in
whether anyone has depicted the Lunar Empire and the Red Goddess as a
force for Good in the world or even just as a neutral power.  The
impression I've gotten from most other RQ-Glorantha players/GMs I've
ever met has been that they generally potray the Lunar Empire as a
fairly corrupt, evil empire with unsavoury chaotic tendencies bent on
world domination.  The Sartarites and Orlanthi are usually the freedom
loving underdogs fighting back against oppression.

So: has anyone else got a different angle on this conflict?  Has
anyone had Lunar citizens and Lightbringers within the same group of
PCs?  Or a group composed entirely of Lunar citizens?

    ********    ***      **    **   *******   ********  "Quantum Mechanics:
    **         ** **     **    **  **            **      even I don't fully
    ******    *******    **    **  *******       **      understand it."
    **       **     **   **    **        **      **              - Ian Sales
    **      **       **   ******   ********      **    csh019@cch.cov.ac.uk

---------------------

From: g.hoyle@genie.geis.com
Subject: CITY SIZES
Message-ID: <9303011715.AA22295@relay1.geis.com>
Date: 1 Mar 93 16:03:00 GMT

When RQ mentions city sizes, does that include the number of children,
or is that only the number of adults?