Date: Fri, 19 Mar 93 17:15:06 +0100
From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: The RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 19 Mar 1993
This digest was generated automatically. You may find
messages that should not belong here, like subscription
requests, etc. Sorry. You will of course send such
requests to RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM.
All mail sent to RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM will
automatically be included in a next issue.
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.
-Henk Langeveld
--
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: henkl@glorantha (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland)
Subject: Re: The RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 18 Mar 1993
Message-ID: <9303181623.AA23227@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 93 18:23:43 GMT
The "daily digest" is now fully automatic.
Traffic is increasing. We're going to need sequence numbers now. I
haven't got the time to implement that now.
I have to limit the size of each digest to 24~25 MB, including headers
to accomodate restrictions on some subscribers' systems.
Special request: Keep signatures short. Last issue contained a very
beautiful flame. Cute. Once. I don't want to see it again.
Thanks you all
--
Henk Langeveld, editor RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM
---------------------
From: wroberts@magnusug.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William C Robertson)
Subject: Massive Venom spells...
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Mar 93 06:30:46 GMT
Richard C. Staats writes
...not only possible but actually common to cast Poison with an
intensity of 30. I thought the intensity+duration+range of all
combined spells had to be less than or equal to the caster's free INT.
(This puts a large emphasis on enchanting staves with spell matrices,
etc.)...
Rich,
As I understand the rules you would need either a really high INT,
(and a lot of time too) or a powerful spell matrix, but you can easily
kill a human with far fewer magic points by multispelling Venom and
Diminish CON.
Before I read the errata this took some effort to do because Diminish
(characteristic) was a touch spell, so you also had to throw a Touch
Projection into the multispell to deliver the Diminish CON. However,
the errata states that Diminish (characteristic) is actually ranged.
Additionally, the errata has also changed the Multispell rule, but I
haven't really had time to look at it, so I don't know if this sort of
thing would work (according to the rules).
-Bill Robertson
---------------------
From: P.A.Snow@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P A Snow)
Subject: Monster Stats
Message-ID: <9303181746.AA16489@Sun.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 93 17:45:30 GMT
>>Simplified Monster Descriptions
>>Loren, Rob, et. al. - this is a great idea - I'd love to hear
>>what people consider the minimal information you need to stat
>>out a RQ critter or individual.
>>
>> etc, etc
>I *like* the RQ hit location system as it gives a good feel to the game.
>I have run a lot of Stormbringer, which just uses HP overall, with a
>classification of Light Wound, Serious Wound, Mortal Wound and Death,
>that has proved to be a good fast system, which feels right, but also much
>easier to keep track of what is happening.
Would it be productive to produce a hybrid of the two systems? NPCs
could be given HP capacities split into Scratch/Light/Serious/Mortal
categories to speed play. (I don't know the Stormbringer rules) Hit
location only needs to be rolled for Serious+ wounds which really
count as they effect the foes fighting ability and for which players
want to know locations to make them feel big.
Going back to Loren's first point, I remember C&S being described to
me for the first time. "You don't just meet Orcs. The Orcs have levels
and can better than you!!" I really think that set stats for
differently equipped and abled critters is useful and gives greater
dimensionality to the monsters. (Even if some of the "Elite" level
foes do somewhat strain the current stat ranges for the race.)
Anything that makes GMs' lives easier and stops players thinking "Oh
it's just just a _______" (Fill in as appropriate.) must be a good
thing.
Paul Snow
---------------------
From: tsl@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Tim Leask)
Subject: Re: Changes to Spirit Combat
Message-ID: <9303190108.13597@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: 19 Mar 93 16:08:50 GMT
Rob Mace writes:
>
> I presume from what you said that only one binding or plundering attempt
> can be made per spirit. If this is not the case then everyone would
> just keep fighting the spirit until they had bound it fully or stolen
> everything from it. Since the spirit is already at 0 there is no risk
> to the binder/plunderer continuing the fight.
Your assumption is correct, only one plundering binding attempt could be
made per spirit.
> My question is, what is the Gloranthan physics that restricts one to only
> one attempt?
Good question :-)
> Here is one thought. When s spirit is reduced to 0 pow its hold on the
> world and the worlds hold on it is reduced. The binding/plundering is
> done at the same momemt that the spirit is reduced to zero pow.
> Any delay and the spirit can no longer be interacted with.
I like this solution.
> For binding one
> could still unbind the spirit when it reached 1 pow and beat it up again.
In the case of an embodied binder this wouldn't be a problem as they
cannot initiate spirit combat. If they unbound the spirit it would
simply flee rather than attack.
> Making the binding cost something could solve this.
Unless they have a spirit trapping crystal they already have to blow
POW to create a binding enchantment given this and what I said above
it's probably not necessary to have an additional cost.
> Also since spirits have to be reduced to 0 pow to bound/plundered why do
> they not just run away when they get low on pow?
A further rule change (which from memory is in the RQ4 draft) could be
made which requires a spirit to make a roll to disengage from spirit
combat. Embodied spirits can also attempt to physically flee the
combat without having to make any type of roll.
Mystic Musk Ox (Mark Buckley) writes:
> > If the roll is a success, the spirit has one of its aspects bound,
> > if the roll is a special success two of it's aspects are bound...
>
> Would any difficulties/problems/interesting things occur if 2 people
> bind different/aspects of the same spirit? I.e. Does the binding
> PHYSICALLY hold the spirit to the binding object, or just maintain
> some connection with it to draw upon its abilities? The latter seems
> to fit in better with my view of the spirit plane. Perhaps in this way
> people could be found via the spirit plane if you know the spirits/aspects
> bound by that person.
I had originally envisioned that the spirit would be physically bound
into some object, however your interpretation is just as valid as
mine. Do what ever fits best in your campaign.
> > A special success enables the plunderer to steal a skill from the spirit
> > or to steal two spells.
>
> What does stealing a skill entail? I can't remember if GoG etc explains this.
Oops,I forgot to detail this. You can only steal a skill if it is
higher than your own. You gain 4d4 %
> > A critical success enables the plunderer to steal 1D3 POW directly from
> > the spirit and add it to their own.
>
> Is this in addition to getting a POW tick? Do species maximums still
> apply (I guess so).
You only geta POW tick if the spirit started with more magic points
than you (RQ3) or had a higher Spirit Combat Skill (RQ4). I think it
would make life more interesting if species max did NOT apply.
Thanks for your comments,
Cheers,
Tim Leask
===============================================================================
Department of Computer Science /*\__/\ "Money is something you have in
University of Melbourne < \ case you don't die tomorrow."
Parkville, Vic., 3052, AUSTRALIA \ _ _/ Gordon Gecko.
Phone: +61 3 282 2439 \| --
e-mail: tsl@cs.mu.oz.au
===============================================================================