(Message rqd:5) Return-Path:Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (sunnl) by homeland.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04442; Wed, 2 Jun 93 17:17:35 +0200 Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e) id AA23729; Wed, 2 Jun 93 17:17:20 +0200 Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04927; Wed, 2 Jun 93 17:16:03 +0200 Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 17:16:03 +0200 Message-Id: <9306021516.AA04927@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM> From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer) To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest) Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily) Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 02 Jun 1993, part 4 Precedence: junk Status: OR The RuneQuest Daily and RuneQuest Digest deal with the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's world of Glorantha. Send submissions and followup to "RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM", they will automatically be included in a next issue. Try to change the Subject: line from the default Re: RuneQuest Daily... on replying. 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. Send enquiries and Subscription Requests to the editor: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Henk Langeveld) --------------------- From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell) Subject: More Musings on Runes and the Invisible God... Message-ID: <9306020746.AA01542@cscgpo.anu.edu.au> Date: 2 Jun 93 11:48:01 GMT X-RQ-ID: 921 >From: 100270.337@CompuServe.COM (Nick Brooke) >__________________ >Richard C. Staats: > >> I always thought of the Invisible God as kind of a Great >> Compromise creation, and in my campaigns, I treat sorcery >> as a type of magic that only came into Glorantha as a >> result of the Great Compromise. This flows along nicely >> with some of the more recent articles on the use of Runic magic. > >I am in partial agreement with you here. Certainly, modern sorcery (as its >more scientifically-minded practitioners describe it) couldn't have worked >before Time, when the Elements etc. were still free-willed and there was no >defined Natural Law within which the sorcerer could work. That said, >Malkion came as Prophet of the Invisible God during the pre-Time Ice Age. Taking a gander through GoG last night I noticed that the Invisible God's runes are Law, Magic and Infinity (powerful combo). If the above is true then before Time his runes must have omitted Law, or it was of less importantance. Sorcerers then may have gained their power/insight through their link with the Infinity rune, rather than Law. Perhaps before Time Law was difficult to relate to physical reality, while Infinity was easier to use than it is now. This could even have been Hrestol's revelation: that Law, which previously referred only to the Brithini social customs, now had a greater relevance, but that infinity (freedom?) could now have social applications as well...'course, I'm probably blowing smoke here. Has there ever been a Time Rune, or is it (as I believe) part of the Law rune? Regarding Infinity: does anyone know why Flamal gets it in GoG? I can see why Uleria and the Invisible God do, but Flamal doesn't seem any more significant than many other gods. > >Perhaps the nature of his Supreme Being changed over time? Note that the >One God has two aspects defined in the Prosopaedia, those of Creator and >Invisible God. Malkion may have worshipped a different version of the One >God from that which Hrestol contacted/discovered -- who, please remember, >was only "needed" inside Time when the Old Malkioni Way could no longer >satisfy worshippers (cf. CoT; Glorantha Book). In this case, would the Infinity Rune be the Creator aspect, Law the Invisible God? PS in one of the earlier digests, an up to date list of the runes from GoG was published. Can anyone tell me which one it was, so I can get it from soda? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au Research School of Chemistry Phone: (06) 249 3575 Australian National University Fax: (06) 249 0750 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- From: Pierre.Boulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr (Pierre Boulet) Subject: RQ4 mailing list Message-ID: <9306020829.AA02636@lip.ens-lyon.fr> Date: 2 Jun 93 12:29:48 GMT X-RQ-ID: 922 hi, I wanted to send a mail to the RQ4 playtest mailing list, but it came back to me after 3 days of wandering in the net. So, I wrote to Loren and asked what was the problem. Here is the answer: > From LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Tue Jun 1 19:40:28 1993 > To: Pierre.Boulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr (Pierre Boulet) > Organization: Wharton Marketing Department > Subject: Re: problem with the list > Reply-To: loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu > Priority: normal > X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R5). > > I'm going to have to remedy the problems with the mail host program. > We subnetted our department the other day and the mail host software > doesn't seem to be able to deal with DNS hosts that are off the > local subnet. I have questions/complaints pending to the author of > the mail host software. If you would be so kind, please forward this > information to the RQ daily. I'm too swamped with work to send mail > to them right now. > > > -- > +++++++++++++++++++++++23 > Loren Miller LOREN@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu > There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny > hope it helps you, o------------------------------------------------------------------o | __ _ | | /__/ . _ _ _ _ /_/ _ / _ /- | | / / /_'/ / /_' /__/ /_/ /_/ / /_'/ pboulet@lip.ens-lyon.fr | | | | (* Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction *) | o------------------------------------------------------------------o --------------------- From: henkl@holland.sun.com (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) Subject: Rune Smileys + Re: Malcolm: RQ3 sorcery patching Message-ID: <1993Jun2.131446.27247@holland.sun.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 13:14:46 GMT X-RQ-ID: 923 malcolm@num-alg-grp.co.uk (Malcolm Cohen) writes: >The problems I have with RQ3 sorcery are: > Free INT -- does not have the right "feel", effects are not nice > Intensity skill -- chance of casting a spell of intensities >1 is the same > for intensity 2 as for intensity 20. > Duration skill -- chance of casting a spell of duration 1 year is the same > as for 20 minutes. I see what you're getting at... >The basic solution to this is to allow any manipulation of the spells >characteristics, not limited by "Free INT". Further, I consider each >MP-worth's of manipulation (both increased intensity, increased range and >increased duration) to increase the difficulty of the spell by 5% (i.e. reduce >the spell-casting success roll). So a sorceror casting damage boost 4 with a basic spell skill of 34% would have a chance of 14% with this rule. I like it. This looks like a very natural alternative to the "Free INT" rule, making that obsolete (Sorry Joerg :-). Although I would still keep INT as a limit to the number of known spells. And now for something completely different: Here's my list of Runic Smileys... <>< - spirit oK - man [] - earth +- - death O - Sky e - tales of the leaking moon... (sorry David ;-) @ or # - darkness I don't really like either 3@ or same problem... 3# - chaos Any *original* suggestions for this list? -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM --------------------- From: henkl@holland.sun.com (Henk Langeveld - Sun Nederland) Subject: Re: Bound spirits Message-ID: <1993Jun2.132818.28100@holland.sun.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 13:28:18 GMT X-RQ-ID: 924 Suggestion to limit the (ab)use of bound spirits: Make it impossible for bound spirits to regenerate MPs while being bound. This would have the same effect as putting a slave collar on a person... -- Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun. oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM --------------------- From: s.phillips@vme.gla.uk.ac Subject: *** RE-SUBMITTED, RETURNED MAILING *** Message-ID: <_2_Jun_93_14:48:26_A115B9@UK.AC.GLA.VME> Date: 2 Jun 93 13:48:26 GMT X-RQ-ID: 925 NOTE: This mailing was originally sent last Friday but was returned as I forgot to allocate it a subject. (Thats what I get for trying to be fancy, using a WP to edit my stuff then transferring to the mainframe via Kermit. Why is nothing simple in this HiTec world?) Still, a little late but ... --------------------------------------------------------- FROM: HARRY SIGERSON (& SAM PHILLIPS) --------------------------------------------------------- Hello all It's me again. Just a few thoughts on the recent dailies. First MOB When our lot played the Garhound Contest only two PCs entered and they came bottom of the league. Two of the others were too busy raking in the cash as bookies for anything so noble as entering a competion. Stikklebrixx won and poor Cary was second. Dejected he joined the Pcs on an adventure only to end up on the slab as it were in the Rabbit Hat Farm adventure. "Thems the breaks" seemed to be the PCs sympathetic opinion. RE POW gain rolls. I tend to come down on the side of role playing for deciding on POW gain rolls. The Buller who chucks a quick Disruption before closing to hand to hand fight- ing obviously considers any success as fortunate and opportunistic and of little spiritual importance. Why should his god think any more of either? Magic cast for an important aim, spirits bravely or desparately fought and ceremonies conscientiously performed get POW gain rolls. Power playing has never been a problem in my group and the occasional player who has tried it has gotten short thrift from the group as a whole. But the cry of "Damn! Bad luck, you really deserved to get that one." has never been a stranger. So I have decided to start a policy of having one, two or three POW gain rolls each adventure which the group as a whole will vote for. Whoever played his character best or behaved most spiritedly(pun completely intended) inmatters;religious, magical,or otherwise unmundane (what a clumsy word). I would allow normal POW gain rolls on top of this. But since I consider overcoming the POW of someone weaker than yourself a very unchallenging thing to do I tend to ignore it for the purposes of POW gain roll check. It's like the player I knew who once bought and killed twenty chickens to get the needed experience points for the next level! (Yes I once played Dire & Dreadful, but it was years ago Your Honour, I was young and impressionable.) RE Humakt. I once had a nomad Humakt he was vicious once battle was joined but was slow to anger. Hated Chaos, though his cult had no official axe to grind, because of his nomad upbringing. His dedication to the Truth was simplistic he spoke it as he saw it. Do not break with your, clan, tribe or friends and damned be he who breaks with you. Above all else honour your Sword Brother. HE was very much a creation of his culture and had little if any tolorance of his civilised bretheren, who were as strange to him as the Lunars. What ever happened to the idea of Humakti having Sword Brothers? The person who guided you and advised you on the way to Initiatehood and beyond. I had two Humakti and they were sword brothers. Everyone knew that if you took on one you took on both. They were like the rock the group was anchored on, and it generated some briliant moments! As well as some genuinely sad moments when one of them was destroyed by a powerful spirit. Vis a vis Elemental and Stat Associations for Runic Sorcery. (SIZ = Darkness, STR = Earth) We tend to agree with Joerg on this matter but not because Trolls are huge (plenty of creatures are big) but because Darkness is huge, particularly when your in the middle of it! (Note: This doesn't mean we fully understand all this HiBrow stuff, only that we like to throw our tuppence in so as to look like we do and so feel part of something. Something special. <%?)> ) Joerg again: "luck rolls .. a concept I havent used once in four years of .. Runequest)". Why not, Joerg? We have always found them rather good for those situations when only the favour of the gods can make a difference. How would you GM a gamble? A fluke? Remembering to bring that vital piece of equipment which you thought you had but you forgot to write onto your character sheet?.. Mind you, we may be guilty of the POW roll not to be spotted (A major RQ heresy and a contradiction in terms).. But then again maybe we haven't ever been that stupid. -- POW*3 says we didn't. Cheers all, Harry'n'Sam --Not Scotland but Sartar..