(Message rqd:11)
Return-Path:
Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (sunnl) by homeland.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA08449; Fri, 4 Jun 93 17:17:00 +0200
Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e)
id AA21271; Fri, 4 Jun 93 17:16:46 +0200
Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA10841; Fri, 4 Jun 93 17:15:38 +0200
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 17:15:38 +0200
Message-Id: <9306041515.AA10841@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, Fri, 04 Jun 1993, part 2
Precedence: junk
Status: O
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: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
Subject: Ramblings
Message-ID:
Date: 4 Jun 93 00:28:59 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 945
Greg Fried here.
Adam Reynolds:
Thanks for sharing your rules on sorcery. There's a lot to digest here. If
I have the chance to play-test it in my campaign, I'll let you know how it
works in terms of game balance. In principle, I liked your ideas about skill
with individual runes, but until I play test the sytem of aquiring the
skills, it's hard to get a sense of how it all comes together. Thanks for
the effort!
---------------
Sam Phillips:
Haven't SotB, SC, and RoC satisfied your now well-documented RQ lusts?
Admittedly we still don't have anything new quite like Cults of Prax or
Trollpack to give players that total immersion in a cultural persona, but the
RQ Renaissance materials go a long way, no? Also, while I basically agree
with you in spirit on 'Roles, not Rules!', there are some areas which
definitely need improvement (like sorcery).
---------------
Bob Mace:
Your SCA-inspired thoughts on brawling-combat are much appreciated. You say
that actions like a surprise head-butt, kick to the shin, or even pulling a
tapestry down over an opponent happen when they are "convenient" and should
not be thought of as occurring at some (rolled) advantage -- that these
actions simply happen in additon to other actions in a round and should be
considered as part of a good skill in combat. But that still leaves us with
less interesting (tho perhaps you disagree) combats, where rarer combat
skills never get used! So again: how do we encourage players to use a
variety of skills in combat, if not at some advantage? I can't think of some
mechanic whereby a GM could roll and then say, "Sorry Ruric, your miss last
round left you off balance and your only real option is to try a trip!" To
say that an action would be convenient, moreover, it seems to me, would imply
that it CAN be performed at a bonus; noticing the opportunity for such an
advantage was the idea behind 'combat sense', but I'll drop this discussion
if no one else shows interest, or take it to the RQ IV journal!
---------------
Nick Brooke:
You make convincing arguments in the ongoing discussion of how which runes
relate to which stats. My view on this debate is: drop it, but NOT because
it's not important! Rather, first we should come up with the formal sorcery
system, and we don't have to know exactly which stats go with which runes to
do that. Once that is done, why can't there be different or competing
schools of sorcery which interpret the wheel of elements (and the runes in
general differently)? THAT is when this debate gets interesting again. In
the Gloranthan theogony, we read of a Philosophical Ag: "The Philosophic Age
is concerned with abstractions. Most people can't understand much about such
things and so little is said of this era. When two experts on this stage
disagree most normal people can't tell what the savants are arguing about."
(p. 15, Glorantha Book, Genertela Pack). The meaning of the runes from which
the cosmos is formed are thus still in dipute, and so why should there not be
different sorcery schools based on different interpretations? If gods as
different as Humakt and Lhankor Mhy can both draw on the same Truth rune to
produce different magics, why cannot different magic schools also employ the
runes differently? This would allow us to develop different histories for
the different schools, just as now cult histories grant different spells
(rather than one list, as in D&D!). A school with a system that interprets
Fire as INT mightbe in serious philosophical (if not material!) conflict with
the school that interprets Moon as INT (amongst other things), as might the
sorcerers of the Red Moon.
By the way, I loved your response to where you came up with the story about
the Pharoh: "Same place as Greg Stafford does, to tell the truth: I made it
up, tested it, found other people believed in it, and then went public."
This is the myth-making attitude that keeps RQ alive! Now why not keep it in
mind for developing histories of sorcery schools after we have the formal
rules set?
That's probably more than enough!
---------------------
From: tsl@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Tim Leask)
Subject: Conditions on Enchantments
Message-ID: <9306040054.17648@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: 4 Jun 93 15:54:24 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 946
Here is my two cents worth on conditions on enchantments.
I think that they are way too open to abuse.
Under the current RQIII rules it's possible to create any sort of divination
instrument you want. If I put a trigger condition on a wand that says if
an illumimate comes within range cast light or better still if a Krashti
initiate comes within range, or a trickster etc. etc. There needs to be
a rationale behind the discrimination that is required for the condition to
work.
I think that conditions should require the presence of some "thing"
during the enchantment to enforce the restriction.Conditions should
be extremely basic in nature. Conditions of the
form "creatures with darksense","members of the Pavic council" ,
"those over the age of 21" should be invalid.
I suggest conditions along the following lines:
(User conditions)
i) the item is only useable by those who were in physical contact with
the item when it was enchanted (this always includes the caster(s) of the spell)
ii) a member of the same cult as the caster (caster and user both must be
active initiates or higher in the same cult).
iii) a member of the same race as the caster
iv) a member of the same bloodline as the blood used during the enchantment
e.g. Duke Raus pricks his finger so that Daryli can add a further enchantment
to the Rone Sword, but restricts the use to either Raus,his ancestors or
his descendants.
Trigger Conditions should require a detection method built into the enchantment.
e.g. A spirit bound into the item who enforces the trigger condition,
the spirit will trigger the spell when it THINKS the condition is satisfied.
If a a spirit isn't used then an appropriate detection spell must be included
as part of the enchantment. e.g. detect life, detect enemy etc.
Comments anyone?
Tim
================================================================================
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
================================================================================
---------------------
From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
Subject: Combat Sense and Sense in Combat
Message-ID: <9306040102.AA28156@hp2.zycor.lgc.com>
Date: 4 Jun 93 01:02:20 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 947
>> From: dickmj@postman.essex.ac.uk
>> Subject: Re: Odds and sods
>> Date: 1 Jun 93 19:09:58 GMT
>>
>> Close Combat
>> ...
>> draw scenery, etc. on). Using the RQIV engagement rules, as soon as you
>> get within 3 hexes (meters) of a pike wielder, you have to stop unless
>> you can beat your opponent in a maneuver contest.
>>
>> An example of a few weapons;
>>
>> Weapon 3m 2m 1m PB
>> Pike x1 x.5 Bt x0
>> 1H sword x0 x0 x1 Bt
>> ...
>> Buckler x1 x1 x1 x1
>>
>> Where 'Bt' means you have to use the butt of your weapon.
Are you defining 'butt' to also include the shaft of a hafted weapon?
Otherwise, I'd hate to see someone try to sweep a pike in a 180 degree
arc in order to strike with the true butt.
As for the shields, you mean parry, right? ( 8-) ).
The larger clumsier shields such as the Hoplite, Scutum and Kite shields
should be used as they are for missiles, when at point blank range. ( Define
what is completely covered, and what is not - there's no skill involved )
>> If your enemy is at your ideal weapon length i.e at the x1 range, but
>> you aren't at theirs, then they must decalre their actions first; the
>> person who has the advantage can better anticipate their adversarie's moves.
I also like the idea of 'advantage' here.
There is still a problem, though. This ties in to a generic problem RQ suffers
regarding extremes of size. Suppose you have a Great Troll with a 2H Sword.
He's fighting a Duck with a 2H Sword. Why is the _base_ damage the same?
Sure, the troll gets a damage mod, and because of the size _of_the_troll_
he gets either a SR or other advantage at longer ranges.
The point is this: the weapons may be used with the same skill, and in the same
style, but they would not be the same weapon. There should be about 2-3 feet of
difference in the lengths of the weapons, yet there's no further SR mod.
Related beef: why is a damage mod a universal value, and not proportional to
the damage of the weapon? Why does strength affect thrusting weapons as much
as lever weapons? I've had physics, and that's just not right. ( One of the few
things I like about Gurps is that someone finally figured that one out. )
>> From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
>> Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Sat, 29 May 1993, part 1
>> Date: 1 Jun 93 18:27:08 GMT
>>
>>
>> Someone (sorry, I forget who!) quite reasonably said something to the effect
>> of: "'Combat sense'?! Ach! Phooey! Another skill to clog up character
>> sheets! Away with it -- and 'Maneuver' too while yer at it!" Fiar enough.
>> I don't much care for Maneuver either -- just use a DEX roll. But the
I'd have to say that I would find use for both. Maneuvering in Combat is no more
"just roll DEX" material than is the weapon, the shield, or for that matter the
other Agility and manipulation skills.
Combat Sense sounds like a decent way to do four things:
1. Encourage more colorful, realistic combats.
2. Help help/hinder the players and the gm so that improbably well-coordinated
activities are either forbidden by a die roll, or explained by a die roll.
3. Set Warriors and Duelists apart from common Soldiers.
4. Give ducks a chance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - ---john j medway----------- - - - -
-- - - - - - - ---jmedway@zycor.lgc.com--- - - - - - - - --
--- - - - - - - ---landmark/zycor---------- - - - - - - - ---
---- - - ---512/292-2325------------ - - - ----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell)
Subject: Reusable Rune Magic plus Sorcery
Message-ID: <9306040157.AA16439@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>
Date: 4 Jun 93 05:58:34 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 948
>From: marks@slough.mit.edu (Mark S. c/o Tom Yates)
> Sorcery
>
> I am somewhat surprised at the current discussion of "fixes"
>for the RQIII sorcery rules. Wouldn't it be more useful to talk
>about the RQIV sorcery draft? The holes have been fixed, Free
Indeed it would be if all of us had access to the RQIV sorcery
draft rules, but the draft that was made available over the net
did not include them (thanks again to the person who sent it out,
and my apologies for forgetting who it was). Would Oliver Jovanovic
(hope I spelt that right) mind if the older draft rules were posted,
if anyone has them?
>Int has been abolished, long duration is much tougher, and
>Stafford has been consulted about the societal implications.
I heard that casting a long duration spell now requires the
sacrifice of a point of POW: is this true?
>(One interesting Staffordian insight - spirits are *much* less
>available in the West.) (Which is to be expected, *our* dead go
>to Solace) (or perhaps the Praxians are correct, and monotheists
>are fools without souls)
>
> The rewriting of the Runequest rules is quite properly
>following an evolutionary, not a revolutionary, course. Many
Actually, I suspect a lot of the old RQII players (ie the
Glorantha addicts) would prefer a radical change, especially
a more runic system. (Well, I'll be honest: I would.)
>
> Some of the problems people have with sorcery probably
>results from the disastrous RQIII decision to present sorcery
>outside of it's social context. Playing in a Western Campaign
>can give one a greater appreciation of the culture and religion
>of the West, and of the effects of sorcery on play.
It will give you an appreciation of your _GM's opinion_ of the
Western system. I find what's written on the west rather skimpy and
contradictory, as I've said before. I'm not sure how accurate the
medieval comparison is, given the differences between Malkionism and
Christianity.
> Indeed, the many of the problems found in the unfamiliar
>RQIII sorcery system go unnoticed in the comfortable familiar
>Divine Magic system. Some have decried the effect of long
>duration sorcery, yet the extension spell can have an equivalent
>effect, take the following example:
>
This is a very good point, but remember that the divine magician
won't be able to recover those spells while they are in force. While
the rules for rune-magic cost don't cover this, as a GM I would
make such a casting much more expensive for that reason.
> Note also that there are more acolytes and priests to create
>extension matrices than there are sorcerers to create sorcery
>matrices.
Are there? I agree that it is easier (in many cults) to become
a priest than an adept.
Extension matrices will work with any spell. Sorcery
>matrices will only work on one spell. Divine magic users can
>also use Truestone. In the Sun County temple there is a
>Truestone with extension 28.
Good point though: I've always thought that Truestone seems
to be geared purely towards rune magicians. I wonder what
advantages could be created for other types of magicians.
Truestone could work as a universal binding enchantment for
shamans, for example.
> Changing Rune Magic
>
> Giving initiates reusable rune magic creates a world much
>more magical than the Glorantha I have read about. Would any
>reasonable person become a priest if that meant that they would
>have to give up 80% of their time and income in return for
>regaining spells on a seasonal rather than yearly basis? I
>think not. Initiates already get magic they can use again and
>again. Spirit magic.
It's been pointed that many of the published stories show initiates
throwing rune-magic all over the place. I think that the current
system doesn't reflect the world as described.
I'd like initiates to get re-usable rune magic, even if rarely,
just because it distinguishes between the cults more effectively.
While the more limited spirit spell lists of RQIII help in
this regard, eventually characters, especially ones with a lot
of experience, tend to start looking very similar in their spirit
spell lists, due to magic items or even going to shamans. It
is the rune-magic that is only available to particular cults
which make a real difference, but players almost never cast them,
due to the vast expense in POW.
My GM, who just ran RoC for us, said that the scenario seemed to
have a different system for recovering rune magic, at least in
matrices. In the scenario, we just had to attend a successful
worship ceremony to get the matrices completely refilled, even
when they had four points of re-usable rune magic in them. This
may have been due to Zola Fel's particular interest in us, I
suppose, but it appealed to my GM as a better system for
recovering reusable rune magic than the current one, due
to making players want to attend those worship ceremonies.
We (Gary James, my GM, and I, not the royal "we") proposed a
system like this:
Worship Ceremony Priests get Acolytes get Initates get
weekly All spells 1 point back nothing
back
seasonal Ditto All spells 1 point back
back
High Holy day Same again ditto All spells back.
So a priest can regain all his spells in a week, an acolyte in
a season, and an initiate in a year. If rapid recovery of spells
is vital, and enough initiates are available, a priest can
schedule more worship ceremonies in a week.
Opinions? Flames? Comments on how gross it is?
>
> Mark Sabalauskas
>.................................................................
> It's better to steal the Candle of Eternal Light than to
>curse the darkness. - God Learner Proverb
Too many elves make a great stew! -Troll Proverb?
>
>From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
>Graeme Lindsell in X-RQ-ID: 917 on the same line:
>>
>Agreed concerning the way long duration spells can ruin the world. As a
>limitation for limiting the maximum no. of spells that a sorcerer can
>maintain, how about an analogy with rune magic: as you can't regain a rune
>spell that is still in effect, you can't regain the magic points equal
>to the intensity of a spell that is still in effect. It could be argued
>that those MP are needed to keep the spell in existence
><
>Sorry, the spirit wielding character is the shaman, not the sorcerer.
I am quite aware of this. I am referring to bound POW spirits.
>If he's a tapper, he'll just use tapped magic points, which are lost
>anyway. If not a tapper, why make him evil (not being able to regain magic
>points is a characteristic trait of the undead, e.g. ghouls/ghoul
>spirits)?
The ability to drain POW is a feature of Chaos: does this mean DI is
chaotic in nature? (Yes, I am aware DI is voluntary, and the comparison
isn't good, but neither is the undead one)
What I said was that while the spell is still in force, the magic points
cannot be regenerated, they are locked up in keeping the spell going.
After the spell expires, the points can then be regenerated as usual. I
prefer this to what I hear is the system used in RQIV (sacrificing 1 POW
to get a longer duration, but not permanent, spell). While it is nasty
to keep bound spirits at low magic points, it isn't soul destroying if
they can regenerate, otherwise using any bound POW spirit would be
considered evil.
>
>About Malkioni:
>> After all, they do get a reply to their sacrifice.
>
>Do they? GoG doesn't mention this explicitly.
Doesn't it say this in the description of Worship Invisible God?
>Joerg Baumgartner
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
Research School of Chemistry Phone: (06) 249 3575
Australian National University Fax: (06) 249 0750
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
From: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au (Graeme Lindsell)
Subject: Pharoah and Infinity
Message-ID: <9306040308.AA18355@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>
Date: 4 Jun 93 07:09:39 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 950
>From: 100270.337@CompuServe.COM (Nick Brooke)
>_________________________
>Graeme Lindsell asked me:
>
>> Where did you find this information about the Pharoah?
>
>Same place as Greg does, to tell the truth: I made it up, tested it, found
>other people to believe in it, and then went public.
Nothing wrong with that. Actually, a heck of a lot right with that.
Though you might recall that refs to Wyrm's Footnotes are pretty
useless to me, unless I can photcopy them from someone, or TORM
MEGACORP (has to be in CAPITAL LETTERS, if it's a MEGACORP),
decides to reprint some of them.
>> 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.
>
>I think it's because, like Uleria, he only really possesses the Rune he is
>the master of. In this sense, it's an alternative convention to listing
>that Rune twice. Uleria has Life/Love/Fertility and nothing else; Flamal
>has Plant and nothing else. I know which I'd prefer to control...
Actually, I thought it was more to do with Uleria's age, and universal
appeal to people with the Man rune...
If what you say is true, could you list Mostal, two stasis in GoG as
I recall, as Stasis/Infinity? This could be appropiate, given that
Mostal=World Machine
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
From: DScott@snail.demon.co.uk (David Scott)
Subject: Sorcery, etc.
Message-ID: <9306040746.aa19468@post.demon.co.uk>
Date: 4 Jun 93 06:48:29 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 951
Ive lurking on the Digest for quite a while now, and a few things have finally
prompted me to now put in a show.
The first: SORCERY. Why the great obsesion, why the enormous postings, Why the
long debates, and WHY does everyone post their new system. I want to read about
Glorantha (and participate) GOD ITS ANNOYING ME.
My simple solution - find someone willing to run a RQ sorcery supplement
mailing list (preferably not me, and I would say preferably not Henk, unless he
wants some more work?!), a bit like the old supplements the digest used to
produce. Is there anyone else out there annoyed about this as well - speak up
now before this becomes the RQ Sorcery digest.
More discussion on the socio-cultural fabric of Western society, sort that out
and the system will follow (much later).
The Rune/Stat debate........
While talking to Sandy Petersen at Convulsion92 he had these in his HeroQuest
system;
Darkness=POW
Storm=STR
Earth=CON
Fire=INT
Water=DEX
Im not saying that this should be definative. Have what ever you like, as long
as youre consistant.
I also peronally have;
APP=Moon for Lunar cultures (Cyclic time supporters) and some social/cult
groupings (Blue Moon)
APP=Truth for Believers in linear time (Orlanthi, Malkioni, etc) and some
social/cult groupings (Humakt)
APP=Illusion for tricksters etc.
You will probably spot some problems with cults that have both runes, but isnt
life fun. Im completely flexable about the whole thing.
Animals(non-sentient) dont have APP
Deezola was probably a Priestess of an Earth Cult, who somehow developed a
connection with stasis. In David Halls listing of her rune magic, we see that
these are linked to stasis (preservation). These spells are what obviously
stopped Teelo Norris body from decaying after her death in the Ritual. The
Arachne Solara business may just be a lunar fabrication - makes her sound
mysterious though.
Sandwiches on the Edge of Time
DScott@snail.demon.co.uk 158.152.16.30
22 Holdernesse Rd LONDON UK 081-682-2138
---------------------
From: MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: RQ Daily News Thu, 03 Ju{, 1993
Message-ID: <01GYZLMSDMSK90N0MV@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 5 Jun 93 04:34:33 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 952
Attention: Sam Phillips - S.Phillips@Glasgow.UK.AC
I tried e-mailing you but couldn't get through for some reason. Could
you please get in touch, regarding the baring of your soul in today's RQ
DAILY NEWS.
Cheers,
MOB
Tales of the Reaching Moon.