(Message rqd:13)
Return-Path:
Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (sunnl) by homeland.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA01389; Sat, 5 Jun 93 17:15:54 +0200
Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e)
id AA27530; Sat, 5 Jun 93 17:15:48 +0200
Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA01391; Sat, 5 Jun 93 17:15:16 +0200
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 17:15:16 +0200
Message-Id: <9306051515.AA01391@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, Sat, 05 Jun 1993, part 1
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: rking@scopus.com (Robyn King-Nitschke)
Subject: re: Sorcery, etc.
Message-ID: <9306041554.AA00720@scopus.com>
Date: 4 Jun 93 15:54:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 957
<>
And I thought it was just me! :-)
I'm also a "Digest lurker" who's been reading for a few weeks now. Since I'm
only interested in RQII (and those RQIII rules that fit in with RQII), all this
sorcery stuff is of no interest to me, either. Basically, I just delete it
without reading most of it.
On the plus side, though, it gives me a lot of stuff to delete so I don't fill up
my disk with all the nifty cult writeups and discussions of Humakti philosophy
that I like so much! :-)
Me, I'd prefer not to see so much Sorcery discussion, but if that's what people
are into, I'll just keep on deleting it and reading the stuff I"m interested in.
--Rat
rking@scopus.com
---------------------
From: arthurr@thuban.crd.ge.com
Subject: All this talk of Sorcery
Message-ID: <9306041614.AA05278@megrez.ail>
Date: 4 Jun 93 16:14:16 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 958
A long time ago I posted here a system that I developed
as an alternative to Sorcery (which I called Wizardry).
It has been paytested quite a bit in my own and Erich
Schmidt's campaigns, and I wondered if anyone else has
tried it out or has comments. If you missed the posting
in Andrew Bell's RQ discussions 28 and 29 (Jan 17-19,
1992) and would like to look at this system, please
send a request to arthurr@thuban.crd.ge.com.
I would say that it is good at providing individuals with
powers that fit more classic "Wizard/Warlock/Witch" roles,
without becoming overcumbersome at game time (like RQ3
sorcery). It leans towards the powerful side, but is
easily tamed by restricting access to spells. Its weakness
is that no attempt has been made to integrate it into
Glorantha history/myth proper. That was because we were
running in our own worlds. It should be fairly easily
adapted to the (Western?) sorcerors or possibly even some
God-learning stuff... (an ancient, lost magic form).
- Rick, currently Taloris Bladewind of Sartar
---------------------
From: hebert@uclink.berkeley.edu (Brian Hebert)
Subject: Social Interaction Model
Message-ID: <44000.hebert@uclink.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 4 Jun 93 19:13:19 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 959
Thanks for the feedback on the Social Unit Model which I posted
Wednesday. I want to clarify for Joerg that I wasn't proposing adding
anything to PC or NPC sheets. My idea was to quantify the attitudes of
*social groups* not individuals.
The warnings of Greg Fried and Nick Brooke on the pitfalls of creating
an overly mechanized system are well taken.
Perhaps the best use of such a system (if one exists) would be as Greg
suggests, simply for GM reference. The cult compatibility charts (from CoP
etc.) are useful but limited by their matrix format to a certain level of
detail. These profiles could serve as a form of exploded compatibility
chart. Hmm?
Anyway, enough on that. (I wonder, do you get weapon skill checks for
beating a dead horse?)
Brian
---------------------
From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 04 Jun 1993, part 2
Message-ID:
Date: 4 Jun 93 19:44:52 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 960
Greg Fried here.
Mark Sabalauskas:
Many, many of us dislike the RQ3 sorcery. We want something with more
flavor! There is a legitimate concern for players, not to mention published
material, already committed to the RQ3 sorcery system. I have addressed this
broadly in other postings: once we have the basic rune-based sorcery system
in place, why not just proclaim by fiat that all supplements and characters
using the RQ3 system simply represent one of the many historical schools of
magic? Then each campaign can choose to keep or chuck it as it sees fit.
--------
John Castellucci:
Yeee-Haw! The check is in the mail.
--------
John Medway:
Thanks for the support (finally!) on combat sense! Anything to give ducks a
fighting chance!
--------
Joerg:
Yes, I do have more material available from my East Isles campaign. I have
cult write-ups and also a scenario I am working on to submit to "Tales".
However, since you are the only reader to show any interest in the Uralog
cult (Henk -- you say there was a glitch in the weekend mailing -- could that
be why?), I am loathe to send in any more material to clog up the RQ Daily.
Someone wrote in the last issue that there's too much discussion of rules
(esp. sorcery) and not enough Glorantha. So people, do let me know if you
want more of that stuff, cause i for one certaily wouldn't want to impose it
on you without some expression of interest. Otherwise, Joerg, I'd be happy
to send stuff to you at your e-mail address. Bitte mich darueber mitteilen!
-- Greg Fried
---------------------
From: WALLMAN@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (Ed Wallman)
Subject: where we play in glorantha
Message-ID: <01GYZIB5FL6A0000VY@VAX2.Winona.MSUS.EDU>
Date: 4 Jun 93 10:56:37 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 961
What I really want to post my convincing explanations of why the air
rune is REALLY associated with INT and why the fire rune is REALLY
opposite the beast rune. But I will post this instead.
WHERE WE PLAY IN GLORANTHA: First, I run things in Glorantha's history
to take advantage of all the material available. Second, I run things
in places where I know there will be no material coming out to contradict
me (This was mainly because I do not have RQ2 material and I was waiting
for the end of the great void - we will soon be moving to Prax).
Two such campaign regions follow...
Old campaign circa 1520. My players were Orlanthi from Maniria. They
ended up being spys/messengers/thugs for a would be king of Ramalia.
They caused a lot of trouble there (why do you think it ends up being an
enemy kingdom?). I sort of got turned off to the undetailed Western
culture and the icky sorcery rules here, but we had fun.
Current campain circa 1580. My players are from the island of Alatan, cut
off from the rest of the world by the closing. When Dormal arrived, the
king of Alatan first welcomed him, then tried to kill him and take his
secrets. I thought the players went along with their king just to role
play, but it turns out they knew less about Glorantha than I thought and
did not even know who Dormal was (is). Needless to say, Jobar was killed,
Dormal is now sailing into godhood, and Alatan is now busily building
itself up to become a pirate state. A war with Holy Country is due in a
year or so.
---------------------
From: 100270.337@CompuServe.COM (Nick Brooke)
Subject: Civility!
Message-ID: <930604211011_100270.337_BHB83-1@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 4 Jun 93 21:10:11 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 962
___________
Greg Fried:
You ask, reasonably enough,
> ...why can't there be different or competing schools of
> sorcery which interpret the wheel of elements (and the
> runes in general) differently?
> 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?
You're right. And, temperamentally, I accept that I am one of those futile
doddering old greybeards who's happy to argue the Gloranthan equivalents of
"What is the vocative form of Ego?" or "How many angels can dance on the
head of a pin?"
> When two experts on this stage disagree, most normal people
> can't tell what the savants are arguing about.
Ah, but that's why we have to "Educate, Agitate and Organise"! How else
will they learn?
Actually, I think the argument is interesting in a broader perspective than
*just* worrying about what the various "schools of sorcery" believe. If
the Runes are really at the base of everything, then their associations
ought to permeate the fabric of the game system. It is *called* RuneQuest,
after all, though it'd be hard to say why these days...
_____________
Steve Gilham:
> I fear that we are going to be stuck with the one-size-fits-all
> generic mythic-Europe system of RQ3 for reasons only of
> backward compatibility with a system that no-one really likes &
> has no Gloranthan feel to it.
What a terrible fear! Tell us it's not true, somebody...
Y'know, it strikes me that if RQ3 sorcery is such a *fine* system already,
the guys who love it (Dustin) can carry on using it while we forge ahead
into the obscure Gloranthicisms of RQ4...
________________
Graeme Lindsell:
>> The rewriting of the RuneQuest rules is quite properly
>> following an evolutionary, not a revolutionary, course.
>
> Actually, I suspect a lot of the old RQII players
> (i.e: the Glorantha addicts) would prefer a radical
> change, especially a more runic system. (Well, I'll
> be honest: I would.)
Me too. Even sorcery can evolve into something more interesting. And
what's the point of having a workable grammar of Runes, if you don't use
them?
________________
Eduardo Horvath:
This was a very sensible analysis of sorcery in society. Authors on this
subject tend to forget that, just as Rune Priests serve a primarily
socio-magical role, so too do the Wizards of the West. If you write
sorcery rules that only deal with sorcerers' perceptions of the world, you
are engaged in essentially barren work. They have to eat. People have to
want their wizards to survive. Drawing the parallels with RQ2 (Knight =
Rune Lord, Wizard = Rune Priest, peasant = nobody much) is probably useful:
it will at least remind other authors to consider the other sides of
society.
> If we plan to have a set of rules covering sorcery,
> they will, by definition, appear mechanistic.
Yeah? Like the Rune magic and spirit magic systems do? I don't see why
sorcery has to be so much more dead and soulless than the other systems.
Or do you suppose this is a cleverly manipulative way the RQ authors are
using to prejudice us against these vile atheists?
> I think knights should be denied all access to magic, even
> enchanted armor and weapons. This is not a very big
> disadvantage, because a knight armored in unenchanted
> iron plate is almost completely immune to all magic.
I read "Son of Sartar #4" (written back at the dawn of time) for the first
time yesterday, in which Greg proposed that Hrestoli knights gave up their
ability to use any form of magic in exchange for magic-resistant iron
armour. So you're unwittingly on the same track! (Always nice to find
that's happened). In #3 he wrote about the traditional enmity between
Hrestoli knights and Zzaburi wizards...
> We don't want this to only work in Glorantha.
*I* do. That is, I don't mind at all if it does only work here. I like
being in Glorantha, and don't want my enjoyment to be reduced by the
blandly generic nature of the sorcery rules. If you like other worlds, you
can adapt ideas from other game systems. But making something
good'n'Gloranthan is hard work. Nobody else is going to do it for us.
Your suggestions for Things Sorcerers Can Do looked interesting. Leave it
to the Game Balance folks to argue the case against: I quite liked the look
of some of them.
___________
Tom Zunder:
What a neat idea: using special combat (and other) "sub-skills" as a
Gloranthan / mainstream equivalent to Land of Nihon's Ki powers. I've
always been taken by the idea of including these in mainstream RQ, as they
make "Skill Mastery" mean something once again -- now anybody can teach,
it's as if the only point of getting 90% skill is to qualify for various
ranks, which is a profoundly mechanical approach.
Anybody know why it's 90% and not 100%, incidentally?
> Now we know that Lunars have moon boats.
Do you think they're hot air balloons propelled by the Red Moonlight, too?
Moving towards the moon, away from it, or tacking at an angle, depending on
which way they turn the red and black halves of the moon-rock-coated
sphere; speed of propulsion dependent on Lunar phase (outside the
Glowline). That would explain why they don't turn up in a military context
in Dragon Pass: you can imagine what Orlanthi Rune magic could do to one
outside the protective safety of the Glowline and Molanni's Still Air...
____________
Boris Mikey:
> Magic, even in a magic rich world such as Glorantha,
> should be mysterious and uncertain.
Agree with the sentiment and the approach. This looks like a good moment
to chuck in my ha'penn'orth (mechanics, I'm afraid). Something we tested
last Sunday was a Spirit Magic casting die-roll of 1D20 against POW (rather
than the old POWx5 +- Magic Bonus - ENC on 1D100). Similar to some
Pendragon mechanics. My original idea was this:
Success (roll < POW) meant you could cast up to the number of points of
spell you had rolled on the die. So if you wanted to cast Bladesharp 6 but
rolled a "2", you could only put up two points. If you were trying for a
hefty fixed-cost spell (Lightwall at four points), you'd need to roll
between 4 and your POW to succeed.
Critical success (roll = POW) meant you could cast as many points of the
spell as you owned, for one Magic Point only.
Failure (roll > POW) was no trouble.
Fumble (roll = 20) meant you wasted a Magic Point.
This could be trimmed to fit your own conceptions: Failure might cost 1 MP
and Fumble the full number you were meaning to cast, if you like penalising
people for screwing up.
Then, I got a weird idea and tried it:
A success meant that, at the moment of spellcasting, the maximum number of
points of spirit magic you could have running was equal to the die roll.
So if I've cast my Protection 5 and want to get Bladesharp 3, but roll a 6
( 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?
Well, I'll ask my vicar about that some day. Seriously, though, there is
*far* more to cult rank than magic. Think of the social advantages and
responsibilities of having your own little flock of initiates / villagers
at your beck and call. Of talking to God on a daily or weekly basis. I'd
go for it! (How much time does a nobleman "give up" to enjoy the
perquisites of his rank?)
_________________
John Castellucci:
Have you got anybody distributing your fanzine in the UK (and doubling your
market), yet? I liked what I saw of issue #1, though the libels against
our clan were deeply uncalled for! Honestly! Broos at the Big Elm!
Whatever next?
_____________
Brian Hebert:
Sorry I pissed you off yesterday by cruelly dismissing your enthusiastic
suggestion for a mechanism to regulate social attitudes. But, to cover the
same ground at somewhat greater length, *unless* we know what kind of
people Pavisites (etc.) are, we can't work out how to fit them into a
"collective personality sheet". And *if* we know what kind of people they
are, we don't really need that any more.
It could work. Some people (the Mostali?) might use it. But it's probably
easier to write up the insights into cultural attitudes that you would put
into such a system in plain English than to do so in comprehensible /
usable rules-speak (rather than as a chain of disjointed numbers, which
anyone can write). And, at the end of the day, it's not going to shackle
us evil improvisational game-masters at all (unless we find we enjoy the
extra constraint...).
More broadly, there's the thorny question of the RuneQuest applicability of
Personality Traits. Let me say first and foremost that I *love* them in
Pendragon. At first approach, I thought "Argh! Greg is trying to kill
role-playing!" But once I'd seen how they worked in practice, in that
game, I was hooked.
The problem is, Pendragon is a one-culture game. Even if you're not a
Christian Chivalrous Knight, you are rated as if you were one by the game
system. Fair enough: I like being chivalrous, or being penalised for
falling short; it's appropriate to the genre. But in RQ we have to find a
set of traits that would be equally valid for rating a Lunar Illuminate, an
Orlanthi Wind Lord, a Dara Happan Patriarch, a Troll Matriarch, or a Duck
("A Duck what?" Who cares: just a Duck), *without* leaving any of them
looking on the character sheet face as if they were naughty people with no
moral sensibilities ("What do you mean, calling me 'Selfish'? I'm
'Frugal'!").
It *might* be possible to do it by, say, attaching different (favourable or
prejudicial) names to a set of opposed traits, represented by the constant
eight or ten Power Runes: Orlanthi would consider Stasis "Stuffy" while
Yelmic types might call it "Grave" or "Dignified". Vice versa, Orlanth
would have "Loving" where Yelm would have "Lustful" for the Life/Fertility
rune. I've not spent any time developing this, yet; has anyone else out
there taken steps in this direction (to save me the work)?
Then you could pull in the Elements to run as Passions, as in Pendragon's
(unopposed) Love, Hate, Fear: is that Earth, Storm, Darkness so far...?
Plus Moon for Insanity (most people don't have this one!), Fire for Pride
(Modesty not being a particularly Gloranthan trait, so this is unopposed).
That leaves Water unattached -- some kind of vagabond nomadic Wanderlust
might be appropriate? (The kind of thing most sightseeing PCs seem to
develop). I honestly don't know.
That's a rambling chain of thought, not a finished suggestion. Develop it,
ignore it, criticise it, refute it. Rudely, if you want.
====
Nick
====
"You can't make an omelette without breaking wind"
---------------------
From: ccwf@cns.caltech.edu (Charles Fu)
Subject: Bob Mace's convenient combat maneuvers
Message-ID: <9306042151.AA02978@buddha.cns.caltech.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 93 21:51:22 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 963
I tend to agree with Bob Mace that things like a kick should be considered as
occurring as part of the normal actions occurring during a round. This does
mean, however, that a combatant with 50% sword and kick at base is at no
disadvantage to an opponent with 50% sword and has a mastery in kick
(assuming, as will usually be the case, that the sword is still the preferred
attack). For GM's who really want to encourage development of the kick, punch,
and head butt, they could borrow a mechanic from other game systems--the idea
of a complementary skill. Basically, the idea is that when more than one skill
is applicable to a situation, a percentage of the secondary skill can be added
to the chance for success. Admittedly, this is a rather colorless way of
modeling the extra ability of the kick master. Perhaps, if the bonus from the
kick skill makes the difference between a hit and a miss, then the player
actually winds up kicking the opponent instead of hitting with the sword.
Something along these lines would obviously add to the complexity of combat
but might satisfy some GMs. I don't really want to spend time fleshing out
possible mechanics but would be interested in what thoughts others might have
on this issue.
-ccwf
---------------------
From: ccwf@cns.caltech.edu (Charles Fu)
Subject: Thoughts on the maneuver skill
Message-ID: <9306042233.AA03011@buddha.cns.caltech.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 93 22:33:28 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 964
Joerg Baumgartner writes:
One reason why I don't like any combat grid - it leads to the impression
that characters dig in their heels an stand and fight. No circling, no
backing up/rushing forth/closing up.
While this was certainly the case in my years of playing RQII, I have reason
to believe the situation will be different under the RQIV draft rules. I have
not had the opportunity to playtest the draft combat rules, but, as I have
previously pointed out, they are _extremely_ similar to the melee rules in The
Fantasy Trip, especially if you get rid of the maneuver skill and just assume
automatic success in most situations. Anyways, TFT combats occurred on a hex
grid, and 1 on 1 combats involved a fair amount of circling back and forth,
trying to flank the opponent and/or trying to back the opponent up onto
unfavorable terrain (using knockback). In 2 on 1 and 3 on 1 combat, circling
is very important as the lone defender attempts to prevent the attackers from
getting a shot from behind. Actually, out and circling is not as common as
just shifting back and forth a hex. All of this fits my intuition well. Also,
when there are many combatants in a formation, this maneuvering becomes
unimportant except at the flanks. This also fits my intuition.
Closing is different than under TFT however, so I will reserve comments on
this until I have had the opportunity to playtest. Basically, I just wanted to
comment that when a system makes facing and flanking important, attempts to
flank will occur, even on a combat grid.
-ccwf