Bell Digest v930818p2

(Message inbox:9)
Return-Path: rowe@soda.berkeley.edu 
Delivery-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 21:16:08 -0700
Received: from localhost.Berkeley.EDU by soda.berkeley.edu (5.65/KAOS-1)
	id AA16446; Mon, 18 Oct 93 21:16:04 -0700
Resent-Message-Id: <9310190416.AA16446@soda.berkeley.edu>
Return-Path: sys@holland.sun.com 
Delivery-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 22:36:50 -0700
Received: from plague-ether.Berkeley.EDU by soda.berkeley.edu (5.65/KAOS-1)
	id AA29907; Tue, 17 Aug 93 22:36:41 -0700
Received: from Sun.COM by plague.Berkeley.EDU (5.65c/CHAOS)
	id AA14720; Tue, 17 Aug 1993 22:22:48 -0700
Received: from snail.Sun.COM (snail.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02099; Tue, 17 Aug 93 22:17:51 PDT
Received: from Holland.Sun.COM (isunnl) by snail.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA00665; Tue, 17 Aug 93 22:17:40 PDT
Received: from glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM by Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1e)
	id AA13285; Wed, 18 Aug 93 07:17:31 +0200
Received: by glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA29650; Wed, 18 Aug 93 07:15:48 +0200
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 07:15:48 +0200
Message-Id: <9308180515.AA29650@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>
From: RuneQuest-Request@glorantha.holland.sun.com (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@glorantha.holland.sun.com (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 18 Aug 1993, part 2
Reply-To: RuneQuest@glorantha.holland.sun.com (RuneQuest Daily)
Sender: RuneQuest-Request@glorantha.holland.sun.com
Precedence: junk
Resent-To: appel@soda.berkeley.edu
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 21:16:03 -0700
Resent-From: Eric Rowe 
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: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
Subject: healing rq
Message-ID: <9308180257.AA17779@hp0.zycor.lgc.com>
Date: 18 Aug 93 02:57:48 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1409

not healing _&_ rq


>>  From: lstead@access.digex.net (Lew Stead)
>>  Subject: Healing & Such
>>  X-RQ-ID: 1388
>>  
>>   > An obvious way to increase RQ shelf presence would be to re-issue
>>   > the old RQ2 titles unchanged with the original art and all. Why not?
>>   
>>  Because they've already released most of them with new art and titles. 
>>  Really as a Gloranthan junkie who took an almost 10 year hiatus, the only
>>  two new adventure supplements to appear in that period have been Sun Country
>>  and Dorastor.

What about Shadows on the Borderlands?

They could still stand to reissue some things, but most of the old material 
has been reused, all or in part. Re-releasing Pavis or Borderlands would be 
pointless now. There wasn't very full coverage of the Rubble in  R.o.C., but 
enough to also compromise that. What's left?

I still think a book of cults, say an augmented Cults of Prax/Terror would be
worthwhile. As would an updated RuneMasters, with personalities and histories 
and motivations, ( as opposed to just stats ).


>>  From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
>>  Subject: Dorastor?!
>>  X-RQ-ID: 1391
>>
>>  be making?  Well, I've been communicating with a RQ fan in Italy.  He
>>  believes the RQLite would be crucial there for conquering the hords of D&D
>>  barbarians, and I think the same is true here, with a wealth of modules to be
>>  played with these accessible rules.  Let's face it: we may love GLorantha,


This is why I don't like the current "Companion" idea, and am instead in 
favor of a new and simpler rules set. I believe we should work toward a 
RQLite, and to _that_ add a Companion of some of the good work that's been 
done so far with RQ4. Else it'll all disappear.

Arguments about the success of other gamesystems successfully marketing rules 
companions, and concluding that it would boost RQ as a whole, have ignored a 
point which I think is important: the other systems were popular and at least
moderately big-sellers at the time! RQ, sadly, is neither.


>>  From: s.phillips@gla.ac.uk
>>  Subject: RuneCzar,PenDragon Pass,RQ Shelf presence...
>>  X-RQ-ID: 1393
>>  
>>  Hello from Sam Phillips..
>>   
>>    I want to wish Ken Rolston all the best. Despite all harsh words printed
>>  on the daily, many of which have been directed (rightly or wrongly) at him
>>  we all realise and appreciate a man who loves Runequest.

seconded.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  john_medway@zycor.lgc.com  |  Landmark Graphics Corp  |  512.292.2325  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
Subject: healing & rq
Message-ID: <9308180257.AA17771@hp0.zycor.lgc.com>
Date: 18 Aug 93 02:57:37 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1410

>>  From: wadsley@chipmunk.cita.utoronto.ca
>>  Subject: One heal per wound rule.
>>  X-RQ-ID: 1387
>>  
>>  Restricting the use of magical healing to once per wound is very
>>  attractive but it has problems. 
>>  ...
>>  How about making it like the magical shield spells? - Only the
>>  largest version cast counts. Thus a heal 3 cast on a wound with
>>  heal 1 already cast on it only heals 2 more points of damage for a 
>>  total of 3 points. This way you could consistently cast Heal Wound
>>  or Heal Body later as well.

duh, yeah that's pretty sensible. gee sometimes i wonder about myself...


>>  As a related issue: How do people manage First Aid as a skill? Do
>>  you allow repeated attempts until success occurs, one attempt per
>>  user per wound until success or what? I don't like the idea of only
>>  one attempt per wound. Even if the first attempt at bandaging was 
>>  botched, then perhaps another character could see that to be the case
>>  and do a better job.

other than seeing the failed die roll, and unless the first job was 
a total botch ( crit fail ), how likely is someone to notice a poor 
dressing soon enough for first aid to help?


>>  From: JARDINE@RMCS.CRANFIELD.AC.UK
>>  Subject: Healing
>>  X-RQ-ID: 1394

plan to limit spells available to a cult by point value, deleted...

like this idea in principle, but we may have a problem trying to present 
it in a rulesbook form. Maybe list cult spells under categories such as 
Forbidden, Trivial ( 1-2 pt. ), encouraged ( 3-4 pts ), strongly encouraged 
( 5-6 pts ) and unlimited? This would also provide hints to people generating
characters as to what's PC for his/her PC.

>>  than it would be for a Humakti or Orlanthi.  Thus I propose a system where 
>>  the maximum value of a heal spell was limited by cult.  
>>  
>>  Example:
>>  Chalana Arroy 		Unlimited (but remember that spell spirit have d3 POW 
>>  Humakt			Heal 2
>>  Orlanth			Heal 4
>>  Ernalda			Heal 6
>>  Xiola Umbar		Heal 8
>>
>>  	Generally Warrior cults with healing will have only from 2 to 4 points
>>  available depending on myths and runic associations (why should Humakt have 
>>  any healing at all?).  Generally under this system parties would value Ernalda
>>  and Xiola Umbar cultists much more than they do at the moment.  


I understand that the more nurturing cults would have more healing, but 
why limit Humakt more than Orlanth? The tie with Death doesn't mean they 
don't heal the living, else they wouldn't have the reknown as soldiers that
they possess. Why should Xiola Umbar's healing be weaker than Chalana Arroy?

Actually, maybe I should have said "Why limit Orlanth less?" I'd rather see
non-trivial healing in the hands of nurturing and healing cults.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  john_medway@zycor.lgc.com  |  Landmark Graphics Corp  |  512.292.2325  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------