From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 02 Sep 1993, part 1
Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily)
Sender: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM
Precedence: junk
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: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham , via RadioMail)
Subject: Re: Sorcery; Re: Glorantha
Message-ID: <9308280553.AA25568@radiomail.net>
Date: 28 Aug 93 05:41:39 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1482
>From: MCKAY_MICHAEL@tandem.com
>Subject: RQ 3 Sorcery, actually works!
>
> I heard it said many times that the sorcery system from Rune Quest III is
>totally unworkable, or that it leads to grotesque situations.
I never noticed problems, either. (As of last year, I know a lot of the RQ4
changes were intended to address problems at high levels. Having never GMed
or run in a high level campaign, I think that's wasted effort. I think the
sorcery complaints were based on Really Powerful sorcerers.)
>From: MCKAY_MICHAEL@tandem.com
>Subject: Glorantha ? AD&D Conversion Strategy
> I've been low key on this digest for a while. One of the primary reasons
>is that I have not activly played in a Glorantha game since 1984 or so (when
>did Pavis come out?). While I have seen non-Glorantha messages from time
>to time, this does not seem to be a major part of the digest. Would anybody
>object to a medium sized description of using Rune Quest rules in other worlds?
Not at all. (For 12 years, I never ran a Gloranthan RQ game. I did run a
Gloranthan campaign, but with Pendragon rules...)
---------------------
From: ALUMNI107@camins.Camosun.BC.CA
Subject: Modular Rules
Message-ID: <01H29CH6A7PK000B7Y@camins.Camosun.BC.CA>
Date: 27 Aug 93 17:26:46 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1483
D.Dunham suggested building modular rules into Runequest. This would
be fine - but not if this means multiple commercial versions. You
can't split up your market for such a small target audience.
Instead, perhaps an approach similar to that used in some of AH's
board wargames would be useful - 'programmed instruction', introducing
layers of rules step by step, with most layers being entirely
optional. Hero system works this way already, to a small degree.
But I think producing three or more differnt RQ rulebooks would be a
colossal disaster.
Jeff Johnson; .sig agnostic
alumni107@camins.camosun.bc.ca
---------------------
From: mdabbott@aol.com
Subject: Ongoing games
Message-ID: <9308281013.tn62386@aol.com>
Date: 28 Aug 93 14:13:09 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1484
Hi,
I'm new in this list. I've recently moved and haven't found any RQers in my
area. Anybody out there looking for players in the Rhode Island area? I'm
also an experienced GM and would be happy to run a game (I run a heavily
modified form of RQ).
Thanks,
Mark
---------------------
From: C442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (Newton Hughes)
Subject: rqlite initiative idea; also determining crits for dummys
Message-ID: <9308281622.AA04577@Sun.COM>
Date: 28 Aug 93 16:11:29 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1485
Thought I'd run by you an idea for initiative in RQlite. I have
the same point of view as Uncle Ken when it comes to liking to see rules
that are simple and encourage"dramatic maneuver on the tabletop." This
is an attempt to write an initiative rule that gets rid of strike ranks,
statements of intent, multiple actions per round, and simultaneous
movement. The only thing not compatible with rq3 is that I'd use
rq2 move rates. Otherwise this system produces equivalent results.
ACTIONS PER ROUND
Choices are Move, Melee (2 combat actions, chosen from attack, parry,
dodge), Missile (usually 1 shot, but see below for 1/sr weapons), and
Spell (1 spell per round). These choices are mutually exclusive.
(An exception could be made for spells like Speedart.)
INITIATIVE GENERAL RULE
Each round the characters' actions are resolved one at a time in
order of greatest to least DEX. Equal DEX's => simultaneous actions.
The rest consists of exceptions to this rule.
MISSILE FIRE
A character using a "1/SR" missile weapon fires his first shot at
DEX, his second shot at DEX-10, his third at DEX-20, for as long as
his modified DEX >= 0.
SPELLS
Battle magic is begun at the character's DEX and takes effect at
the character's DEX/2. Spell intensity or extra mps do not increase
casting time. Rune magic takes effect instantly at the user's DEX.
FIRST STRIKE
When 2 characters melee attack each other, both characters' attacks
are resolved at the higher DEX. If one character has the long weapon
advantage (counting weapon SR only, not size) then the effect of his
attack is resolved before his opponent's.
---
The intent of all this is to produce a set of rules that does about
everything that the current version does without the complication.
The point of the first strike stuff, for instance, is that long
weapon users always get first strike and that mounted lancers attack
simultaneously. The missile rules make sure that characters get the
exact same number of shots they got with Rq3.
Attacking on the run is not covered; I don't know whether it would
be a good idea to add it or not. Also fleeing from melee may be
too easy for high DEX characters.
Clarification: for weapon reach above, use the weapon srms on the
rq3 weapons charts. SIZ doesn't come into it.
EXTRA BONUS
Here's a system for finding specials, crits and fumbles for skill
levels <= 100%. It requires no multiplication, division, arithmetic
shifts, arithmetical ability, intelligence or table look-ups.
Roll a d20 along with the percentile dice. The percentile dice
roll decides only whether you succeed or not; the d20 tells you
the level of the success or failure, this way:
d20 roll of 1-16 : normal success or failure
" " " 17-19 : special success or normal failure
" " " 20: critical success or fumble
This method can be generalized to work for any skill level, but it
requires a table; I leave it as an exercise for any interested
students.
nh
---------------------
From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu
Subject: Simon's RQLite suggestions
Message-ID: <9308282126.AA17914@sonata.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 28 Aug 93 11:26:41 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1486
I very much like Simon's RQLite schema:
RQLite
RQ Heroes (advanced character gen, advanced combat, etc.)
RQ Magic (sorcery, divine, shamans, etc.)
And other such stuff. The RQLite could work with either third or proposed
fourth edition stuff, and the other books could be more of a "RuneQuest
Glorantha" stuff, which incorporates the fourth edition changes.
---------------------
From: glidedw@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu (Donald Wilton)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Sat, 28 Aug 1993, part 1
Message-ID:
Date: 28 Aug 93 13:36:18 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1487
I feel that a form of spirit magic, would best replace sorcery, in an
RQLite. soercery does permit the addition of non-religious characters, ie
Brythini. this would exist in a world as described, and makes a nice
touch. Throw in a combined skill role, follwed by a spirit magic roll, and
you get a sorcery roll. combined with Divine spells, _that never duplicate
spirit_you get a better balance of magic. If spirit is the only magic as
suggested, why bother to join a religion? go to a shaman, and pay for a
bound spirit with a spell of the type you want.
You wouldn't have the meens to provide for mondo bad guy sorcerers, or
magic whatevers, without a sorcery system. Lunar sorcery makes much of
this possible. shamans wouldn't do this, for it would break the bond to
the spirits. Religoids wouldn't do it, because that breaks dependence on
the gods, and lesens the need for religious magic. It is simpler to
explain. When you convert to a more complex system, the idea of how to run
the character exists, and the player can either die as a Lunar :>, or
switch to a different set of spells.
Donald
---------------------
From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
Subject: have we touched a nerve?
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Aug 93 09:17:51 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1488
Greg Fried here.
Got my TotRM today. A GREAT issue: Gloranthan Oceanography -- especially
welcome to me, who runs a maritime campaign! BUt there's a blurb on the RQ
Digest, and I quote in part" "Though it is encouraging to see that interest
in RQ is such that it can be produced daily, it's a pity so much of it
devoted to rules!" Perhaps I should regret bringing up the subject of
RQLite! But as response has shown, I think it's an important subject.
So before I go on, here's GLoranthan lore question: In Big Rubble (Guide, p.
23) there is mentioned a divinity named Ikadz the Torturer God; he is
worshiped by some broos, but otherwise explained no further. Anyone know
more about this god? I have worked on a torturer god, but he is not a
chaotic. In KoS, Ikadz is only very tangentially mentioned (p. 38), but
there he seems to have influence over Earth fury goddesses.
Rich:
DId it seem to be _Stafford's_ view that RQ is in trouble?! In any case, the
question regarding a Judges Guild-esque publisher of inexpensive RQ products
must depend on licensing issues, which I have no idea about. Anyone? BUt I
fully support the idea.
---
Bryan:
You may have a 180 IQ, but a lot of my players don't! As David wrote, the
problem with RQ is that it is not easy to teach and combats take a long while
to resolve. Personally, I like complex, advanced publications, but I know
the market for the game cannot support this forever if RQ's share does not
expand.
---
Simon:
You write: "Some people have suggested that AD&D is near ideal with just HP,
AC and THAC0. Well, RQ just needs HPs, APs, and skill %s. Big deal."
Yep. Knew I'd get flamed for that comparison. Well, I by no means think
AD&D is "near ideal", and by no means do I want to get into debate about
comparative virtues of that game. My point is simply that with a few
concepts, a player can be equiped with a character and begin to play, and
that combats are very easy for the new player to get a grip on. We fans of
RQ have to be concerned about the fact that this is not the case for our
game, and that we are failing to attract new players in the numbers needed.
Yes, RQ has HPs, APs and skills, but there is so much more to keep track of
for a new player in these categories, and it is frequently the case that
values have to be recalculated (say, if you are hit with poison and have to
refigure HPs) in the middle of combat. Experinced palyers can do this, but
that's not the problem. I've seen prospective converts put off by just this
sort of complexity when they were first open to the game. We all can't
afford to be sniffy about how superior our game is (it is!) if that puts it
six feet under.
And though we may be lowly contibutors to the Daily, RQ Con IS coming up, and
if there is a real groundswell of interest in RQLite, the ideas threshed out
here could well reach receptive ears there. Perhpas a serious RQLite project
could get into the AH pipeline if the likes of Ken Rolston et al get behind
it.
Otherwise, I like many of your ideas on what RQLite should accomplish:
publish it in one book; make it fully playable out of that book; list
monsters, magic, etc in a simple format, etc. Your criterion that there be
NO conversion FROM RuneQuest TO RuneQuestLite is a tough condition, but a
fair consideration. I am not sure it can be met. I don't think an
experienced player is going to be confused by doing a few calculations to get
into a Lite game, though.
Enough from me on this for now! I have promised to produce some rules for
RQLite for you all, and I do hope to -- when I finish the last half of the
last chapter of my dissertation! But let's at least keep talking about what
we'd like to see in a RQLite -- and hope the eyes of the gods turn our way!
GF out.
---------------------
From: timbee@timbee.rnd.symix.com (Tim Beecher)
Subject: Submission
Message-ID: <9308291808.AA02249@timbee.rnd.symix.com.symix>
Date: 29 Aug 93 18:08:14 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1489
Submission: (Dominance and)
>Unlike some modules from a company in Lake Geneva, the RQ
>and Stormbringer modules usually deal more with plot, descriptions
>and characterization than stats and game rules.
I disagree , I think the big difference between RQ and Lake Geneva is that the
materials presented in the RQ modules have been about 30% adaptable to the
average campaign and D&D runs about 50% last time I checked . I was running a
merchant campaign based in the Island Regions in Glorantha and wound up making
up most of the stuff . I was looking at RQ material on the market but it just
wouldn't fit . Its as though the RQ material targets a small specific area (One
portion of a Glorantha campaign ) while the opposition presents material that
can be adapted with less trouble (Where's the Blind King's Palace in your
campaign ?) . Pendragon released a series of adventure in this mold , the module
was usable in 85% of your campaign . I always wondered why there was no scenario
pack of Chaos Nests or Bandits . You can take the Giant Modules and Ravenloft
switch them around a bit and put them somewhere ( I have a great mental picture
of a large crowd of villagers with pitchforks and torches crying out "Humaqkt"
as they head for the Lord's Castle) . There were one or two sets of adventures
in this vein though ,Snakepipe Hollow and Hellpits of Nightfang , the only
problem was that the unique nature of some of the monsters made it so that
veteran players could actually identify the monsters ( Hey, thats the group of
broos from ) .
---------------------
From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
Subject: source v. scenarios
Message-ID: <9308292154.AA02023@hp0.zycor.lgc.com>
Date: 29 Aug 93 21:54:07 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1490
>> From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
>> Subject: more RQLite
>> X-RQ-ID: 1470
>>
>> on here?" Perhpas the problem is that product like Dorastor try to combine
>> broad historical and other background with specific campaign scenarios. The
>> two should be separated. I think new RQers are much more likely to buy Apple
>> Land and Snakepipe Hollow than Dorastor (and if they get Dorastor, they will
>> be overwhelmed). So again, more INEXPENSIVE modules so that a GM can play a
>> fun adventure right away, but backed up with rich Gloranthan background
>> supplements. Understand this is purely a marketing strategy, and constitutes
>> no criticism of the HIGH quality of products such as Dorastor.
There may be another gain for this kind of strategy. It can be real awkward
for a GM to have others read the scenarios. As for general information, this
ned not be thee case. Separating the two materials would probably slightly
decrease the scenario sales, but may increase the sourcebook sales. And I'd
agree that smaller cheaper books would be the way to win the hearts and minds
and $ of gamers as a whole.
As with GF, do not construe this a a smudge on the very fine work of Sun
Sounty or Dorastor. Top notch materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake)
Subject: Re: RQ Lite
Message-ID: <9308300357.AA05366@cs.uwa.edu.au>
Date: 30 Aug 93 03:58:42 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1491
Those of you on the rq4 list will have just received my extensive
ranting about RQ Lite, and what a potential there is to make a disastrous
mistake with it. As there is also discussion about RQ Lite here, I will
summarise my extended rant, and also discuss what I think should be in RQ Lite
Remember that something similar to RQ Lite has been tried, the RQ3
'Standard' edition (which was never a standard!). This boxed set was RQ3
without background material, most spells, some skills (I think), and much of the
magic system. It sold badly (I am pretty sure), was pretty useless, and caused
RQ supplements to be polluted with repition of the rules for the benefit of the
poor fools who bought RQ Standard. Any RQ Lite must not repeat this mistake!
RQ Standard and the handling of the rules compatibility problems it presented
was a major complaint of the Tales crew in 'Ruined-Quest', lets not do it
again.
Some things can be made optional rules for those that prefer them,
without affecting compatibility, like SRs and hit locations. Some things cannot,
like most of the magic system. RQ Lite should definateley not create any
compatibilty problems, supplements should be instantly useable with both.
Should it be a separate publication? Perhaps, there seems to be feeling
that it should. The rules of RQ Lite should also be included as options in
RQ4 (whatever form it takes) as well, and they should probably appear at the
same time.
What do I think should be in RQ Lite?
-A character creation system based on the RQ4 one, but with possibly
less templates, and working on the basis of 'choose a template or two'
rather than keeping track of all points. Probably no skill modifiers.
-No hit locations. Major wound rules in their place. Explanation of
how hit locations work, and how to convert, for RQ4 compatibility
-Change criticals, fumbles, specials, probably to work like Elric!
-Much reduced combat options. Obviously RQ4 special combat options
are out, but should intentional knockback, grapple, martial arts, etc
be in it? Probably not.
-Perhaps a smaller skill list, but with skills 'folded' into the
higher level skills, and a list of what constituent skills apply for
compatibilty - ie leave out lock pick maybe, but leave in Devise.
-remove SRs, Probably just replace with Dex order (one action at Dex,
a possible second at half Dex).
-Divine magic - but without enchanting.
-Sorcery - but without enchanting, and probably without some of the
manipulations (multispell?). Being as we don't know what will be in
sorcery yet, we don't know what to leave out. But we can't exclude it
completely (campatibilty)
-Spirit magic - but maybe leave out much of the new stuff added in RQ4,
such as the more advanced shaman rules like Spirit Travel, special
spells, etc.
Thats enough for now, some feedback/debate is appreciated
(though perhaps the RQ4 list is more appropriate).
Cheers
Dave Cake
---------------------
From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
Subject: e-module
Message-ID:
Date: 30 Aug 93 04:01:09 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1492
GF here.
One more thing. Earlier this summer, I posted that I have an adventure I
designed on file and ready to send by e-mail. Since I am still getting
enquiries about this, I thought I'd mention again that it is still available,
and I will send it to anyone who asks for it, on the conditions of respecting
my copyright -- and of giving me your impressions and criticisms (some of you
who have received it have not been so fastidious about the latter condition;
I'm not asking too much am I?!)
The adventure was designed for players in my campaign who had never played RQ
before, and combines an emphasis on role-playing with the unraveling of a
mystery.
GF out.
---------------------
From: Tom.Zunder@cyberhm.royle.org (Tom Zunder)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Tue, 24 Aug 1993, part 1
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Aug 93 15:18:28 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1493
Re Spirit Cults and Ancestr
Worship
But ancestor cults are very powerful, they do howver change and
become
different, as deity cults. In deity cults the cult spirits still
attend
worship services, thus any Gloranthan cult has many many more dead worshippers
than you would presume from the livivng
congregation.
Let me ask a question, admitedly from a RQ3 perspective, would you want to
worship Kyger Litor or Yelm? One is a huge ancestor worship
cult,
with all those shamanic powers, the other is a classic deity cult with limited
cult practices vis-a-vis magic and no shamanic power. Where Yelmic cultures win
thru is in their civilisation and magical diversity. The best example being the
Lunar
Empire.
---------------------
From: Tom.Zunder@cyberhm.royle.org (Tom Zunder)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Thu, 26 Aug 1993, part 1
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Aug 93 18:10:42 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1494
RQ Lite
My thorts are that a RuneQuest Glorantha or a RuneQuest Lite would
be good.
It would replace RQ3 by having a players and gamesmaster box and would
present a streamlined RQ in the players, like CoC or Elric but
compatible with all the published stuff. In the gm box it would say
"Now here is the complex way to do it"
Players box would concentrate on really good introductory stuff on
Glorantha, largely Prax/Pavis/Sun County OR Sartar (thus allowing us old hands
to have a point in buying it!).
In other words, RQ would be both RQ Lite and RQ, choose your depth of flavour.
RQ4 was actually the wrong direction, it made the game mopre complex in parts.
The character gen and spirit combat would come across, tho.
---------------------
From: gadbois@cs.utexas.edu (David Gadbois)
Subject: Re: Paul Reilly: costumes + props
Message-ID: <9308282132.AA13694@yoakum.cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 28 Aug 93 11:32:56 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1495
+0200 <9308280515.AA25342@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>, <9308272026.AA18576@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Con
From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly)
Date: 27 Aug 93 20:26:44 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1479
Paul Reilly here. Just a short note: if you are going to RQ -con
and need costumes or other props, e-mail me and I may be able to
arrange something. For Orlanthi types Finula can provide some woad
and also henna for Lunars.
Let me strongly encourage everyone playing in Home of the Bold to
bring a costume. I initially thought costumes were, well, silly, but
when I saw the costumes for the game run at Convulsion, I realized
that they do add a lot to the game. The Humakti with their Death Rune
facepaint, the Praxians dressed in the manner of Plains Indians, the
Lunar garrison with their Roman-like attire -- it was really cool.
--David Gadbois