From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Sat, 04 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: shillada@gatwick.sgp.slb.com
Subject: Am I completly out of touch ?
Message-ID: <9309021523.AA13053@icarus.gatwick.sgp.slb.com>
Date: 2 Sep 93 15:23:38 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1526
I may have been in Prax for a while, but I'm afraid that us poor mortals haven't
seen 4th edition. Could someone give me a quick rundown ? ie is it Glorantha
based ? does sorcery survive ?
---------------------
From: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham , via RadioMail)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily Fri 03 Sep 1993 part 1
Message-ID: <9309030623.AA09246@radiomail.net>
Date: 3 Sep 93 06:23:45 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1527
>From: clay@cool.vortech.com (Clay Luther)
>Flipping through the latest copy of TotRM, I was reading the information about
>the Cyclops. It states that the Cylcops is the "same type of creature which
>the Lunars unearthered in Feroda and made into the Watchdog of Corflu."
>
>Does someone have a better idea of what the Watchdog is and looks like? I
>feel I must have missed something somewhere if the Watchdog and the Cyclops
>are so much alike.
In the RQ2 supplement Pavis is a picture of the Watchdog of Corflu, which
stands about 75 metres high, has a single eye, and stands on two arms. "It
was made from parts of a broken statue which the Lunars found and put
together."
>From: C442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (Newton Hughes)
>...I don't like the idea
>that trolls are the only ones associated with insects. Elves ought
>to have some relationship with them, too; they're not just enemies.
I vaguely remember giant bees in the Vale of Flowers (a known elf hangout)...
>Another Rubble trivia question: there's a temple ruin in the middle
>of the Rubble somewhere that no one can enter safely without first
>eating a particular kind of root. Is there any more information
>about that one out there?
Agipith root gets you into the Iffinbix temple, see p. 11 of the Common
Knowledge book of Pavis.
>What you want is a book for players, to help the gm explain the
>world to them, outline the coolest cults and give them some idea
>what's going on to protect them from fantasy-culture-shock, with
>fast character creation, maybe some rules, but mostly something
>to introduce new people to Glorantha. It should be set firmly
>in Sartar just before the Lunar invasion.
That would be a reasonable time (tho just after would be better in some
respects). Anyway, having a little more flexibility in the time period
would be nice. (My campaign is in 1611, which gives me more time before the
Hero Wars start.)
>From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
>-- I have read that the Issaries cult is a God Learner construct, but I can't
>remember where.
There's the rumor that TradeTalk is a God Learner construct in the latest
TotRM... That's the closest I've seen.
>From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
>>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.)
>
> Um, David, did you really just say that if a problem didn't occur
>in your game, it's "wasted effort" to fix it? For the record, my
>campaign never had problems either, but other people did report
>finding the game unplayable because of sorcery.
#1, I still don't understand _what_ the problem is. All I've heard is that
there is one.
#2, if the system breaks down at high levels, oh well. I'm aware there are
very high level campaigns, but unlike Elric, RQ was designed to work mostly
in the 1%-100% skill range. And it works just past this. Spending effort
trying to fix problems at the 200% level is unlikely to benefit the vast
majority of players (where I place myself).
>From: paul@phyast.pitt.edu (Paul Reilly)
> Tom Zunder contrast Kyger Litor (Glorified Ancestor worship) with
>Yelm (Classic Kult.) We think Yelm is ancestor worship as well:
>1. Only those of noble blood may qualify as Yelm initiates.
>2. The old noble lines are descended from Yelm, First Emperor.
>
> Q.E.D.
I was going to say that...I agree. (Sorta -- but in Glorantha, that's
always the case.)
>From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
>Riskland:
>How come the differences between Dragon Pass resettlement described in
>King of Sartar (in stockades and hillforts wherever possible) and
>riskland pioneers (single steads)?
Because the settlement of Dragon Pass was frd Lomi Ulrood seems quite respectable for a
>trickster.
Right, KoS mentions both Vinga and Flesh Man, but says these two positions
"have some flexibility."
---------------------
From: RuneQuest-Request@glorantha.holland.sun.com (Henk Langeveld)
Subject: Re: Duplicates [Sorry, should be fixed now]
Message-ID: <9309030633.AA02801@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>
Date: 3 Sep 93 10:33:46 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1528
>Greg Fried here.
>Anyone else getting multiple copies from the Daily, and other weirdness?
Everybody was getting them.
It has been fixed now.
For those interested in the details:
Last week I have included some code in my scripts
to upload every part of the daily to soda.berkeley.edu, right
after it has been sent to subscribers and rec.games.frp.misc.
I made the mistake however, to make it part of the batching
system. The consequence of that is that if anything fails
during the connection with soda, the whole batch will be
aborted, and the current batch will be resent the next day.
As most of you know by now, soda had some trouble last weekend.
Sorry for propagating soda's trouble to the list...
Henk
--
Henk | Henk.Langeveld@Sun.COM - Disclaimer: I don't speak for Sun.
oK[] | RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM
---------------------
From: ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham , via RadioMail)
Subject: Re: Vinga; Ral-zak-ark
Message-ID: <9309030640.AA09411@radiomail.net>
Date: 3 Sep 93 06:40:54 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1529
>From: yfcw29@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk
>Subject: Who are these Vingan babes?
>Any Grey Sages out there?
We always considered ourselves Talmudic scholars...
>There is an obscure refference in 'King Of Sartar" which I would
>like to know a bit more about. The 'Vingans' are mentioned several times.
As far as I know, Vinga is mentioned _only_ in KoS.
>From: DScott@snail.demon.co.uk (David Scott)
>Who thinks after reading Dorastor that Ralzakark is a part of
>Nysalor/Gbaji/Arkat, and what will happen if all the parts are brought
>together
>again. Will Arkat/Gbaji/Arkat re-form.
Ral(-???) + Zak(-???) + Ark(-at)?
David Dunham * Software Designer * Pensee Corporation
Voice/Fax: 206-783-7404 * AppleLink: DDUNHAM * Internet: ddunham@radiomail.net
---------------------
From: malcolm@num-alg-grp.co.uk (Malcolm Cohen)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 03 Sep 1993, part 1
Message-ID: <7480.199309031409@mars.nag.co.uk>
Date: 3 Sep 93 14:09:13 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1530
David Dunham says:
> combat, why not start a new discussion on how people handle large (PCs
> outnumbered, perhaps by up to 2:1) melees with the existing rules?
Easily; just prepare hitloc sheets (you remember FOES, do you not?). This
really is not much of a problem.
> Abstracting is the obvious way, but it has its problems, since my players
> always remember exactly what damage they did ("But I impaled him in the leg
> last time, how come he's running away?"). And I feel NPCs should be treated
If you have hitloc sheets prepared earlier (its only a minute extra or so per
NPC for Arioch's sake) this is a complete non-problem.
> the same as PCs.
Yes, they should both have hit locations. NOT A PROBLEM!!!!!
And I personally think this sort of rulequest discussion is best out of the
digest, it is being thrashed about enough by the rules lawyers on the rq4 list.
> >From: C442196@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu (Newton Hughes)
> >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.
>
> Why not have an optional rule that weapons add +1 to DEX (long weapons) or
> -1 to DEX (short weapons)?
Because long weapons currently (in the RQ1-RQ2-RQ3 rulesets) have a bigger
effect than this, more like 4-8 DEX addition/subtraction.
+/-1 DEX change is small change, you are asking us to do something with very
little effect (just like RQ3 fatigue). Extra complication should give us
*something*!
Someone else (sorry, editing bog-up):
> About Mr. Wilton's opinion, why join a cult when there's no divine
> spells: back in rq2 allowing a mere initiate to sacrifice for a one-
> use rune spell was a rare sign of divine favor, not a wholesale
Because (a) you want a goal to aim at: becoming Rune Lord or Priest. No spells
== no priest.
(b) because you want the "rare" chance of getting divine favour?
OK, there are other reasons to joins cults than JUST the divine magic, but the
rune spells do add flavour and enhance roleplaying IMHO.
Also, if we take Graeme Lindsall's (sp?) mods, initiates who get this divine
favour get limited reusability: it is not just one-shot.
Basically, rune-spells are something rare and special (and your argument is
only that they should be even more rare and special!) and so add an important
part to the game for up and coming characters.
> I'd like to see the daily get away from the rules junk and back
> to Gloranthan trivia and speculation. My opinion of the rqlite
Agreed we seem to be getting a lot of rulejunk. Extra rules, how to simplify
rules, anything constructive I am in favour of; but not this argument about
whether we should chop the game up.
But lets not limit it to Glorantha please, I have only once run a G campaign,
and that was back in RQ1...
> rules if you don't want to," as if people don't have the brains
> to figure that out for themselves, then it's gonna be a miserable
Hear hear.
If people want to discuss the direction for new rules for RQ(4/lite) I would
(a) prefer it to be on the rq4 list, (b) prefer it to be constructive and (c)
want to know, up front, what it is these people want RQ to look like.
Obviously (?) all of us here want it to look something like what is already
does, or we would not be playing it.
David Dunham again:
> >You may have a 180 IQ, but a lot of my players don't! As David wrote, the
Thanks for the insincere flattery, but I never did have any trouble teaching RQ
to any of my players. Even though I have often run "Baroque RuneQuest", i.e.
RQ with more extra rules than you can possibly poke a stick at.
It just takes a little time and effort -- and enthusiam for what one is doing.
You have more fun running PenDragonPass, that does not mean we ALL would.
> >the market for the game cannot support this forever if RQ's share does not
> >expand.
There are such things as niche markets you know. That is what RQ has always
been.
> >>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.)
Well David, I found RQ3 sorcery next to unusable (to GM) at low levels. I
daresay several of my players at these low levels found it unusable as well
(they certainly bitched loudly enough!).
In fact, after running it straight from the rulebook for two short campaigns I
gave up. It is just crap.
Someone else (sorry, lost who!):
> versions of the rules, you could not just buy extensions of the rules. If you wanted the full rules, you had to buy everything from scratch again. Games
> Workshop in England avoided this problem very effectively. They split the RQ3
> rules up into Basic RQ and Advanced RQ books. You could get a rudimentary set of
> rules just by buying the Basic RQ book, then upgrade later if you wanted. If
> you wanted full RQ you had to buy both books, but with only a tiny ammount
> of repeated material in the two books. This worked fine.
Au contraire. It was a right piglet swapping books, flipping pages etc. to
find the rules when one wanted.
The only reason it sold well was that it was SO!!!!! much cheaper than the
ridiculously overpriced RQ3 set from AH. (40 pounds in 1985!!)
RQ3 went badly over here (IMNHSO) because (a) it cost so much, (b) sorcery was
crap, (c) it cost so much, (d) fatigue was crap, (e) character generation was
crap, (f) no marvelous gameworld or interesting scenarios to start with and
finally (g) IT COST SO BLOODY MUCH!
Further opinions from myself about RQlite can be obtained via email or later
when I inflict them on the rq4-playtest list!
--
...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
(malcolm@nag.co.uk)
---------------------
From: b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com (Brian J. Kondalski)
Subject: RQ Con Events
Message-ID: <9309031531.AA17514@Sun.COM>
Date: 3 Sep 93 15:31:15 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1531
I was curious as to what versions of RQ will be used in the various events at
the upcoming RQ con in January. Most people I play with in the area play only
RQ2, with little, or in most cases, no experience with RQ3. I'd like to be
able to guide them away from the events that will be a problem and towards ones
that will work in the systems they are used to. I'm sure they would have no
problem entering a RQ3 event if the GM knew ahead of time that some learning
would need to be done. Also I realize many of the events are more Glorantha
oriented, not RQ2/RQ3/RQ4 related. Anyone out there know more detail?
Brian J. Kondalski b_kondalski@vssi.trw.com
"Better dead than red."
---------------------
From: s.manning@ic.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Glorantha and RQLite.
Message-ID: <9309031605.AA25648@mega>
Date: 3 Sep 93 18:05:27 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1532
Newton Hughes writes about RQLite that
>It should be set firmly
>in Sartar just before the Lunar invasion.
No, please don't say things like that! One of the real joys of RQIII was the
associated expansion of published material about the whole of Glorantha. It
would be a backward move to return to just the above region.
I have heard rumours about Glorantha: The Game. If this can successfully
combine role-playing, "war"-gaming and HeroQuesting, then this would be the set
of rules that I have personally been waiting for for a long time. RQ and
Glorantha always seemed to advertise itself as the system to allow participation
in the forth coming HeroWars. A system like the above could finally make that a
reality. What is the state of affairs regarding this?
I loved Dorastor, the Feldichi were a real surprise.
I have read elsewhere (probably here) that the runes are a God-Learner
invention. Well, the Feldichi "runes" were quite different. Any thoughts?
Simon Manning.
---------------------
From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
Subject: Apologies
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Sep 93 16:51:33 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1533
Greg Fried here.
My apologies to you, BrIan! I don not have the technology to copy text, so
sometimes I get things wrong, like spelling of names. Sorry! That said, I
have GMed RQ for a while, and yes, my players do learn the combat system and
come to like it. I have also found that for some, the initial investment of
effort to learn it puts them off. Other than that, which may just be a
irresovable difference in gaming experience, I agree that RQLite cannot be
merely RQ without hit locations. I was just looking over the "Player's Book:
Genertela", from the Glorantha boxed set, and this does a lot of what a
RQLite should, minus character generation, skills and combat rules. Problem
is, it is sold in a boxed set that only GMs should be buying! It is only 34
pages long and goes into considerable detail on the cultural background of
your character. RQLite should be about ease of play and getting players
excited about their characters, as well as informed minimally about how to
exist in GLorantha.
Apologies also to those bored by RQLite talk! I do think that it is
important to think about what will continue to make this game viable. RQLite
may not be the answer (GMing RQ at cons, converting friends and acquaintances
must play a big roll, as others have said), but with Ken Rolston as RuneCzar
at AH, now seems to be the time for we the consumers to consider and present
ideas on how to best promote the game. No? And no one is preventing anyone
from raising others subjects of discussion -- as I myself have tried to do in
my postings!
And on that line, here's another Gloranthan lore Q: on page 9 of the RQCon
registration booklet, the game CREDO! is described thus: "The game of dueling
doctrines. THe focus is historical Christianity, but the perceptive might
also learn a thing of two about the Elmal/Yelmalio schism. Scandalous!"
Anyone got some clue as to the meaning of this?
GF out.
---------------------
From: jjm@zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway)
Subject: rq v. glorantha
Message-ID: <9309031800.AA09726@hp0.zycor.lgc.com>
Date: 3 Sep 93 18:00:12 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1534
>> From: f6ri@midway.uchicago.edu (charles gregory fried)
>> X-RQ-ID: 1488
>>
>> Rich:
>> DId it seem to be _Stafford's_ view that RQ is in trouble?! In any case, the
From some of his comments during Origins, I'd say he thought RQ was becoming
inappropriate for Glorantha. I would suppose that's he'd be more in favor of
a Pendragon-ish game. That's not to imply PenDragon pass, nor even the
pendragon system, but something that would handle the _necessary_ mechanics
for skills and combats, and would provide a mechanic for connecting the
character to his or her culture ( a la Pendragon's Personality Traits,
Passions, et al ).
He didn't speak to us about RQ being "in trouble", as I don't think that
that is a major concern for him right now ( GAMA in-fighting, Credo, Call
of Cthulhu and The Glorious Reascent of Yelm being at the top of his list ).
>> From: timbee@timbee.rnd.symix.com (Tim Beecher)
>> X-RQ-ID: 1489
>>
>> 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
This is the "problem" which occurs when you have a social context and
culture in which a scenario is to be set. It would make no sense to have
a Dorastor anywhere else, nor a Snakepipe Hollow. They are fixed places,
and belong where they are. Sorry if they're not transportable enough for
you.
The real problem is that they haven't had the $/interest/people to do some-
thing for everywhere. I'd like to see something for the isles, too, but I'm
still waiting for ANYTHING set in the XO@#! Lunar Empire, which is more
central, IMO. Someday, hopefully...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| john_medway@zycor.lgc.com | Landmark Graphics Corp | 512.292.2325 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
From: tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tom Zunder)
Subject: RQ Adventures
Message-ID:
Date: 3 Sep 93 19:09:27 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 1535
I will at last be producing a UK versuion of RQ Adventures, Issue 1
featuring Escape from Duckland, a 32 page adventure by John Castellucci.
Price will be four pounds sterling, delivered. Please send cheques to:
Tom Zunder
23 Rosedale Way
Rotherham
S66 0LE
Cheques made payable to Tom Zunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Orlanth Rex! tzunder@cix.compulink.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------