Bell Digest v931109p1

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, Tue, 09 Nov 1993, part 1
Precedence: junk

X-RQ-ID: Intro

This is the RuneQuest Daily Bulletin, a mailing list on
the subjects of Avalon Hill's RPG and Greg Stafford's 
world of Glorantha.  It is sent out once per day in digest
format.

More details on the RuneQuest Daily and Digest can be found
after the last message in this digest.


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

From: STEVEG@ARC.UG.EDS.COM (Steve Gilham Entropy requires no maintenance)
Subject: Re: Reuable Tattoos
Message-ID: <01H51WY772YQ005X93@UG.EDS.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 93 17:08:30 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 2231

ddunham@radiomail.net (David Dunham) asked
>Here's an unrelated question: magical tattoos. If you tattoo a 
>matrix in your skin, is it usable by anyone else?

I'd say this is *exactly* what the restricted use modifier on 
enchantments deals with.  If the condition of use was "only by 
me" or "only by designated users" as opposed to unrestricted, 
then it's probably not of use to the skinners.

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

From: joe@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner)
Subject: Re: RuneQuest Daily, Sat, 06 Nov 1993
Message-ID: 
Date: 8 Nov 93 11:46:42 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 2233

Colin Watson in X-RQ-ID: 2210
>Inventing new sorcery spells

>I think sorcery needs more creation-type spells. At the moment the only
>spell of this type is Glow (ie. create light). If you can create light,
>you should, IMHO, be able to use magic to create other substances. Yes?

Any magical creation can be of temporal nature only. Light and darkness 
are easy, because they disappear when the source is switched off. How 
about the other substances, especially those which can be consumed? 
Will the substance consumed disappear? Tricky with water in the desert 
or air in a grotto bubble. Will the character which has drunk 
temporally created water become dried out after the duration expired?

Else we already have the Phantom (...) spells which create temporal 
reality.

Sandy Petersen in X-RQ-ID: 2211

>Paul Reilly asks what the Brithini believe about other humans. 

>Your theory about the animal/human connection is too good to discard,  
>especially in light of the fact that Hsunchen were the main type of  
>humans they dealt with, yet from what I know about the Brithini, it's  
>logical that they would blame the existence of other humans on the  
>actions of sorcerers. I think that from now on I'm going to adhere to  
>the belief that the Brithini believe that other humans were either  
>formed of mud, or mutated from base animals by evil sorcerers. I like  
>the idea of the Brithini treating party members differently if they  
>came from (in the Brithini opinion) different backgrounds. 

As a side effect of my Aeolian studies, Nick Brooke asked me about how 
I view the Brithini's relation to Malkionists, and:

>who do you : think were the population of the Kingdom of Logic?

The Brithini are not humans in the standard Gloranthan sense. That being 
lesser descendants of Gods (Kolati, goddesses of the land and sea, 
other unfortunate victims of the Vadrudi rape). Like for the mertribes, 
the act of rape resulted in less powerful entities (although the third 
and fourth generations of gods are less powerful, too - the Luatha fell 
under the blades of the Vingkotlings). It seems inherited power 
thins...

The inhabitants of the Kingdom of Logic (KoL) are manifestations of the 
Man Rune, created directly by the Creator in his playground, the Kingdom 
of Logic. They are _not_ descendants of Malkion, rather constructs similar 
to the Mostali. And they regard the relation between themselves and humans 
to be similar to that between Real Mostali and Clay Mostali aka Dwarfs, 
although they probably wouldn't know this parallel. Malkion was accepted 
among them, and from his children sprang the four classes, his children 
might even have been integrated in Brithini society. Their offspring were 
the later Seshnegi etc. as well as most of nowaday Brithini, they carry 
the seed of mortality which shows when the Brithini quit their unnatural 
way of living. The descendants had need of Solace, the original 
inhabitants of KoL didn't. This led to the split between Brithini and 
Seshnegi in the darkness. The Brithini in Genertela are descendants of 
Malkion, no doubt, but in Old Brithos there still are some of the original 
inhabitants of the KoL around.

All this IMO, and probably to be disputed.


Colin Watson in X-RQ-ID: 2212
>Subject: hoary old chestnut

>David Dunham says:

>>A good scenario must be one I can not only admire, but use.
>[..plus several sensible points about making scenarios as general as possible.]

>I agree 100%. Background is all very nice, but it belongs in a sourcebook.
>Scenarios should have the bare minimum background required to run them, and
>otherwise should concentrate on plot and characters. The setting should be
>flexible (dare I say generic?). All my Humble Opinion, of course.

Well, since the pool of possible authors of a scenario and the 
readership of this list do overlap considerably, how would you design 
such a scenario that is more than just visiting the next door dungeon?

>Combined scenario/sourcebooks seem to be the trend. Are they cheaper to
>produce? Are they what the punters want to buy? There must be some reason,
>I guess.

The reason is simple: Scenarios that dont have a certain informative 
value for Glorantha lovers might not be bought by them. On the other 
hand pure sourcebooks won't sell to non-Glorantha RuneQuesters.

>For me they make hassle: I have to re-work chunks of the scenarios
>to fit my campaign (or re-work chunks of my campaign); and when I *do* want
>to find some tidbit of background info it's a pain to have to thumb through
>scenarios. Organised, indexed, sourcebooks would be so much more useful.

I agree that a fully fleshed out encyclopaedia for each and any 
lexicalic information about Glorantha would be great. Unlikely to 
happen, though. Maybe a fully indexed abstract, similar to those of 
scientific magazines, would be feasible either as book or as database, 
with short abstracts of the information in the source, and a literature 
reference for those who want to read the full text and have access to a 
copy.

>And one or two context-free scenarios wouldn't go amiss either.

>All we can do is voice our opinions and hope that someone upstairs takes note.

Wrong. All we can do is write a bunch of scenarios etc. that fit the 
bill, and submit them, or make up our own publishing line, such as John 
Castellucci has with his RuneQuest-Adventures.

Thom Baguley in X-RQ-ID: 2213
>Subject: Cults and so forth ...

>PANTHEONS AND INITIATION

>The common feeling seems to be that most Gloranthan theists are worshippers of
>a pantheon. My personal feeling is that most PCs are `fanatics' of one cult or
>another.

Seems somehow unlikely that most of them are fanatical worshippers of 
different deities, and still flock together without constant 
theological disputes. This makes up for some roleplaying, but there is 
a danger that this becomes the sole object of roleplaying. Do we want 
that to happen?

>Originally I was against pantheonic initiation but after the
>discussion here I'm not so sure. Initiates of a pantheon are likely to be the
>equivalent of lay members of all the cults in that pantheon.

plus some basic divine magic. From what I heard of the cult of the 
Seven Mothers, they are a bunch of associates magic only. Their 
initiates, or those of Yelm the Youth or Aldrya's Wood Children, seem 
to be initiated to the pantheon only, but already receive quite a lot 
magical benefits.

So someone initiated into a pantheon only would automatically become an 
associate member to all the pantheon's main cults, and may claim lay 
membership to the less important ones when occasion arises.

>Pantheons should
>vary from region to region (probably clan to clan) e.g. it sounds like the
>Lismelder clan include Humakt (and/or Indrogar Greydog) in their pantheon, but
>I'm not sure that all Sartarites would.

I think that Humakt would be included, only: Humakt doesn't give any 
associate magic, does he? Thus noone not initiated into his cult would 
have access to his magics. Inrodar Greydog is member of the Humakt cult 
and is worshipped through it. If the Humakti allow non-Humakti to 
participate in their rites, the participant surely will include the 
recipients of the rites in their personal pantheon.

>Similiarly, sophisticated city
>Sartarites might just include the Lightbringers (plus Sartar and a city god) in
>their local pantheon. These initiates get to DI to all members of the pantheon,
>access to spirit magic at associate rates and one-use divine magic (I probably
>wouldn't give them access to associate magic outside the pantheon).

Sartarite city dwellers are still clan members. The main difference is 
that inside the city not one clan council, but a council of the clans 
and guilds of the city make the decisions. Why this would change their 
religious attitudes other than to the city's spirit, I cannot see.

>This leaves the problem ... why become initiated to a single god. My answer:
>another good argument for reusable divine magic (regained on the high holy
>day). In return the full/high initiate has to give 10% of his or her rime and
>money to the cult.

So ought the initiate into the pantheon. IMO the specific cult could 
charge less money and time of its initiates if these fulfil other 
religious duties for the Pantheon instead. The initiate to a specific 
deity takes the deity as a patron specifically chosen to watch over the 
initiate's man interest(s). If the initiate has several interests he or 
she deems worthy of divine guidance, he or she may well join the 
appropriate cults, too, as long as exiting cult restrictions aren't 
broken.

>ASSOCIATE CULTS AND LAY MEMBERSHIP

>I don't think associate membership and lay membership are identical. I think
>they are subtly different. Associate cults are very strongly reflected in cult
>worship in most cases (why else would persecuted Orlanthi turn up to Ernalda
>ceremonies). Associate cult members actively take part in ritual worship
>(unlike lay members). On the other hand worship of an associate cult always has
>a different perspective.

Brilliant summary. If I might insert that IMO all initiates into the 
Pantheon in general would be considered associates...

>e.g. it is the duty of all those other Barntar lay members to help out in your
>Barnraising. A farmer who wasn't at least a Barntar lay member would be looked
>on very oddly in Orlanthi society. An outsider who joined the cult as a lay
>member might just about be tolerated.

In fact he would be expected to be an associate of Barntar, e.g. 
through initiation into the pantheon.

Neil Robinson in X-RQ-ID: 2214
>Subject: Dwarven senses

>I have considered giving the dwarves a 'pressure' sense that is somehow
>linked to small disturbances in the air.  Dwarves would rarely get lost
>in a cavern complex, as they could find the way out based on even minute
>air flow.

They'd need a sensory organ to perceive the differences in air 
pressure. Anyone ever wondered why dwarves wear beards? Shave them, and 
they'll go blind in darkness...

David Dunham in X-RQ-ID: 2216 on matrix tattoos

>Here's an unrelated question: magical tattoos. If you tattoo a matrix in
>your skin, is it usable by anyone else?

The Gloranthan Bestiary implies that the skinning of a tattooed matrix 
IS possible. That's why the Magisauri have the user restriction that 
onyly they themselves may use the enchantments added to the matrices on 
their hides.

John Medway in X-RQ-ID: 2217

[Esrolite Egyptians]

>> Too easy? Me, I find it irresistable. You have a model for the hard-working 
>> peasantry (clean-shaven men in kilts: "effeminate" by Barbarian standards), 
>> ...
>> Importing the Red Emperor's cult as a new Husband God -- Caesar & 
>> Cleopatra. No, this is all too good to pass up.

>Hmmm. Still seems to easy.

Too much differences to make the Egyptians the only parallel, agreed. 
Since we are told that they are similar to Orlanthi culture we don't 
have to guess about the other main influence...

>Whether egyptian-esque or not, how about square shields? (shaped like an 
>earth rune)

Esrolian Wall shields. Might even be the top armament of the Building 
Wall. We know from Genert's creation of the Copper Sands that Earth 
never was shy about sacrificing loyal troops to achive a tactical 
advantage. This really makes me wonder a) how many Esrolite infantry 
were interred in that wall, b) are their spirits worshipped as 
guardians of the wall, c) who performed this great ritual?

[Esrolites]
>Sounds too much like Israelites, and I'd have to wonder if Yassir was a
>Troll. Like the -im for plurals, or "people of" forms, though. Maybe it
>should be Esrolim?

While I liked the -im plural with Tolkien's linguistic creations, in 
Glorantha context this sounds strange to me.


-- 
--  Joerg Baumgartner   joe@sartar.toppoint.de

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

From: J.Ditton@vme.glasgow.ac.uk
Subject: Varmandi-Dragon-Pass-Pen-Quest..er..Rune..Whatsit
Message-ID: <_8_Nov_93_16:26:37_A1005A@UK.AC.GLA.VME>
Date: 8 Nov 93 16:26:37 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 2234

Aha! Sam here again
-------------------
 
* I still haven't started playing yet (Still finishing off in RoC).
  So, I have been toying with the Idea of a PenDragon Pass type of
   Game.
  I had mentioned this to my players a while back and I was met with
  a bit of an unhappy response (No % dice?.. What about Hit Locations?).
  But I have been a bit of an insomniac (sp) recently and have seen the light.
  Unfortunately I cannot get hold of TotRM 6 (sold out). So I am forced to
  open this can of worms again..
 
* Firstly I notice that this idea is (c) David Dunham. Can I have permission
  to playtest it, David? (It's always good to be polite isn't it).
 
* Next, my game is of course Gloranthan. Has anyone tried this yet. I realise
  that HeroQuest or the Glorantha game has/is being written - is this what
  *it* is like? ie PDP.
 
* I will have to keep a *lot* of the feel of RQ to keep my players happy.
  The most obvious of which are the skills and the spells. I will keep
  both. Skills ala RQII/RQIV. INT is dropped (Hooray! - woosh, watch those
  bonuses drop!) so Recognise of something will have to be added. Bonuses
  could be kept. RQII style converted to 1,2,3pts or perhaps modified RQIV
  rounded to the nearest 5% then divided by 5.. Hmm not very elegent. I don't
  think I'll bother. Telling my players is another matter..
 
* Damage is a problem. PD has twice as many HP than RQ. This would mean
  doubling all damages to keep up. (Not weapon damages as these are just
  multiples of the Damage Bonus). For spells this is easy - just double
  the damage (eg Bladesharp is +1 skill, +2 damage etc). I prefer this
  to weakening magic. More on this later. Armour is easy too. You can
  use RQ armour types and double them. If you want to use Hit Locations
  (I'm not sure I'll bother - unless player mutiny) just double each 
  location's AP. However, shields are a problem. For some reason PD shields
  are *crap* (excuse my New Pelorian). A PD shield only stops 6pts of
  damage when successfuly paried with. Convert that to RQ and it is 3pts!
  My players would *definetly* mutiny. Even if you just use the standard RQ
  AP (no doubling) they are greatly inferior. This would certainly change
  the feel of RQ combat. One hit on a wee character and they're a gonna!
  I don't want to double PDP shield AP though as this will probably slow
  the combat right down - changing the quick feel of PD. I will elect for
  straight RQ AP.
 
* Next Combat. I have never actually played my copy of PD (although I have
  always wanted to) so I am a little unclear about how the combat works.
  As far as I can see there is *no* shield skill. This would also change
  the feel of RQ so I will elect for having a shield skill. Sword vs Shield
  instead of Sword vs Sword (or whatever weapon you favour). This of course
  means there would be twice as many rolls for each combat ie I hit you,
  then you hit me - ala RQ - as opposed to We hit each other but one of
  us may no parry. A small price I feel as you still get resisted parries
 (a much better idea IMHO - a successful parry on a missed sword attck
  could do all sorts of things - weapon breaking, knockback, make room
  for maneauvering (sp) etc) plus my players would be happier as it would
  still be 'like we did it in RQ'. I don't know if this would intefere with
  the way PD combat works and perhaps cause an unbalance somewhere. I will
  need to try this out.
 
* Back to shields. I have just found the notes I made on this in the wee sma
  wee small hours last night. An average PD attack does 14pts of damage (ave
  STR=10.5, SIZ=10.5, Dam=3.5=4d6, Rolled Dam=14). Therefore an average
  PD shield lets 8pts through. Gosh! thats the equivalent of RQ shields
  letting 4 pts through. If you simply doubled the AP of a *buckler* and
  applied it to PD it would stop 16pts. Woah! something's not right. ([
  Working the other way ave RQ damage is (roughly) 1d8+1+1d4 = 8. Even
  a buckler can stop this. A direct ratio would be RQ:PD 4:7. Applying
  this would give:-
                     Buckler 14ap
                     Heater/Target 21ap
                     Hoplite 32ap
  But these figures are getting huge. (could simplify to 15,20,30 I suppose).
 
* SIZ. Pendragon uses 3d6. All SIZ must be multiplied by 4:5. I elected
  to subtract 2pts. 3 is better maths but a bit extreme.
 
* Previous experience (RQIV - most splundid vur thrigg!). Just the same.
  divide all values by 5. Traits - Initiates could roll 3d6+3 for virtues
  Rune Lords/Priests 2d6+9?
 
* Magic (I saved this until last). Spells that do damage I have doubled.
  Bladesharp does 2pts, Heal should heal 2pts, Disruption does 1d6. Ptotection
  should therfore protect 2pts. Speedart would be +3 skill, +6 damage (+1d6
  was considered but it seemed a bit stingy). Chance of casting is a POW
  roll. David Dunham suggests that variable spells are learned once. I like
  this idea a lot but find that being able to cast a spell to the level of
  POW/3 too powerful. An average starting player would be able to cast
  Bladesharp and healing *4*! even if you keep damage at RQ levels (ie
  half as powerful) bladesharp would still be adding +4 (+20%) to an
  average character. Way too high IMO. I prefer MP/5 (including crystals
  etc). This way a powerful character who can draw on, say, 25 MP would
  manage a Healing 5 (still not able to heal an average major wound) and
  Bladesharp 5 (+5,+10dam) *but* only at the start of a skirmish. If
  s/he cast BS-5 they would only manage Heal-4 after. I like this. A
  more generous option would be MP/4 but I feel stingy. These new *variable*
  spells will need a new price as they are potentially more powerful. I
  suggest twice as much. That would cut the amount of healing and bladesharp
  in one fell swoop. (Hoorah!). This would be the case for RQIV experience
  too. Perhaps 3x would be better. I'm feeling stingy again..
 
* (oops!). I have neglected to mention that I am referring here to D.Dunham's
  excellenet posting (2nd Oct X-RQ-ID: 1893). The main ideas above are
  my variations on his PenDragon Pass rules which are a hibrid of
  Runequest and PenDragon. But you all new that anyway.. Cheers, David!
 
* I have found converting characters harder than I thought. Maybe it will
  speed up when I know what I'm doing..
 
* Oh yes. Chirurgery. This has to be added too.
 
* Anyway, off to face my players with this and see if they mutiny. I could
  be back to good'ol RQ next week... Booh! Then again when I show them that
  a passion can give +25% to a skill when aroused I feel they may yet be
  convinced :-)
 
Cheers! esp NicNick. (hope you sober up without pain)
 
Sam.x
Not Scotland But Sartar-Dragon-Rune-Pass-Pasion-Quest-Land..

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

From: timbee@timbee.rnd.symix.com (Tim Beecher)
Subject: Submission: The World according to Gark,Illumination
Message-ID: <9311081641.AA20793@timbee.rnd.symix.com.symix>
Date: 8 Nov 93 16:41:54 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 2235

Re:  Gark the Calm

I always understood his cult propagated by con man types who promised "eternal
life" to the unsuspecting . If it was straight forward then who would join ?

Propagator: Howdy there peasant ! I'm here on behalf of Gark the Calm and I'd
like to leave a few pamphlets to read . Perhaps you'd like a copy of our 
newsletter , The Garktower , to read over . I realize you're probably thinking
"an eternal lifetime of mindless servitude, what's in it for me ?" . The 
pamphlets "Chaos:Total Destruction or Bad Press" , "Those Darned Stormbulls" ,
and "Who really needs independant thought anyway ?" cover these questions and
more .

Re: Steve Gilham Entropy requires no maintenance

Did he heroquest to receive this ability or did he receive it as an initiate of
the Internet ?

Re:Riddling and Illumination

Too often I read of people walking up and asking strange questions and the 
player answers it. In a campaign I played in my character would respond as 
follows :

Stranger : Say , do you know makes a noise but has no lips ?
Character : Beats me and I think I'll beat you !
(Insert scene from Monty Python's "Death of Mary , Queen of Scots")

If it were truly that simple illumination would be like the common cold . The
approach to illumination should be one of stealth and cunning . For example ,
a stranger asks Harold the Haggard for directions . Harold gives the directions
as best he can . The stranger then inquires "I've heard tales of a mountain
with a living heart , can you tell me if that is near here ?" . Harold responds
and now has a chance of becoming illuminated . A sage comes across a mention of
a monolith of basalt and becomes intrigued . After researching the answer , the
sage joins the illuminated ranks . 

I suppose its a matter of taste but it seems to me that too often the
illumination technique resembles the Ned Flanders character on the Simpsons

Ned: Hi-dely Ho there neighbor , say you wouldn't happen to know what walks on
     four , then two , then three legs ?
Illuminated Homer:[Answer], Doh!