From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #178 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Thursday, October 15 1998 Volume 01 : Number 178 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Rune list [RQ-RULES] Philip's proposal on magic [RQ-RULES] Variant Rune Magic Systems RE: [RQ-RULES] Philip's proposal on magic [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organisation Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer Re: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery RE: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. 4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready to stand by it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:14:42 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Rune list It's not a proper "list", but a picture of every Gloranthan rune I've come across (including a couple that have been since dispensed with) is linked to my page ("http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/rq.html"). *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:18:27 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Philip's proposal on magic No sir, I don't like it. It makes things too cookie-cutter and insufficiently variable. The Orlanth known by the Garhounders 'round Pavis County is not the same Orlanth known by the Sartarites. Yes, they're very close, may be the same being, but worship and gifts granted to worshippers should differ. The death of the Monomyth was the best thing to happen to Glorantha. Why shackle any RQ-based game with it again? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:27:12 +0000 From: "Ian Thomson" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Variant Rune Magic Systems Wow Suddenly there's a flurry of discussion on things I've checked out myself in the not so distant past Inspired by the article in ToRM about variant Rune Magic systems, I wrote up a piece for House Rules, and its been playtested and works really well. Summary: sacrificing for Divine Points, rather than spells, giving flexibility of choice. This increases the variety of Rune Spells without power increases in the casters. So it keeps game balance whilst enhancing diversity its on my site at http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/5507/runeq.html (sorry can't remember the exact title, but its not that big a main page, you'll find it, probably under House Rules. Sorry about the lack of clarity I currently have extremely limited net access) If you can't browse I'll happily send an attachment Ian ithomson@swin.edu.au *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:02:57 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Philip's proposal on magic >The death of the Monomyth was the best thing to happen to >Glorantha. Why shackle any RQ-based game with it again? BFRP will NOT be Gloranthan. I just thought it would make life easier to give general categories of spells. Of course, different temples will have access to different spells, and this should be made clear, but I think it would help to give some kind of structure. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:43:10 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties Bob Stancliff : > It works very nicely once you get each skill marked with it's rating. You >still only need one check to improve, but harder skills go up much slower >than easy skills because fewer points are awarded. Gosh, my players talk about nothing else all game session. Realy, I just don't see how this benefits the game. It also makes this a new game which is incompatible with previous characters, as does the root/branch skills cascade system. If you're developing a new BRP based game, you should IMO realy be talking about what to drop from RQ3, not what to add. RQ3 was a complex, monster of a game and that's one of the reasons it faded away. You cam't turn the tide of history. Look at it this way. people who already know and play RQ3 may well be interested in adding extra rules to the game because they've already beaten the learning curve. However, such people already own and know the RQ3 rules, so there's just no point in rewriting the game for them. The only sensible reason to rewrite the game is to attract new people to it, and for that you need it to be as short, simple and accessible as you can get away with. Just out of interest, has anyone actualy started writing this thing? What mechanisms do you have for dividing up the work? Who makes final decissions on content where there is disagreement? Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:02:25 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organisation >Just out of interest, has anyone actualy started writing this thing? >What mechanisms do you have for dividing up the work? Who makes >final decissions on content where there is disagreement? No, nothing so organised. My intention at this stage is to work out who wants to work on what, and what general level of detail we want to go to. As for a 'final arbiter', I vote for ME! ME, ME, ME, ME, ME! :-) I think several people had this idea at more-or-less the same time, so I can't claim it was my idea, though. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:27:58 GMT0BST From: Bruce Mason Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill difficulties > From: Simon Hibbs > If you're developing a new BRP based game, you should IMO realy be > talking about what to drop from RQ3, not what to add. RQ3 was a complex, > monster of a game and that's one of the reasons it faded away. You cam't > turn the tide of history. Total agreement here. For a long time there was a discussion of a system known as RQ-lite which is kind of the route that Chaosium have taken with there other BRP games (CoC, Elric, Nephilim). The key is generally modularity and clearly defined meta-rules so that it is obvious how the game can grow. So for example skill categories and skill difficulties could be two modules that could be bolted onto the skill system to allow more complexity in a specific campaign if that is what the GM and players wanted. IMHO of course. - ---Bruce Bruce Mason, SOCAS, UWC. Research Associate: Hypermedia and Ethnography Email me for more information about this project or check the following url: http://www.cf.ac.uk/uwcc/socas/research/hyper/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:41:31 +0100 From: "Paul Bestwick" Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00F1_01BDF841.844ACFE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have an idea for BFRP to simplify skill mechanics,=20 =20 Drop the calculation basis for specials, criticals and fumbles, instead = roll a d20 along with your percentile dice, if you have missed and your = d20 comes up 20 you have fumbled. On the other hand if you have hit = your d20 result is interpreted as follows: 1 Roll an extra set of damage dice and re-roll d20 and = re-interpret result form this list 2-5 Roll an extra set of damage dice 6-20 no effect =20 This means that the rules on bypassing armour and the other stuff can be = replaced by an open ended damage system. =20 Any thoughts/flak anyone=20 =20 Yours Paul - ------=_NextPart_000_00F1_01BDF841.844ACFE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have an = idea for BFRP=20 to simplify skill mechanics,
 
Drop the = calculation=20 basis for specials, criticals and fumbles, instead roll a d20 along with = your=20 percentile dice, if you have missed and your d20 comes up 20 you have=20 fumbled.  On the other hand if you have hit your d20 result is = interpreted=20 as follows:
1        Roll an extra set = of damage=20 dice and re-roll d20 and re-interpret result form this list
2-5    Roll = an extra set=20 of damage dice
6-20  no = effect
 
This means that the rules = on bypassing=20 armour and the other stuff can be replaced by an open ended damage = system. =20
 
Any = thoughts/flak=20 anyone 
 
Yours =20 Paul
- ------=_NextPart_000_00F1_01BDF841.844ACFE0-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:56:54 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Combat skill mechanics > >Drop the calculation basis for specials, criticals and fumbles, > > I like it so far... > > >instead roll a d20 along with your percentile dice, > > I'd prefer not to have to roll the extra die. I was thinking earlier of > the following simplified table: > > Skill Critical Special > 01-10 01 > 11-49 02 03-05 > 50-99 03 04-10 > 100-149 04 05-20 > 150-199 05 06-30 > each +50 +1 +10 > > Special = Roll weapon damage twice or automatic knockback, player's choice > > Critical = double maximum damage, ignoring all armour > > For most skills, all you have to remember is 02 & 05 or 03 & 10, with your > Rune Lord's best skills maybe being 04 & 20. > > > philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk > http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ > Any view of things that is not strange is false > - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:15:26 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer > >Ride may be medium, but Ride is hard. > There's no such skill as Ride in RQ, and I don't see the > need to simulate these differences. Then you consider riding a horse to be the same as riding a Bison, Llama, Bolo Lizard, Ostrich, Griffin, or Sky Bull? There are plenty of examples written into the modules to show that this distinction between Ride skills existed in RQ2 and RQ3. Difficulty levels allow you to group several similar skills into a single more difficult skill. It can simplify the character sheet by allowing the general skill to absorb low value specific skills. > nobody in my games ever had "difficult" skills at ridiculously high levels, Considering the levels you run at, I find that hard to believe, but then, many players don't spend time learning Lores because it slows down their combat progression. Remember that the rules will apply to non-combat characters also, and some of them will want to master Hard skills. These rules control the time needed to progress in each level of skill thereby increasing the reality of the simulation. > or found that their "Throw" skill was not advancing as fast as it should be. Throw should have been used instead of creating Throw Rock and Throw Rope, then it might have some value within the game, and there would be two less skills to worry about and keep track of. If a referee uses a skill regularly, then the players will want to improve it. My group runs Garhound every year, and I have had players train Run, Grapple, and Arm Parry just for that event. These are certainly low priority skills in most games, but in my campaign they are used. Skill levels have several interesting side effects. * They make a better character creation system by rolling for your skill improvements each year to learn how many points you have gained. The Easy skills go up quicker and with less effort. * A character can master several Easy skills at a young age and demand respect he hasn't really earned. This has role-play potential. * A character could dedicate his life to mastering a Very Hard skill and it would create endless story lines as he tours the world gaining insight into that skill, and then starts to teach it. * You could let a spell like Immortality into the game as Very Hard and no matter what happened, it couldn't be too badly abused because the skill would stay low to moderate. This is especially true in the rule versions that limit manipulation according to the skill level of the spell and Arts used. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http://commnections.com/upgrades *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:33:48 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery > I have found that the free INT system can either be too restrictive, or > too powerful, depending upon the interpretation of the rules, Sorcerers are difficult under the RQ3 'Free Int' rules, but they can still be powerful by making spell matrices and manipulating the spells. If a variant system is used that ties manipulation to skill levels of the spell and Arts used, then the sorcerer can keep more spells in mind, but free Int is still useful (ref: Stupefy). This relieves most of the strain and makes a better system. I personally have no use for the Presence rules that replace Duration, but several people here like them. > Basically, the maximum number of spells a sorceror knows is based on > INT and POW. Perhaps something like 4 or 5 times the sum of the two > characteristics. The sum of skill for all the spells the sorceror > the normal rate (up to the original level of the skill). Any skill for > which he had less than 8 skill, and let slide to 0 is completely > forgotten. > Eric Yin The whole discussion creates complexity and bookkeeping that requires recording a great deal of history on the character sheet: How high did the spell get? How high is it now? Can I learn more? Why not? When did I learn this? How fast is it dropping? I suggested an across the board -1% each year to reflect the atrophy of memory for all knowledge, and my players jumped all over me. The rule was fair and believable, but created too much trouble and ill feeling. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) http://commnections.com/upgrades *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:15:06 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Limits to Sorcery >I personally have no use for the Presence rules that replace Duration, >but several people here like them. My preference would be to include Sandy's sorcery verbatim as the 'default' sorcery rules, but provide "Traditional Sorcery" as a drop-in alternative that is more compatible with RQ3 sorceror characters, and also "Meldek Sorcery" that is basically my system that replaces Vows with Journeys for those that think that Sandy's is too monotheist and stuffy. I'd provide two writeups, one complete, and one as a delta for Sandy's, which is what I have at present. Sandy's is good on the word count front, he's slimmed it down a lot from what it was when I first read it, which is good. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:06:55 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Designer >> There's no such skill as Ride in RQ, and I don't see the >> need to simulate these differences. >Then you consider riding a horse to be the same as riding a Bison, Llama, >Bolo Lizard, Ostrich, Griffin, or Sky Bull? What do you mean by "the same as"? If you mean the same skill, then no, but if you mean the same difficulty, then I don't see the need to differentiate. Maybe I should have said "There's no such skill as 'Ride Any Herd Beast', just 'Ride ' ". By Ride , did you mean such examples as "Ride Dobbin the High-Llama", or "Ride Grinder the Rhino", as against "Ride Any Ostrich" as an example of "Ride "? I think we are mis-understanding each-other here. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #178 ************************************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval.