From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #190 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Monday, October 19 1998 Volume 01 : Number 190 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Characteristics [RQ-RULES] Criticals and magic: spirit enchantments [RQ-RULES] This "BFRP" RE: [RQ-RULES] Criticals and magic: spirit enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] related skills [RQ-RULES] BFRP: If I had my druthers..... [RQ-RULES] Combining two excellent projects [RQ-RULES] Bound spirit enchantment [RQ-RULES] BFRP Design List Re: [RQ-RULES] Criticals and magic: spirit enchantment [RQ-RULES] Black Moon Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organization 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:22:07 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Rules complexity Bob Stancliff re. category modifiers : >Certainly they are a generalization, but it would be necessary to >give each skill a separate bonus computation to do it any other way or drop >any form of head start. When combined with a means of choosing your >starting skills, they define the areas that your character can most >effectively grow into. Fair enough, and I know this sort of mechanism is simulationist heaven, but if characters are going to have skill areas they are particularly adept at I would rather these were explicitly chosen by the player rather than foisted on them by the game mechanics. As I said before, I'm not actualy against category modifiers but I do believe that the realism argument is very much overstated. After all the skills a character improves in are going to be the ones the character uses most often, regardless of such factors. Playewrs will want to improve skills that their character uses or wants to use. > .........When a stat >changes, it only changes the modifier, not all of the listed skills. When >an experience roll is checked, you simply roll over the listed value and >change it. It forces the player to add in the modifier at use, but since >we have several stat modifying spells going up during any combat, these >values are constantly changing and have to be recomputed anyway. The >deferred modifiers simplify character sheet maintenance and updates. Lovely, now you have to do a calculation before you can even make a streight skill roll. What fun. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:58:01 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP - Characteristics Dana : >How about keeping the 3-18 range, but allow for different rolling >methods,such as done by ad+d; 4d6 drop low roll, or 3d6 reroll 1's. that >would allow for more "heroic" characters. They just complicate the issue. It means the GM has to do work deciding basic things like how to roll stats just to make the game work. If you don't want people to roll poor stats, why not use a method by which thay _can't_ roll crap stats, instead of just making it less likely. It just means the occasional player with bad luck is even more stuffed than everyone else. >I must admit though, I have played and see no problem playing low stat >characters. Bully for you. I've done it too, but if in a particular game I want to play a character with certain attributes I want the freedom to be able to do that. "I think I'll play a character who is a long distance runner, famed for his ability to chase down game during the hunt. Oh, I haven't got any stats over 11, well I suppose that goes on CON." If you want to play a character with certain weaknesses that's fair enough, but just becasue you don't mind it, does that make it fair to force it on other people? Using a stat rolling system such as 3D6, or even 'reroll 1s, or 4D6 discard lowest, guarantees that it _will_ happen. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:02:39 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Criticals and magic: spirit enchantments kes : >Does a critical bypass magical armor, i.e. Protection spirit magic, shield >and even armoring enchantments? Yes, it baypasses the lot. The rules are very clear on this. >Also can bound/commanded spirits be forced to catch enchanments? What do you mean by 'catch'? If you mean create, then no. Recieved wisdom from Chaosium sources is that no being can be forced to sacrifice it's own POW against it's will. Sacrificing POW is a religious sacrement that requires emotional commitment. There may be exceptional circumstances, but it's not something that can be done on a routine basis. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:05:32 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] This "BFRP" bjm10: >Current discussion makes it quite obvious that the goal is to deviate too >far from BRP for my taste. I don't think there is 'a goal' as yet. Many of us have different goal in terms of the final shape the game will take. I'd be interested to hear you prefferences, and what aspects of the discussion you feel are too variant from BRP. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:13:09 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Criticals and magic: spirit enchantments >>Also can bound/commanded spirits be forced to catch enchanments? >If you mean create, then no. Recieved wisdom from Chaosium sources is >that no being can be forced to sacrifice it's own POW against it's will. That is, of course, a Gloranthan ruling. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:15:24 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] related skills Bob Stancliff : >> I'm sorry Bob, but that's just facetious. > The term is 'sarcastic'. Facetious : 1 : joking or jesting often inappropriately; 2 : meant to be humorous or funny. I'd say it was facetious and sarcastic. >no skill refinements such as mine are tolerated, and there are no category >bonuses to justify skill groupings Who has said this? I've argued that skill categories are arbitrary and that therefore cannot be proved to be realistic, but I have also proposed a way to incorporate skill categories into the game, so you're obviously not talking about me.... > ... at that point do you need skills, and >how many? This is a non-sequitur. It;s like saying you can't have a magic system without magic points. How many skills we have is a fair point for discussion, but nobody here has sugested dropping the skills system so arguing that point is a total straw man. > .....Simplifying RQ allows room for better rules, it doesn't mean >gutting it and hanging up the skin. Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 10:33:53 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP: If I had my druthers..... Michael Cule : I agree with most of what you say, though I dislike strike ranks and hit locations as being unessecerily complex. There are much easier ways to achieve the same results. >The things that I think need fixing about RQ if you're going to produce >a RQ Lite are the following: > >1) Simplified char-gen. I like the way CoC and Elric do it - allocate XXX (Usualy about 250) points amony YYY (usualy About 8). Though I give my players 500 points and allow them to by magic with their points too. >2) A fixed sorcery system. And I'm sorry but I don't regard Sandy's >Sorcery as a good model here. I personally favour ......... I think it's worth making the game compatible with Sandy's sorcery rules. For almost no effort you get a complete optional sorcery system. I think it should have a simpler basic magic system though. >4) If anyone can come up with a *simple* way of making the life of a >shaman more interesting I'd like to hear it. Me too. Have you seen Sandy's draft shaman rules? They're quite nice. >5) The varying special effects for varying types of weapon attack should >be either removed or made optional. I'd favour saying 'A special gives >you the maximum damage the weapon can do: a critical gives you that >and ignores armour too.' This is how Nephilim did it and it's badly broken. This method sets a relatively low absolute maximum limit to the damage a character can do. e.g. With a shortsword, a better than average character with a +1D4 damage bonus can do an absolute maximum of 12 points of damage. It's fairly easy to have 12 points of armour, using metal armour and protection spells or Shield. This would mean Mr Shortsword couild only ever hurt you on a critical and then would give you a grievous wound, there's nothing inbetween. I also means that a Troll character would _know_ that Mr Shortsword cannot kill him in one blow, no matter what he does. Of course for character without a damage modifier it's much worse. Rurik Runespear could have quite happily ignored the trollkin, knowing it could only do 7 points of damage as an absolute maximum. 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: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 12:59:00 GMT From: mab@sdc1.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Mystic Musk Ox) Subject: [RQ-RULES] Combining two excellent projects Brad Furst wrote: ?What is Gardasiyal? A recent set of RPG rules for use in Tekumel, by TOME I think. Unfortunately, despite the box enthusing about a world that had been in development for 50 years, the only thing that you got in the box that told you anything much about Tekumel was a map. There weren't even any character generation rules, if you wanted some, you had to buy another book. The rules were a re-hash of the old 'Swords and Glory' system (that originally came out in the late '70's I think) and are a bit clunky. Unsurprisingly, it didn't attract new players, and just pissed off the old hands. >The authors of RQ4:AiG had secured the rights to publish in Jack Vance's >Lyonesse. Although the project is over, they might yet have some agreement. Now that might be quite interesting. It's a while since I read those. mark. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 08:37:58 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Bound spirit enchantment > can a bound spirit be forced to expend it's POW for you in an enchanting ritual, gut says no, but published scenarios say yes It's been stated often by various authorities that you can't force a bound spirit to expend POW for an enchantment. The game balance reason is that this would make enchantments far too easy. There is one case in a published scenario of a bound spirit that can be made to make enchantments for you. Seeing this takes place in a Thanatar shrine, I think it's best treated as a chaotic one-off achieved by some vile and risky chaotic hero-ritual. Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:09:18 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Design List The latest revision of the BFRP Mission Statement is available by emailing me (please do not mail the list) with "GIVE ME BFRP MISSION" as the subject. I will later impliment a progress statement, which will be accessible via "GIVE ME BFRP PROGRESS". The mission statement will contain revision lines at the top, and the version revision number will be in the email subject. I have posted the MS to the BFRP Design list. Message archive is available on . If you asked me to subscribe you, you should have received an invitation email to reply to. If you didn't, please ask again. I won't be doing admin functions very often, as my net access is intermittent, so if you can sign yourself up, then please do. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:28:51 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Criticals and magic: spirit enchantment > Does a critical bypass magical armor, i.e. Protection spirit magic, shield and > even armoring enchantments? The rules for Protection and other spells that resemble it say that they act in all ways like armor. This would mean that they are bypassed on a critical. I don't completely agree on this, but I know that someone would get enough Shield to be immune to any critical and enough Extension that they could keep it up for an entire mission if the rule were changed. > > Also can bound/commanded spirits be forced to cast enchanments? The rules have no opinion on this, but the 'Shadows on the Borderland' scenario, 'A Tale to Tell', felt that this was a legitimate binding condition to add to a ghost bind. I have played it that way, but I am convinced that this is a VERY evil act that offends Daka Fal and others (like a ball of tails offends Waha). Unfortunately, that isn't enough to stop all PC's, so it is possible that allowing this into your campaign can be badly abused. Not everything published by Chaosium is game balanced and 'fair'. Writers try to tell a good story, but not all of them know all of the rules, or all of the background material. The same is true of the Dorastor module when it mentioned that the Telmori shamen 'train' their POW by summoning spirits for POW checks. It is possible that this makes sense in terms of Greg's view of Glorantha, but it totally fails the rules test of justified reasons for POW checks. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:33:25 +0100 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Black Moon W know that lunar magic is cyclical and that it is at it's height when the moon is full - i.e. at it's brightest. We also know that the Carmainans with their dualist religious philosophy and see the red moon as personifying both the forces of light and darkness. So, what are the powers associated with the Black Moon? Note that the moon is not actualy half black, the dark side is due to the influence of destyx, which is a darkness-emitting satelite of the moon. Also we know that the trolls have connections to the lunar pantheon through Jakaleel. She worshiped Zorak Zoran and was associated with the blue moon trolls who, despite the natural trollish dislike of all things glowy, at least tolerate stuff that glows blue. Perhaps what we know about the magical influences of the moon from Runequest is incomplete or missleading? Perhaps only the goddy-two-shoes lunar magic is most powerfull during the full moon, but madness and mind-blast type nasty stiuff is actualy at it's weakest during the full moon, and most potent under the black orb? The downside is that this is more complicated and picky to deal with in-game, but putting playability to one side for a sec (we can pick it up again later) what do you think? Perhaps it's just some Black Moon magicians that have their power relationship with the moon reversed? If so, how, why and what does it mean? All Hail the Black Moon! 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: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:54:30 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] BFRP Project Organization > Talking of Art Work..... Sorry, can't help there. > (The newer players at my RPG club finally got fed up of the old hands > muttering about the joys of RQ and challenged us to run a on-going campaign. Good luck. My campaign is finishing it's fifth year soon. I have used every module set in or around Prax, making changes and extensions as necessary. I probably wouldn't have made it this far if I didn't let other players run individual or short stories for the rest of us. Looking back, it reads like a series of 'right place right time' coincidences. If anyone else was so lucky, there wouldn't be room for all of the fortune hunters that would be attracted. Bad story control I guess. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #190 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.