From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #43 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Wednesday, March 3 1999 Volume 02 : Number 043 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] recording sorcery [RQ-RULES] spells and books RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks RE: [RQ-RULES] Paul Reilly's sorcery system meets the Ressurecti RE: [RQ-RULES] spells and books Re: [RQ-RULES] recording sorcery Re: [RQ-RULES] Paul Reilly's sorcery system meets the Ressurecti RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks [RQ-RULES] RQ-RULES] Fonritian sorcerers 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: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:20:59 -0500 (EST) From: Al Harrison Subject: [RQ-RULES] recording sorcery I like the idea of differentiating between an expert and a neophyte based on the amount of detail they put into an explanation. I also think it's slightly ridiculous to make one read language roll and learn a spell at 80% (or anything else). Let's take a RW example. I study engineering (yawn). The TA tries to explain deformation of metals by the dislocation motion mechanism. He knows the information at about 60% but can speak/write English at about 30%. I go over my notes several times; the first time it's clear to 10%, the second time to 25%, the third time to 30%, and thereafter it just doesn't get better. I go to the prof, who knows the stuff to 80% and can write/speak to 90%. After studying these notes a number of times, I understand the information to 70% or better. But no way that I, or any other student, could understand all the material presented on the first shot. I would say that magic is the same as any other profession. Some stuff you pick up quick, some takes a long while (particularly the nuances represented by high skill %). If you know it well, you can explain it well - limited by your communication skills, in Rich Allen's rules the read/write language skill. If you find it written down and have a lot of patience and time to practice, you can learn it to the extent it's explained. In game terms, I would say the spell is recorded to a level = the minimum of caster's spell %, caster's write % and can be learned to a level = the minimum of reader's read %, recorded skill %. Did that make any sense? Al Harrison www.coe.neu.edu/~aharriso/ aharriso@coe.neu.edu *************************************************************************** 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, 02 Mar 1999 15:01:59 -0600 From: Steve Lieb Subject: [RQ-RULES] spells and books >> 1) I have a lot of trouble with anyone writing down a spell in which the >> skill of the spell caster is conveyed in the text (i.e. basing the # of >> pages on the caster's skill). Rich Allen: > Why not? The way I see it, the more experience you have with a spell, the >more notes, hints, "this works a little better if you hold your foot like so >[diagram]", you would write down along with the basic spell. This is >basically the only way to differentiate a spell known at 30% with the same >one known at 90%. The book would most likely have the spell initially >written down at some low percentage, but then later on the spell information >would be added to, jotting down lessons learned, etc, making the spell as a >whole a higher percentage than when it was first written down. > My problem is simple: Bill knows a spell at 95%. He writes it down and shows it to Novice Ned. Now Ned knows it at 95%. They show it to Stupid Stan. Stan now knows it at 95%. They show it to Frank the Fighter, now HE knows it at 95%. And they tell two friends, and so on, and so on. As a DM, no thanks. My party would be clamoring to share everything amongst themselves, not to say with NPC's and selling the damn writings all over the place. Yes, as a DM there ARE things I could do to dissuade or prevent it. But why build a system that invites such abuse? Better to write a tight rule to start with. >------------------------------ ><< Also, can't a magician choose to forget a spell, wait a while, relearn it > and still have the same % in the skill (maybe with a penalty)? > >This is my interpretation of all the sorcery rules published thus far. > IMO what were discussing is the mechanism by which this happens. >*************************************************************************** - -Steve Lieb styopa@iname.com steve@necadon.com http://surf.to/styopa *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Mar 1999 20:00:39 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks > but even if there is no such rule I still don't like the idea of > reading a few hours and getting maybe 70% in a spell. I don't agree with this either. In the spellbook rules I'm writing up, anyone using a spellbook to study a spell, except for the sorcerer who wrote it down in that book, starts out with the normal starting spell percentage, plus a very small bonus for the % level of the spell as written. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Mar 1999 20:00:34 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks >> "Also, can't a magician choose to forget a spell, wait a while, relearn it >> and still have the same % in the skill (maybe with a penalty)? > > For what it's worth, that's what the rules say, before they were Sandied > into their current form. Sorcerers can also develop a skill with a spell they > don't know even if they can get hold of a matrix for it. I'm sorry, where does it say this in the rules? We created out spellbook rules specifically because we couldn't find anywhere in RQ3 that said you could re-learn a forgotten spell at the same percentage you had when you forgot it. If you _can_ re-learn a forgotten spell per the rules, then there really is no need for sorcerers to have spellbooks, is there? Rich Allen *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Mar 1999 20:16:47 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Paul Reilly's sorcery system meets the Ressurecti > > And why is this a bad thing? > > Because there is no rules difference between shamans and sorcerors, > or at least there is a large amount of comparisons. Now, > Because a Priest doesn't devote POW to his holy item. I'm only > challenging the idea on a purely mechanical level that a player with > a shaman and a sorceror will find the two run in a very similar > fashion. But a priest DOES devote POW to his god. So priests and shamans sacrifice POW to something in order to become better at their particular way of casting magic. Also, a fetch is a conscious entity, a spirit. A vessel is not conscious in any way, but is more like a super enchantment, combining Magic Point Matrix Enchantment with some new stuff. It's an external storage device for pieces of the sorcerer's soul, and can maintain spells that are cast by the sorcerer, but cannot cast spells or do anything else on its own. I think they're different enough in the rules to make them separate mechanics. > It is not so much the Vessel that i have a problem with, it is the > deovting of POW to it rather than some other method. How else would you suggest the item be enchanted? > Yep, this sounds great. Any chance of a "guardian angel vessel?" I > thought the idea did sound kinda fun. Well, I suppose a special kind of spirit familiar could act like a guardian angel. I want to avoid the internal vessel idea all together, as that makes it impossible to lose the vessel, and I think they should be more fragile than that. > Do you still require a ritual to set up a Maintained spell? Still working on this part. At the very least, the ritual won't take nearly as long as in Reilly's rules, if it's used in that manner at all. > >It never says you have to sacrifice the POW, only that you need to > >'devote' POW. I read that to mean that POW maintaining a spell was > >unavailable for other uses, but if the maintained spell were ended, > >could be reused elsewhere. My copy of Reilly's rules had lots of gaps, if anyone has a better copy, please post it on a web site somewhere, please! I read his rules on POW as "transfers POW to the vessel." This is permanent POW, but it all exists in the vessel and can be used over and over again. If the vessel had 10 POW invested, the sorcerer could maintain a 5 point spell and have 5 points for augmenting his other spell casting. When the 5 point spell is no longer maintained, the vessel once again has 10 points available for augmenting, maintaining, etc. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Mar 1999 20:28:55 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] spells and books > My problem is simple: Bill knows a spell at 95%. He writes it down and > shows it to Novice Ned. Now Ned knows it at 95%. They show it to Stupid > Stan. Stan now knows it at 95%. They show it to Frank the > Fighter, now HE knows it at 95%. No, not at all! If a character comes upon a book with a spell written in it at 95%, and wishes to study it, he follows the rules as published re: spell research. With my proposed spellbook rules, the chance of successfully learning the spell after the study period is INTx3 + 19% (spell%/10) and the starting percentage in the spell is 1d6+Magic skill modifier + 9% (spell%/5). The 95% spell description makes it a little easier TO LEARN, it does NOT give you the 95% from the start. Just to be complete, a character with an INT, POW and DEX of 15 that finds the 95% spell in a book would have a 64% chance to learn the spell through study (vs 45% as written in the rules) and will have a starting percentage of 1d6 + 22%, or an average of 25%. Also note that most sorcerers would probably NOT write down a spell that has been raised to this level, since it's probably one that he uses all the time so he doesn't need to forget it. The vast majority of spells found in spellbooks will probably be found at around the 50 to 75% range. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** 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, 03 Mar 1999 13:11:46 +1000 From: Robert McArthur Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] recording sorcery Al Harrison wrote: ... > Let's take a RW example. I study engineering (yawn). > > The TA tries to explain deformation of metals by the dislocation motion > mechanism. He knows the information at about 60% but can speak/write > English at about 30%. I go over my notes several times; the first time > it's clear to 10%, the second time to 25%, the third time to 30%, and > thereafter it just doesn't get better. > > I go to the prof, who knows the stuff to 80% and can write/speak to 90%. > After studying these notes a number of times, I understand the information > to 70% or better. > > But no way that I, or any other student, could understand all the material > presented on the first shot. > > I would say that magic is the same as any other profession. Some stuff you > pick up quick, some takes a long while (particularly the nuances > represented by high skill %). If you know it well, you can explain it > well - limited by your communication skills, in Rich Allen's rules the > read/write language skill. If you find it written down and have a lot of > patience and time to practice, you can learn it to the extent it's > explained. But RQ mechanics miss the situtation that you can get middling-good very quickly and very fast. For 15 hours study, perhaps you can get from 0 to 50% in some skills. Then it starts getting much harder. How about a mechanism which deals with the fact that, under pressure, things you don't know very well can work quite badly, but when not under pressure and you have time to think, even things you don't know well can be worked through to success. Obviously this doesn't work for every skill: languages for instance: you may, with time, be able to get across at 25% when you're currently at 10% through hand signals, etc. But you're not going to get across at 60%. Let's take lock picking: if you're at 20% and you have time and materials, you may be actually able to work at, say, %45. But when under pressure you're at most at 20%. Perhaps, for certain skills, the skill you have is what is rolled under pressure, but that in quiet situations you can roll at, say, skill% + higher(skill% or INT). Most referees I've played with do this outside the rules. Given time, you can overcome many things... perhaps there is no need for a game mechanic. Cheers Robert *************************************************************************** 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, 02 Mar 1999 22:30:41 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Paul Reilly's sorcery system meets the Ressurecti Rich Allen wrote: > > But a priest DOES devote POW to his god. So priests and shamans sacrifice > POW to something in order to become better at their particular way of > casting magic. Also, a fetch is a conscious entity, a spirit. A vessel is Simply sacrificing for divine spells, though, won't gain you a regenerating magic point source, though. > storage device for pieces of the sorcerer's soul, and can maintain spells > that are cast by the sorcerer, but cannot cast spells or do anything else on > its own. I think they're different enough in the rules to make them > separate mechanics. One thing I did rule in my spin on this is that if someone else gained possession of the sorcerer's vessel, they could cast spells on it that would affect the sorcerer, WITHOUT a resistance roll needed. And the sorcerer in question couldn't create a new vessel until the old one had been destroyed... > My copy of Reilly's rules had lots of gaps, if anyone has a better copy, > please post it on a web site somewhere, please! I read his rules IIRC, there was alot of discussion concerning Mr. Reilley's system in the old RQIV playtest archive - this may be where I gleaned my interpretations. - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 3 Mar 1999 08:37:04 -0000 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks >We created out spellbook rules specifically because >we couldn't find anywhere in RQ3 that said you could >re-learn a forgotten spell at the same percentage you >had when you forgot it. Where does it say that the skill is treated unlike other skills? Surely it should just follow the standard skill deterioration rules for not having been used for a while. Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated. http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Failure is not an option, it's integral to the o/s. *************************************************************************** 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, 3 Mar 1999 10:26:11 +0100 From: Tollisen Terje Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] spellbooks Rich Allen: >>> "Also, can't a magician choose to forget a spell, wait a while, relearn it >>> and still have the same % in the skill (maybe with a penalty)? > >> For what it's worth, that's what the rules say, before they were Sandied >> into their current form. Sorcerers can also develop a skill with a spell they >> don't know even if they can get hold of a matrix for it. >I'm sorry, where does it say this in the rules? We created out spellbook >rules specifically because we couldn't find anywhere in RQ3 that said you >could re-learn a forgotten spell at the same percentage you had when you >forgot it. If you _can_ re-learn a forgotten spell per the rules, then >there really is no need for sorcerers to have spellbooks, is there? You're right, it doesn't say so in the rules. But as far as I understand things, and play them, a sorcerer can learn a spell, train his skill used to cast it, then forget it and use a matrix with spell but sill use his own skill%. This might not be in the rule either, but it seems to be a common way of doing things. Do you allow this Rich, or must a sorcerer learn the skill for casting a spell from zero it he wants to free up some INT? Anyway, if a spellcaster can forget a spell to use another source for the spell, he should be able to relearn it himself. - -Terje Tollisen *************************************************************************** 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, 3 Mar 1999 09:35:10 GMT From: simonh@msi-uk.com (Simon Hibbs) Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ-RULES] Fonritian sorcerers Tal Meta : >Perhaps. My Glorantha Lore still hovers at 30%, despite all my time >playing RQ. :) Fonrit is a pamaltelan region. It's very 'arabian knights' in some ways, but with a pre-islamic polytheistic religious mix. There is an article on Afadjan in Enclosure (I forget which) that sets the tone nicely. If you want to give your guys a cultural context, I think that would be an excelent one to go for. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #43 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.