From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #95 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, May 28 1999 Volume 02 : Number 095 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS SV: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" (was: Baths of Nelat) (LOOOONG!) RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Re: [RQ-RULES] Rune Points Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" - Erik Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword 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: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:31:51 +0200 From: "Erik Sieurin" Subject: SV: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" (was: Baths of Nelat) (LOOOONG!) - -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Timothy Byrd Till: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Datum: den 27 maj 1999 21:53 Ämne: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" (was: Baths of Nelat) >Erik Sieurin writes: > > To get back to RQ (and not Glorantha) the Divine Magic rules > > should reflect how you think the relationship between gods and > > mortals work in whatever world you're gaming in. To me, the RQ > > rules feels completely wrong for an Alternate Earth campaign, for > > instance. > >Do you mean in general, or just the Divine Magic rules? And could you go >into specifics about where the feel is wrong, please? Sounds like you are being offended by this suggestion... I meant the Divine Magic rules. I'm not too sure of the Spirit Magic or Sorcery rules either, but they offend me less. If I had any good 'specifics' I would've mentioned them in the first post, so here is some general ramblings: My example below will be Viking Scandinavia, since it is an area I know about and has played in, but much of what I say apply to other areas and times as well. Some of these problems won't appear in your 'Mythic Greece' campaign, for instance. My first RQ campaign ever was RQIII Vikings. When I run that I was still in love with the RULES (halleluja!) and thus didn't question their effect on the campaign, but my players did. I sort of feebly fended them off by the fact that I knew more than they about history (which was true, but did not amount to much). Well, after becoming a Glorantha addict, I came back to the world of my sort-of-ancestors (being Swedish) again, and started thinking mythologically or watchmacallit about the magics, and connect it to the little more I now knew about Dark Age Scandinavian magic practices (which still was little, because little is known, no matter what people might tell you). First problem: No initiates to specific deities. The whole concept of Cult and Initiation as presented in the RQIII and RQII rulesbooks is missing. As for worship, the Viking Age Scandinavians seem to have worshipped the whole pantheon, or at least the parts locally known (no point worshipping gods of the sea if you live in the mountains, for instance) There are certain traces that can be interpreted as there being some sort of primitive mystery cults dedicated to shamanic gods like Freja and, most importantly, Odin, but I would stress the 'shamanic' part here. In particular, the idea of everyone and his uncle being an 'Initiate' is wrong, so the RQII-players should rejoice. If you retain the idea of initiateship, it should be a rare thing for mysterious and powerful people (which ought to include the PC's). Back to 'Mythic Greece', then. The ideas of 'mystery cults' and 'initiates' come from this area of the world, so there is less trouble here. Still, it is a privilege to be a member of one of these cults. It is not something that happens to 50% of the people like the rules suggest. Further, the 'mystical knowledge' of these cults isn't really supposed to give you supernatural powers, although that can of course be changed for a campaign. And if it does, nothing says the mechanisms of sorcery or spirit magic aren't better suited to represent it in game terms. See the third problem. Second problem: No priests. In some literary sources 'priests' show up, but there are scant support for the idea of full-time priests. Here you _can_ get away, though: Religious ceremonies were led by prominent members of the household, nation or what-have-you, and this can be interpreted as some variant of 'Rune Lords' as they are used in Gloranthan RQ: people that are 'holy' but mostly have mundane tasks (eg, king, head of a household/stead, ship captain etc). Again, however, nothing says they only followed one god or anything like that, though that could certainly be wriggled out of by stretching what we know. Again, back to your MG campaign. Here you do have priests, but they are AFAIK more like civilian government types. They are not supposed to be able to use magic. Certainly the public rituals they perform are supposed to bring material benefits (fertility for the fields, victory in war, etc) but it is not 'spells' per se. And with that we arrives at the third, and major, problem: Magic simply isn't the crossbreed between spell and miracle that Divine Magic is supposed to be. If the population of a village performs rituals to Frey to ensure a good harvest, the idea isn't that their village wise woman suddenly has the ability to cast a 'spell' (which even has a name - spell names are a blatant gaming construct) which will do so. The idea is that the ritual by itself has that effect, if the gods and alfar are in the right mood. Especially, the idea that you toss in a couple of POW and get the ability to do a magic deed _once_ is a gaming construct. You can try to work around that description in various ways, since there certainly are instances of people sacrificing something to the gods and getting something in return, but in the end the mechanism feels vey awkward. The sagas talk about oxen and horses and vows to do stuff, never about : 'And here's a part of my spirit, Odin, use it as you like.' Why shouldn't a player be allowed to make a vow, or sacrifice umpteen oxen, and get a magic benefit, since that is what the heroes (and villains) of the literary and historical background do? And finally, we are back in MG again. The same applies here. There simply is no idea of: 'Well, I can't invoke Pallas Athene's Aegis to protect myself anymore before I go to one of her temples and stay there for at least a day, and it must be a BIG temple, mind you, since you only get the ability to bless craftswork in smaller temples. However, I can use the Medusa ability petrify people by invoking the rites of Perseus twice more. It _is_ strange, since it has four times the power of the Aegis, but I have specifically sacrificed 1/4 of my soul two times to get it." With the rules as it stands, you _buy_ Divine Magic and its uses as if it were things, and then you use them up. If you are a priest, you get a substantial discount, but the idea is still there. Of course, since one of the problems with magic systems modelling RW ideas is that these ideas often are vague, you can get around all this by saying that it does indeed work as in the Magic Book, it is just that noone told us. But that is kind of a cheat. >I've recently read "Gates of Fire" and re-read "Soldier of the Mist", and >now I'm interested in running a similar setting. How would you change the >rules to fit a campaign in Mythic Greece? (Initially, I used the term >"Ancient Greece", but I think the flavors are very different. How do you >keep the existence of magic from tearing apart your background society? Of >course that's a question that's been around since original D&D.) Yep, that's true. First, it it is any help, see what I've written above. Second, here are some more ramblings, since I have worked on a campaign world where one of the major areas is loosely built on Alexander's Hellas. One thing that have struck me is that in almost all settings, there are two kinds of magic around that isn't accurately modeled by most magic systems, although RQ do indeed come close: folk magic and heroic magic. With the first kind I mean the kind of low magic that is used to cure diseases, find lost stuff, bless endeavours and so on. It is not that costly (no POW loss involved, or the folk magicians would charge outrageously for their services and the whole thing wouldn't be 'folk' any more), it takes much longer time than normal magic, and it usually lasts longer. I would make that into ceremonial magic, which costs a lot of MP but no POW. Instead of teaching people how to cast Strength and give them a fetisch, you make a ritual which create an amulet which will increase their strength. Use some variety of the Sorcery Duration rules and have them roll against Enchantment skill. Of course the ingredients for the amulet should be appropriate. Instead of immediatelly healing a lot of HP in a single round, let them use Ceremony for an hours-long ritual which still leaves a wound but causes it to heal faster without the threat of it being infected or worsening. Instead of using a single POW to cast Divination (still a Ceremony) let them Summon a vision to themselves for mucho MP (like all except one) with a chance of getting a sensible vision being based on how much MP they spend. And so on. Reduce the rate at which you regain MP - say, one per day or so, or let them regain all their MP in a week. Note that most attack magic becomes a case of curses cast from afar. Suits me fine. Now all you have to do is find the evil sorcerer and kil him to end the spell. In fact all this sounds as Sorcery - can be very effective but needs lotsa MP, obviously skill-based since it is a thing for experts only, not necessarily any religious affilations involved. Then we have heroic magic. This is a thing to remember: In the myths of the RW, there aint no such thing as the Compromise of Glorantha, the Concordat of the Illimitable Tome of Harn or the 'Prime Directive' against interfering on the Primal Plane that appears in AD&D books. The gods freely walk the earth, or at least they used to, and if they've stopped, no one can tell. Perhaps it is because this is the base Iron Age, in which people are less heroic and virtuous than they used to be. Perhaps the gods just move in mysterious ways. In my interpretation, having the heroes (the PC's) actually encountering divine beings in a 'Mythic Greece' campaign suits the mood perfectly. I somehow get flashbacks to 'Lands of Adventure', a game which for the most part was very bad, but included one wonderful idea: a background table for PC's where you got backgrounds such as 'you are the child of Zeus and the local queen, the king heard a prophecy that you would kill him so you were set out into the forest where you were raised by nymphs'. While certainly high-powered, it makes for a fitting mood of the game. On a less powerful level (as in the novels you mentioned) having the heroes getting visions for the gods, or being cursed or gifte by them, is also perfectly fine. Such magic needs rules, but they should be decided on on a case by case basis. If Athena lets the hero borrow her shield for a limited amount of time, it is a shield with an unlimited number of AP, and perhaps some nice touch like everyone seeing the medusa-head on it getting at least Demoralised. If Zeus gifts/curses the hero with lycanthropy, well then he is a werewolf. If one hero is the son of Poseidon, he has the innate ability to feel earthquakes coming and gets a peverse bonus to Swim. No need to make up Divine Spells or similar stuff. Now, what about changing the historical background? Well, the folk magic, if it is close enough in what it can do to RW beliefs, isn't really that different from the 'placebo' effect of people really believing in this stuff. And the heroic magic is rare stuff that usually happens only in legends and does not affect the everyday life of people in general. That the PCs themselves are the stuff of legends is not important. Erik, who hopes it is possible to make some sense out of this. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 18:05:29 +0200 From: "Miguel Angel Cantabrana Salazar" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword >Lurker Miguel Angel Cantabrana Salazar: I am not a lurker. :-) I'm just arribed >> Sorry, I don't now exactily the rules that you use 'cause I play >> with an old version of RQ-4. But for many years I played with a >> house rule. I think that when a man hit something with 2 H the hit is >> stronger than a 1 hand stroke (think in yourself cutting wood) but >> if you use a Bastard Sword you have 1D10+1 Dp in anycase. My rule is, >> like in disarming's one, when you use 2 H your damage bonus is >> (STR x 1.5 + SIZ). Is this too high? > >I think it is. When fighting 2-handed style, you lose some accuracy, and I think it's probably right that the Damage Bonus be always the same, whether 1H or 2H. It's simpler than having 1H vs. 2H accuracy rules. Probably you lose some accuracy, but you have two skill to simply the accuracy rules. When you have enough STR to use a weapon with 1H or 2H, why do you choose the 2H one? It's best to have a 1H weapon with a shield. Why do the great people (like trolls) choose 2H weapons? Simply: To make good use of their Strength. >> Enjoy >> JAM > >I *luuurve* jam, especially from my "local" farmhouse ! Yuummmm !!! Of course, Ernalda has blessed it. :-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 15:17:55 +0200 From: "Miguel Angel Cantabrana Salazar" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: >> JAM said: for many years I played with a house rule. I >think that when a man hit something with 2 H the hit is >stronger than a 1 hand stroke (think in yourself cutting >wood) but if you use a Bastard Sword you have 1D10+1 Dp in >anycase. My rule is, like in disarming's one, when you use >2 H your damage bonus is (STR x 1.5 + SIZ). Is this too >high? > > I agree that the damage should be different when the same >object is changed from one-hand to two-hand. If you make a >modest change in weapon damage it will have a much smaller >effect than changing the strength bonus. It might be best >if you add +2 or +3 to the strength damage instead of x1.5, >but I am not sure it will make much difference. >Bob Stancliff Yes, but we need a general rule, if you are a big, and strong, Great Uz, the +2 will be ridiculous, and too big if you are a hobbit. In RQ-3 rules in all cases you can use 2 hads the rule is STR x 1.5. A medium human have, STR 11, SIZ 13 and 1H damage bonus=0, 2H damage bonus=+1D4 (or +1 Dp). But with the Great Troll who has STR 29, SIZ 34 and 1H damage bonus=+3D6 (or +7), 2H damage bonus=+4D6 (or +10 Dp) yes, I'm sure it will make much difference (more, including, if you are the target :-D) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:02:47 -0700 From: " " Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Rune Points Julian Lord : >Seems strict to me too. Lightning (Boy) is only one spell/myth after all; >under the Rune Power regime, if you know how to throw one lightning bolt, >you should be able to throw as many as you have Rune Points. Which seems extremely unballanced. Hence I would limit it to a maximum number of stacked points of Lightning at a time a you've sacrificed for. Under the liberal Rune Points system any Rune Priest by definition has access to at least Thunderbolt 10, or Shield 10, or whatever. I'm not sure that's a good thing, and I'm sure David Cheng's orriginal proposal did not allow it. Simon Hibbs - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Share what you know. Learn what you don't. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 11:34:31 -0700 From: "Timothy Byrd" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ rules "feel" - Erik >Sounds like you are being offended by this suggestion... Actually, it was a only request for more information. (When I'm offended, it's obvious. ) Thank you for your reply. Looks like lots of good stuff. I'm going to take some time to reread and absorb it. - -- Tim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 22:46:34 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword Miguel : > Why do the great people (like trolls) choose 2H weapons? > Simply: To make good use of their Strength. Hm. Well, RQ3 2H weapons do more damage than 1H ones, with the exception of ... ... 2H Bastard Sword vs. 1H !! The basic rule is OK IMO. But I *do* hate the RQ Bastard Sword rules, 'cos the Bastard Sword is my inner munchkin's fave weapon ... *grrrr* Probably, 2H Bastard Sword should do 2D6 + 1 base damage. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:10:46 -0500 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Bastard Sword > Hm. Well, RQ3 2H weapons do more damage than 1H ones, > with the exception of ... 2H Bastard Sword vs. 1H !! > > Probably, 2H Bastard Sword should do 2D6 + 1 base damage. Actually, I think the high-end damage for the two styles of Bastard sword should be the same. Weapon damage is a reflection of how hard it is to dodge than how much physical harm the weapon does; a weapon should do full damage when swung full force into someone just lying there in his shirt. I do think the two-handed style would score more damaging hits more often so I would propose something like 1d10+1 for one-handed (as written) and 1d8+3 (or _maybe_ even 1d6+5) for two-handed. Max damage remains the same, but average damage is higher for the two-handed style this way. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #95 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.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.