From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #28 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 Tuesday, March 28 2000 Volume 03 : Number 028 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Cranky Review of Hero Wars [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #26 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, 29 Mar 2000 14:36:37 +1000 From: "Grawe, Philipp" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Cranky Review of Hero Wars Well, I have to say, I disagree. I haven't seen anything on Hero Wars apart from the stuff posted to the Glorantha digest and the stuff on the Glorantha site, so I'm certainly no expert. I like the character creation. I've had too many players who were hamstrung in their character concept by the very detailed RQ2 and RQ3 character creation. I've found more and more that over the last 10 years of Runequest that we've gotten away from the roll skill, tick experience type of game play to the keep a story going type of gameplay. I find that as a GM I have to make situations for the players to get ticks when playing RQ3, because with my preferred mode of GMing it tends much more towards storytelling and they never get enough ticks to actually advance. The dice rolling is a side-line and gets in the way... It's a matter of maturity. If you're 22, drinking scotch all night and playing a Zorak Zorani Great Troll, thumping Broos is a great way to spend a friday night. If you're 32 and you've just designed a young Lunar Noble with a bunch of magical and social skills, Broos are something to avoid, especially when you've had enough of the RQ-style mass combats. While GMing I tended to get more and more into a talking, interacting with NPCs way of playing. Unlike 10 years ago, I had a set of NPCs, a definate structure in mind. Players would roll their skills without being prompted as a sideline to the main story, because the story was more interesting. Lately it has struck me that the whole character creation is a bit of a waste of time, because we never use most of it and half the skills people want aren't on there. Hero Wars sounds really, really good. I _like_ the 100 word idea. I have a regular player who _always_ has his character concept worked out a week in advance of the first session. Finally we can stop finagling the rules to accomodate him and leave him play the character he wants, not the character the rules allow. It needs practice and I'm pretty sure the first time I run Hero Wars everyone will have to do a couple of drafts, but hell, there are a couple of other chargen methods. I really, really like the quick chargen method (it suits me better as a player, I normally don't have a clue what I'm going to play). I'm getting firey here, and it's not a flame, don't take it that way, but are you honestly telling me that if I give you a blank sheet of paper and ask you to design a character, the best you can do is come up with Fighter, Magic User, Thief. There's a _lot_ more out there, and if the rule book refers to that style of character, perhaps it is to accomodate the people who aren't used to anything else. To me, it looks like Hero Wars finally frees Glorantha from the Runequest system. Have you got any idea how long some of us have been waiting for that ? Philipp. *************************************************************************** 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: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:41:41 -0600 From: Steve Lieb Subject: [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #26 > Subject: [RQ-RULES] Cranky Review of Hero Wars > [Steve Lieb] wow. One might re-title this "disingenuousity primer 101" note to readers: I should point out before I reply here that I'm the person managing the HW-rules mailing list, intended to be the HW counterpart to the Glorantha list as this is the RQ-counterpart to same. That noted, I think anyone who's read my posts on the HW-Rules digest will clearly recognize that I'm somewhere in the "i think i might like it if I could get past some bits I really don't think work right" category - I want to like it, I'm just not sure I do. So now, full disclosure over, I'd like to take this "cranky" review to task a little: > Okay, let's check our new glossary: > > GM = Narrator > PC = Hero > NPC = Narrator Characters > Scenario = Episode > Campaign = Series > Hero Points = Experience Points. Waitaminnit -- EXPERIENCE POINTS?!? > > "Excuse me, Narrator, will the Narrator Character in this episode of this > series receive Hero Points for killing my Hero?" > > Doesn't sound quite right... [Steve Lieb] I don't find this particularly surprising. You have Dungeon Master, Game master, referee, narrator, playmaster, Judge, etc all in books I have sitting within reach. Each game has it's own nomenclature as a very basic jargonistic way of differentiating itself immediately from its competitors. What's so hard to get about that? HW isn't the first to do this, nor will it be the last. And Hero Points *are* something you get as you accumulate experience. All I get here is some sort of feral hatred of anything remotely sounding like AD&D, which is all it does. It's utterly different, acting more like "fate points" (also called other things in other games - see above). > > A d20 system. Oh boy. Now *that's a leap forward... [Steve Lieb] Again, feral anti-D&D ism apparently. You tell me - is there really such a HUGE difference between an 87% chance to succeed and an 88%? Who really gives a crap - if your game really rests on individual percentiles (or are you one of the rabid dice rolling clan, who prefers rolling THREE ten sideds, resolving combats down to tenths of a percent?) are you simulating reality all that much better than someone who accepts rounding to the nearest 5%? > > Character creation -- a hundred-word essay? You just lost the interest of > 95% of the potential market. They don't even want to *see* the words > "100-word description" -- much less one with five bulleted mandatory > elements. I mean it's a nice idea, kudos all round, but even as an > optional rule this one should be hidden way, way deep in the back of the > book. Instead it's the first option listed. [Steve Lieb] While I may partially agree with this, I also think that gamers, as a general group are rather literate, and frequently will enjoy this. There are alternative character generation systems available too that don't require writing. I have a rather cynical group including totally goal-oriented-screw-the-roleplaying players who have all expressed interest in this. How many people roll up characters TOTALLY RANDOMLY? Very few. And even if you do roll them, who hasn't fudged their DEX if they want a stealthy guy, or STR if they want a Storm Bull? So why not simply start as someone you WANT to play? > > > Keywords -- "a quick description of the character's role in society". > Like Fighter. Magic-User. Thief. Wow. Can I have a duel-keyword half-elf > Fighter/Magic-User? [Steve Lieb] This is just ranting. RQ had Hunter, Noble, etc. The role in society isn't deterministic (as apparently the author didn't bother to read) except insofar as RQ3 was - the keyword gives the character a certain basic skill set, preventing the players from having to write a 500-word essay just to include the mundane skills everyone knows they know. The occupational keywords link the character to a basic skill set - no more. And just like RQ3. > > Skills: Let me see if I have this straight. Numbers represent skill levels > but the Mastery rune modifies this somehow? The Master rune indicates a > mastered skill, but apparently this can still be any number, rather than > 20. A guess -- is this the equivalent of "Hero Skills", which have never > been detailed as such in a Chaosium publication? How does a Mastered skill > of 4 compare to a non-Mastered skill of 15? > Later: It's explained in Chapter 2. A Mastery 1 skill = a skill of 21. > You can get multiple masteries, so (for example) 8w3 equals a skill of 68. > But not percentage. This is a reverse-notation base-twenty system, if I > may dare to get mathematical (not my strongest point). Somehow, I don't > think this system will ever need to worry about being called "intuitive". > [Steve Lieb] Well, no. Simply put, your skill (again, like RQ) can be a Crit Success, Success, Failure, Crit Failure. Roll under your skill to succeed. Roll a 1 to crit succeed, roll 20 to crit fail. Simple, right? Then the masteries come into play - if you have a "mastery" (W) this bumps your skill to the next higher success. So if you have a 14w skill, and roll a 16, this is a failure, bumped up to a success. Now, going against others with mastery in an opposed skill, masteries cancel, so a 14w vs a 12w becomes 14 vs 12. Pretty damn simple, if someone bothered to read the rules. The thing about the 68 has to do with action points, which are expended in an opposed "extended contest" which is actually a fairly dramatic way of resolving conflicts - not quite as simulative as RQ, but a heck of a lot quicker and possibly more interesting. Personally I'm still trying to decide. > > Looks like unlike RuneQuest, in Hero Wars characters have limited skill > sets -- not all will possess all abilities, unless there's an unstated > base chance for success for non-keyword skills. One step closer to a > class system... > [Steve Lieb] It's like a mantra, this antiD&D nonsense, even when inappropriate. In RQ not everyone possesses all abilities, do they? Here's an example. Let's say Ronnie Quarto and Harry Willems are similar characters essentially - Ronnie has a high strength stat, and Harry has the keyword "strong" in his description. They both want to participate in the Caber Toss, but neither specifically has "Caber Toss" as a skill. How does the RQ ref simulate it? Dunno - maybe a test against STR x3 or some such? Harry would test against his "Strong" ability, possibly with a slight handicap since he doesn't specifically have the "caber toss" skill. Is either system better or worse here? I dunno, but it seems the HW system is quicker and easier to apply. > > "When choosing abilities, you can use any words or phrases you want to > describe them. It doesn't matter whether the ability is described with an > adjective, noun, or verb; use whatever sounds good to you." This won't be > confusing. Trust The Computer. > [Steve Lieb] I don't get this- it's pretty simple. Rather than being a dry "roll 3d6" the author is juicing it will a little more friendly language. Is this a problem? > > Personality Traits -- "there will be occasions when the narrator will ask > you to roll a personality trait directly". That's why it's called > roleplaying -- die rolls, so you don't have to! > [Steve Lieb] This is where it veers a little from RQ, and some will like it, some not. If you have "greedy" as a keyword - yes, some people add flaws on purpose* to make a character interesting then if you do something that's drastically out of character, the Narrator (or DM, if that's too confusing) might have you check against your Greed rating. If you don't like it - DON'T DESCRIBE YOUR CHARACTER WITH SUCH TERMS. It does make it easier for the DM to play NPC's. * these would not be munchkin powergamers, it's assumed > > Relationship Ability Rating -- "Loyalty", "Hatred", etc. Whoops -- I > didn't realize I was reviewing Pendragon 2000. Thanks, Mr. Game Designer > - -- thanks for saving me from the danger of actually ROLEPLAYING my > relationships. > [Steve Lieb] Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. Geez. It's not RQ4 alright? It may actually be DIFFERENT. Get over it. > > Dependants -- "Dependents never raise their abilities; they are always > meant to be frail". You no longer need worry about those annoying NPCs, > pardon me, "Narrator Characters" -- they're not really equal to you any > more. And how is this different from AD&D? Beats me. Remember how annoying > Spiderman's Aunt May always was? Didn't you wish that some supervillain > would crush her like an overripe wrinkly irritating grape? > [Steve Lieb] Anyone care to define the word "dependent" for him? Not every NPC=dependent. Now we're drifting from "rant" to disingenuous. Of course, it may not be disingenuousness, but the alternative is simple bone-stupid, and I try to see the best in people. > > Hero Points = Experience Points. Now that's cutting-edge game design! > What's next -- Armor Classes? Excuse me, I meant "Armor Keywords"? > [Steve Lieb] THis was already addressed above, but for those actually buying his nonsense, Hero Points are given at the ends of episodes/scenarios/whatever the hell you want to specifically call them, by the DM to the players based on their success (and, IMG, roleplaying). Hero points can be used to -improve a skill by 1 (or 5% if you "just love percentiles") -cement an advantage. Let's say at the end of an adventure, the DM says "you killed the monster, so the community loves you" and gives you a "Apple Lane friendship 14" trait. So next time you're running from the law, and need a place to hide, Apple Lane might be a good place to try. But after a while this will fade ("what have you done for us lately?") unless you spend a hero point to cement it. - intialize a skill: say you were in an adventure and you ended up climbing a rock face and succeeding using your "Strong 15" keyword with a -6 improvization penalty. I believe you can spend a hero point and take "Climb Natural Rock" at 12 to start, but I'm not sure of this one. I don't think it's terribly complex, and it IS rather novel. > > Flaws - AKA GURPS Disadvantages, but they don't give you any character > building points. Despite this, you must pay points to eliminate them. They > are also entirely voluntary. It would be nice to think that players will > take Flaws nonetheless just for the pleasure of roleplaying. It would also > be nice to believe that the majority of roleplayers are selfless and > totally dedicated to the principle of artistic integrity before winning. > Unfortunately if this is *not* the case then the system punishes good > roleplayers while rewarding powergamers. Doesn't make sense. If you trust > players to create characters -- excuse me, "heroes" -- with flaws for the > sake of dramatic roleplaying, why suddenly treat them with suspicion when > it comes to getting rid of flaws? > [Steve Lieb] You're right - munchkin powergamers can abuse the system. How brilliant to notice. Now, tell me a system that can't be rules-lawyered? Or that can't equally be brought back into line by a judicious DM? > > If you don't write in a reference to a new element acquired by your > character the GM may remove it by fiat. Somewhat reminiscent of Amber > Diceless, but without all the freedom. Likewise, you must spend experience > points to retain wealth gained after an adventure, else the GM removes it > by fiat. Talking about jumping between extremes -- GMs have a huge amount > of power in this system! > [Steve Lieb] Let's see, I create the world, design the opponents, the rewards, the consequences.... yeah, DM's have a HUGE amount of power in this game. Oh wait, they do in EVERY GAME. Christ, what's the difference if the DM says "After a week of high living, that wealth you got from Apple Lane for saving them is pretty much gone" (you didn't cement the wealth increase with a Hero Point) or the DM says "you get back to the inn/castle/whatever and some thief has pilfered your gold, leaving you poor and needing work"? Sure, in the second the DM 'could' have rolled the thief's stealth skills etc to sneak in and evade your traps, but hey, if the DM wants you poor, you WILL BE POOR, no matter the superficial rules structures in place. It's the DM's JOB. They are both vehicles for keeping the action moving, both by DM fiat. One's just more honest. > There are something called AP (obviously not Armor Points), which can be > "bid", and have a "normal lending mechanism". Ah, the synopsis tells us. > These are "Action Points", which "are equal to his target number plus 20 > APs per mastery plus modifiers". Waitaminnit. "Target Number"? > [Steve Lieb] Look, I don't know what Peter has in particular going here except some sort of pathological fear/hatred of anything vaguely appearing or even SOUNDING like AD&D. Some childhood event, perhaps. Peter, do you find yourself skipping any news story whose byline reads "AP" (Associated Press) since that doesn't mean "armor points" either? HW is nothing like AD&D, except that it also uses a 20-sided for event resolution. This is a pretty specious reason to slam an entire game sight unseen (and sorry, as he evidently didn't even READ the 3 chapters that are up so I don't count that either). Clearly, he won't play HW. I probably will give it a try. It's an interesting mechanic that seems to work - when you put in the mental ergs to think about it. C'est la vie. > -->Pete > - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Peter Maranci pmaranci@tiac.net Malden, MA > Pete's RuneQuest Page! Fantasy roleplaying adventures, an online game, > art, character sheets, & more: http://www.tiac.net/users/maranci/rq.htm > > > ************************************************************************** > * > 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 V3 #26 > ************************************ > > ************************************************************************** > * > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 V3 #28 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.