From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #31 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 Wednesday, March 29 2000 Volume 03 : Number 031 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] HW again [RQ-RULES] Variant Divine Magic Rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried... [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101 RE: [RQ-RULES] CRANKY Review of Hero Wars RE: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried... [RQ-RULES] on/off topic Re: [RQ-RULES] on/off topic [RQ-RULES] Bits and pieces... 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 12:27:38 -0500 (EST) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] HW again > 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 ? But will we then need to free Glorantha from the Hero Wars system? > 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 And it's a stupid practice. Why reinvent the wheel every time one writes a game? > 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 - "Brownie Points" is what I calls 'em. > > 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. So what--that doesn't mean that "personality traits" and "Relationship Ability" are inherently good. *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:40:54 -0500 (EST) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Variant Divine Magic Rules I used the following rule with great success for several years: Initiates: Renew all Divine Magic on annual High Holy day. Acolytes: Renew all Divine Magic on seasonal High Holy day. Priests/Lords: Renew all Divine Magic as normal. Of course, this renewal can be witheld for inappropriate behavior. Moral of the story: Do NOT mess with the trolls the night before ZZ's High Holy night. They'll be just ITCHING to put their Divine magics to good use knowing that they'll be getting them back, and they'll just be OH so eager to use them in a ZZ fashion. Likewise, it made for some interesting drama: "We need your help. Malia's Unholy Day is coming up and we expect Broo problems." *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:15:08 EST From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried... In my campaign I allow recovery of Divine Points with a successful Ritual, not needing an actual temple (hard to find in a world that has not known gods for 800 years). I'm probably entirely too generous with how many Divine Points people can recover in a relatively short period of time, but I'm trying to break the concept that RQ is role playing for accountants. Steve Perrin, still running after all these years. *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:49:47 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101 * Steve Lieb wrote: > [Steve Lieb] wow. One might re-title this "disingenuousity primer 101" Okay. See above. > 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? Nothing. I just think that this particular jargon sucks. And as was well noted by Julian Lord, the televisionistic (is that a word?) quality of this particular jargon is jarring, to say the least. One minute the system appeals to the most erudite gamer, suggesting a 100-word essay with good grammar; the next minute it's pandering to us morons by using TV terms instead of traditional gaming jargon. So what are we -- morons, or brainiacs? > And Hero Points *are* something you get as you accumulate experience. I can't figure out what this means. Experience points are something you get as you accumulate experience. So what? > All I get here is some sort of feral hatred of anything remotely > sounding like AD&D, which is all it does. Well, if that's all there is to the review why get so excited? And why shouldn't I dislike AD&D? It's a very poorly-designed system, which is why I'm amazed that HW has so many elements in common with it. After all, the previous Gloranthan roleplaying game was truly ground-breaking and cutting edge. All that's cutting-edge about Hero Wars, as far as I can tell, is the phrase "cutting-edge", which I've heard over and over. > [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%? There is if you roll an 88. > Rather than being a dry "roll 3d6" the author is juicing it will a > little more friendly language. Is this a problem? There is if the GM is constantly required to adjudicate the definitions and relationships between skills. I can see the appeal of allowing freeform fuzzy categories, but what happens if two different skills are in conflict, and the players disagree on how they interact? Or three different skills? Four? Etc. I suspect that the skills will soon be narrowed down to a smaller set, because otherwise published scenarios will become quite confusing. > [Steve Lieb] This is where it veers a little from RQ [snip] I'm just kind of sitting here trembling at that one. :) > 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. I got a good chuckle out of this one. But then, I'm not too bright -- lots of things entertain me. > 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). And they are different from experience points how? > I don't think it's terribly complex, and it IS rather novel. But "novel" does not necessarily equal "better". > [Steve Lieb] You're right - munchkin powergamers can abuse the > system. How brilliant to notice. Well, I already said that I wasn't too bright. > 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? In that case why have any system at all? Why not just go with WOTC's Open Larceny System, or whatever they're calling it? It's disingenuous to pretend that the structure of a rule system does not affect the way in which it's used. Otherwise, all roleplaying is chaos, and any system is as good as any other. In which case, why get so excited about something that doesn't matter? > [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"? But the system REQUIRES (or at least encourages) the GM to do so! Again, a system affects how GMs use it. Over and over Hero Wars encourages the GM to maintain iron control in those areas which are not completely left mushy and open. It's worth pointing out that not all GMs who play this game will necessarily be highly experienced -- in fact, if Chaosium wants to make this a success they HAVE to get new gamers involved! Why encourage bad GMing habits in novices? On a more personal note, I always used to hate it when my old D&D GM would remove character treasure by fiat. "Whoops, you must have thrown your new magic sword into the sewer ... given it to the King ... whatever. Ha ha!" That's just annoying. Do we want to annoy players? Will novices continue to use a game system that annoys them? To actually rant a little, one of the biggest problems for Glorantha has been growing hostility to newcomers. Treat people like crap, and you know what? They won't like you! Go figure. It's fine to be that way if you're a cult planning to meet the mothership, but if you want to propogate a hobby or run a successful business that's not a very well-omened course. > [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? Yes. In fact, it makes me nervous to even see the forbidden letters in the paragraph above. > HW is nothing like AD&D, except that it also uses a 20-sided for > event resolution. Er, and experience points. And something a lot closer to character classes than RQ had. And apparently limited skill sets, unless there's something I missed (quite possible, as I'm none too bright). And NPCs who do not have the potential for growth that PCs have. Julian Lord said "the new version of D&D is going to be about *85 - 95%* compatible with Hero Wars" -- I haven't seen the system yet, but that certainly is something to think about. I'll take a look at the system when it comes out, but at this point it doesn't look promising at all. By the way, I was surprised to see so much anger from a man whose last name means "love". :) -->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. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:11:45 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] CRANKY Review of Hero Wars >Ob RQ reference -- looks to me like conversions are going to be a bitch. >Anyone tried that yet? >Peter Maranci pmaranci@tiac.net Malden, MA Conversions should be rather direct into HW, but many undetermined items will need to be defined to convert back to RQ. Currently I am speculating that you can take your major skills and divide them by 4% to get a HW value, and every 20 converts to another 'W'. Armor, protective magics, average damage from the primary weapon, all weapon magics, and all applicable stat modifying spells should add about 1/2 of the effect to all appropriate skills. The physical stuff like armor and weapon damage should add directly while spells are probably better treated as augmentations (I'm fuzzy on terminology). RQ stats should probably convert straight to HW skill values with appropriate spell modifiers noted as augmentations (possibly at 1:1 instead of 2:1). HP's, MP's, and Fatigue are absorbed into the conflict resolution. MP storage has no direct affect that I am aware of... animists seem to have all they need. Divine magic effects are considered to be recastable for everyone, though rune levels get more or better magic. I would expect similar treatment for sorcery. The game seems to assume that access to magical abilities is proportional to your experience advancement... the better you are in general, the more you can augment. This is a reasonable assumption based on RQ experiences, though PC's usually are near the extreme top of the bell curve in regards to magical access. If you use bound spirits to aid in spell casting, there presence is absorbed into the augmentation affects of the spells they can cast. If you have spirits that can be used to attack, they should certainly be listed as available allies with whom you can combine AP's. Your description should note whether their use is one time only, once until recharged, or continually available. A major issue in my game is that all of the divine initiates have more spirit magic than most Daka Fal worshippers. It is rather unbalancing to mix magic types, but the restrictions against it are full of loopholes since most cultural descriptions claim some mixed form for many groups, and within RQ, anyone can summon spell spirits or make deals with shamans. Describing your character's personality, motives, weaknesses, and goals will be left as an additional task, not required, but desired. These are the aspects that I can think of right now. If you can wedge this info into the HW system, you should have a character that plays at a similar level. All INHO. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:41:52 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried... >Has anyone here had experience with either of these? Has anyone tried >using BOTH where Initiates have a pool that can only be renewed at HHD? >Michael Cule I have convinced myself that Rune Points are a much better alternative to the current RQ divine magic system, but I haven't added them to my game yet. It is waiting for the next rewrite of my house rules (which is waiting for HW). I will certainly include both rules so that I can greatly reduce initiate access to spirit magic without alienating my players. It appears that some distinction should be made between the points for special, common, and allied cult spells which is tied to the size of the temple where the POW can be sacrificed or where the point can be recovered. Another option is to say that divine points can be used for any purpose and can be gained or returned at any site, but that they return as a function of the number of worshippers at a site... hours/point = 500/initiates (rune levels = 5 initiates, lay members could be 1/5). At a small shrine it could take days to recover one point, while at a major temple it could be an hour or less. This is much simpler, and more generous, than keeping track of different types of points and where they can be recovered. It also cancels the need for seasonal or annual pilgrimages of rune levels back to a temple to recover spells. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:51:56 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: [RQ-RULES] on/off topic Philippe, Wile I know that this site was created for RQ rules, that purpose is slowly leaking away. RQ is not published or supported and most of us have a great interest in variant rules for RQ and Hero Wars. So I would hope that people would consider this site to be appropriate for any rules discussion based on these general systems. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:05:15 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] on/off topic Bob Stancliff wrote: > > Wile I know that this site was created for RQ rules, that purpose is > slowly leaking away. RQ is not published or supported and most of us have > a great interest in variant rules for RQ and Hero Wars. So I would hope > that people would consider this site to be appropriate for any rules > discussion based on these general systems. As the list owner/moderator/etc., I'm willing to entertain it so far as it applies to conversions and such, and probably a little more. Lacking hard copy of the rules, not much else is really possible. If it devolves into the GD on a spear length thread, I'll probably start muttering. - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:06:46 +0100 From: "Ashley Munday" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Bits and pieces... Pete he say: "Ob RQ reference -- looks to me like conversions are going to be a bitch. Anyone tried that yet?" I found the conversion to be not that bad - scribble a description and work it out from there, argue about the skill levels and snip, snip, Bob's yer Aunty. However, the big bugger is that the system plays way differently from RQ. The players had problems doing the sort of thing they were used to in RQ. Basically it doesn't suit our style of gameplay, hence the desire to nick the good bits (i.e. the magic system) and leave the cacky bits (i.e. action points, hero points, everything being so bloody abstract) to those luveys that like that sort of thing. Ken also sayeth in reply: "What do you _mean_ anyone tried that yet? Is this thing even out of Issarries' hands, and on the market yet?" Mope, but as Ernalda said "There's always another way." In my case it was a VISA card and a transatlantic 'phone call. Ash *************************************************************************** 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 #31 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.