From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #33 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 Thursday, March 30 2000 Volume 03 : Number 033 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] GM fiat (and other stuff) Re: [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101 [RQ-RULES] D100 vs D20 [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried...] [Fwd: [RQ-RULES] Glorantha] [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101] [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] GM fiat] Re: [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101] Re: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried... 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 22:36:51 -0700 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] GM fiat (and other stuff) This has been a fun thread to read, so I though I'd add my thoughts to the fray. > I prefer the concept that the rewards you get are proportional to your > contribution to the game. If you want to keep a major benefit that > you picked up during play, you declare it to be part of your just > reward. I prefer to let the players decide what is fair for the players. If the party works hard to reach a goal, etc, etc, and one player grabs more than his/her share of loot, the rest of the party just plain won't stand for it. I don't hand out skill increases arbitrarily, either; if a character earns a check, there's no need for me to think about it further. How fair can it be for me to offer any character an increase in an ability if that character hasn't earned it? If he has earned it, there is already a mechanic in place to deal with it. On to other stuff. One of the themes in this thread has been the concept of character progress as a reward of the game. I don't see it that way. I roleplay to leave the mundane world behind and indulge in some fantasy with friends. Character progress is a good thing, no doubt about it, but it tends to be a side effect in our game sessions, not the goal. You don't hear anyone saying "Can we roll checkmarks yet??" At least, not anymore. And to refute the maturity remark: I'm 33, and I love the hack and slash style of game because I find the day-to-day act-out-every-minute-of-the-character's-life style of play boring as hell! That's what I'm trying to get away from! My favorite saying during game sessions where I'm not the GM is "Let's kill something." If that makes me immature, you'd better re-think your definition of the word. As far as the d20 vs. d100 discussion... I think the d100 works better than d20 as far as progression is concerned. I just don't see jumps in skill ability of 5% at a shot to be all that "realistic", but 1 or 2% every so often seems about right. Can't do that with a d20. Personally we haven't run into any problems with scale in RQ3, because we don't have characters with skills over 100% very often, and even then I've never seen one go over 120%. I can't imagine the number of check rolls it would take to reach 150%. That's a lot of 01's! Don't get me started on Divine Magic. In my opinion that system is more broken than spirit or sorcery in RQ3. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:42:10 +0100 (BST) From: Graham J Robinson Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101 I did say I wouldn't do this, but since Peter insists on talking crap about hero wars on the list, I feel justified in calling him on it. I suspect that its getting close to the point where we ought to take this elsewhere, though... So to summarise, Peter doesn't like Hero Wars because : 1. Doesn't like terminology 2. Doesn't like Hero Points/Experience Points 3. Doesn't like how much it has in common with AD&D 4. Thinks GM has too much ajudication to do. 5. Thinks GM has too much power 6. Hates having to spend experience points to 'cement' stuff you found on an adventure 7. Hates the attitude of Gloranthan oldies to newbies 8. Thinks AP sounds too AD&D 9. Doesn't like character classes Hmmm. Probably missed some, but that was all in his last post. Someone else added : 10. Have to explain all of Glorantha before you can play. Lets just go through these one by one... 1. Terminology. So what? I'll never use it. We'll all call the guy running the game a GM anyway. I have no idea what they're called in RQ, and I've been running that for more years than I care to remember. 2. Hero Points Okay, these are experience points - if you don't like that, fair enough. But at least these are of the 'use to increase an ability' rather than 'get 10,000 and you're better at everything' sort. The fact that only RQ and its derivatives doesn't use some sort of experience system (Oh, there's Traveller, but then you can't improve at all...) suggests this attitude of 'experience points bad' isn't too common amongst the general gaming community. 3. To Like AD&D So what does it have in common? Different skill mechanism, different combat system, different magic system, different character creation system... What was the point again? As far as I can make out, it uses a d20, and has what Peter insists on calling character classes (see below). Pardon? Runequest has similar basic characteristics (Str, dex, etc) that are rolled in much the same way, hit points, etc. Seems to me if we're going to do a count up, RQ ends up closer. But then neither system seems all that close to me at all. 4. and 5. GM Power/Responsibility Every GM has great power. There are bits in HW that are over the top (we'll get to that) but that they have to decide how to roll the dice when someone does something weird? Thats true of any system. Runequest is no better - if the players want to make or build anything, it all comes under the 'devise' skill, for instance. Any system that lists skills has to cope when there isn't one quite right, or have so many skills that you need a fork lift to move the rule books. (I'm sure 'building small traps with glass and maple leaves' is in volume 37...) Now I agree, a good system should encourage and assist the GM, especially the novice. But I haven't seen the GMs book yet, and neither, I suspect, has Peter. 6. Spending points to keep stuff. I agree with Peter entirely here. Finding stuff is a 'world' activity, not a 'rules' activity. I will never use these ideas. I will also have to extrapolate proper price lists from those given - I don't care how many points a sword costs, I want to know how much gold/gems/cattle I have to fork over. 7. Gloranthan oldies vs. newbies Can't say I've noticed this as a problem, although I do know people who have (Hi Gian). To be honest, this is mainly a problem with the Glorantha Digest - if you talk crap, you will get stomped on, whether you are a newbie or Greg Stafford. I believe Issaries are planning on a new mailing list which will be aimed at more the newbie end of market - hopefully this will ease the problem slightly. However, most people are not going to be using such sources anyway until they are relatively into the system. I'm certainly the only RQ player I know on any of these mailing lists. 8. AP sounds AD&D Being of the "system doesn't matter if the GM and players are good" persuasion myself, I have played AD&D a reasonable amount. I have never heard the term AP used. What are you talking about? Do you, perhaps, mean AC? Even if it is used, so what? Runequest and AD&D both have hit points - should I stop using RQ? 9. Character Classes In Hero Wars, many of your skills are determined by your culture and your profession, plus possibly the god you follow (or similar). You then get ten extra skills of your choice which can be general (strong) specific (brew beer) or silly (large nose). In Runequest, ALL of your starting skills are determined by your charactersitics (to a small extent) your culture (which determines choice of profession) and your profession. One barbarian farmer looks much like any other. How is this different? And how is this remotely like AD&D? 10. Gloranthan knowledge. I just don't agree. I see a typical character creation session with newbies running something like ... "You are all Heortlings, sort of celtic/germanic tribesmen living in the hills. You all chose a profession which gives you some skills. Done that? Now choose a god to follow your profession probably made some suggestions. Okay, now choose up to ten more skills you fancy having - anything, just tell me what you want. Now lets game." I can't see this being a big problem, somehow. Using the 100 word essay is more complex, but I won't be using that, and neither I suspect will most others... Having said all this, there are still lots of problems with the system, and I'm not sure if I will use it. At least I have managed to iron out the bits of RQ that I don't like... The two big problems I can see are the action points thing - too much hassle, too clunky - and the general increase in the level of play. According to the rules, everyone starts with a skill that in RQ would be between 100 and 125, depending on whose conversion system you believe. Scary. - -- Graham Robinson. Dept. Computing Science, Glasgow. gjr@dcs.gla.ac.uk http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~gjr "Tip of the day: You can hurt yourself if you run with scissors." The MS Word Tip Wizard (apparently) *************************************************************************** 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: 30 Mar 2000 10:37:24 +0200 From: Alain RAMEAU Subject: [RQ-RULES] D100 vs D20 The HW system uses D20 while RQ system uses D100 (both RQ II and RQIII uses D100, but for RQII, the skill being 5% increment, it does not really matter to use D20 instead, except for the critical/fumble calculation maybe). D100 is quite easy to understand as percentages are used in many things of RW. But for the French I am, D20 is not a too a difficult scale either because all our scholarship marks are mainly numbers from 0 to 20 (instead of the US system of A, B, C and F, with - and +). Anyway, the AP (Action Points) system and contest system of HW could be used with a D100 and RQ percentage skills as well. All you need is to create in the extended contest table of HW a line and a column for the Special Success result, between "normal" Success and Critical Success, with specific effects compared to the adversary's result. Or if you don't want that additional column/line, you can either ignore the Special Success roll, or amend RQ rules to set up a single Critical Success of 10% of the skill instead (as per Elric). There would be no need for a bump up system because the 200% character is more likely to make a special or a critical than the 75% character, so already gets the advantage over the other one. And the HW's slight inconsistency regarding the fact that a skill of 19 may be preferable to a skill of 1W would not appear in this system (a 105% skill is definitely better than a 95% skill). I would recommend also that you gather (Weapon) attack and (Weapon) parry skills into a singhle Weapon skill (or a style, such as Sword+Shield skill). I am not sure all these changes are worth just to keep the D100, but one may think about it. Alain. http://www.karamo.btinternet.co.uk/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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:30:34 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried...] Michael Cule : > 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? Haven't tried it yet, but that's more or less how I'd do it. There's a small problem in the RunePower system with ritual magic and other high power spells : minimaxers delight if they can cast *any* spell with their points, and the game becomes unbalanced far too easily. Ritual magic and the Highest magic should probably still involve RQ3 sacrifice, prayer, and one-use-ishness IMO. There's a delicate balance needed here, but I don't know which ... :-( Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:31:05 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [Fwd: [RQ-RULES] Glorantha] Philippe Krait : > And, what is worse, you now _have_ to go through it, and in > great detail, as the character generation is now completely linked with > a world that you have to understand to avoid inconsistency. Hm ! Actually, inconsistency is *part* of Glorantha, and should be encouraged ! Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:31:55 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101] Peter Maranci : > And why shouldn't I dislike AD&D? It's a very poorly-designed system, But D&D 3E *isn't* !! > > [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. Yep ; and I *love* these .liddle. differences myself ... > 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. Precisely, it's like RQ with a D20 (monsters have characteristics, too ; monsters have skills ; combat and skills use the same rules ; characteristics are open-ended ; &c ) plus experience points, levels, and alignment (all of which are reminiscent of HW). All you'd really need to do is drop character classes in favour of keywords, and replace the D&D alignment system with the HW Good guys vs. Bad guys conflict system (!). Even the number of character classes is designed to be multiplied, which potentially leads to HW professions. AND you can advance in whichever skills you like. AND HW character creation rules could almost directly translate into D&D characters. And it will obviously be *much* easier to use HW imports in D&D than to use them in RQ. Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:32:27 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] GM fiat] Timothy Byrd : > To aid this purpose, it is often the goal to set things up > so the game can continue. So the game can't continue unless Johnny Hero has to spend a Hero Point if he wants to keep his Ring of Extra-Healing ? [GD-type expletive(s) deleted] > What this mechanic mimics is the ending of > a lot of episodic fiction. Conan may end up in command of a pirate > ship, but he's on his own by the beginning of the next story. Yeh ... jus' like f*cking teevee ... I mean, how *mythical* IS that ? Do you think that Man had to spend a Hero Point to keep Fire when Prometheus gave it to him, so that it would be available for the next 'episode' of his TV show ??! Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:35:28 +0100 (BST) From: Graham J Robinson Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [RQ-RULES] Disingenuousity Primer 101] >and replace the D&D alignment system with the >HW Good guys vs. Bad guys conflict system (!). Pardon? How exactly does the hero wars conflict system ("good guys" = me and my mates, "bad guys"=anyone who opposses us) resemble the AD&D notion of absolute good and evil? If AD&D third edition (sorry, D&D - they dropped the A) is really similar to Hero Wars, its going to be so far from AD&D as currently known as to be almost unrecognisable - no characteristics, no levels, different magic system (none of this cast it once and forget it stuff), combat where the other guys skill matters... At least hero wars didn't pretend it was Runequest - not that I can see quite the same upset over AD&D as over Runequest... Graham - -- Graham Robinson. Dept. Computing Science, Glasgow. gjr@dcs.gla.ac.uk http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~gjr "Human resources are human first and resources second." J. Garbers *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:04:16 +0100 From: Michael Cule Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Removing One-Use Spells. Has anyone tried... In message <3.0.6.32.20000329162043.00876b20@mail.io.com>, Jim Gould writes >I let anyone who has been an initate of a cult for more than one year >sacrifice for a single 1-point cult-specific spell that is treated as >reusable. That's a lot less generous than what I was proposing. Basically, the RunePower idea says you don't have POW invested in specific spells but in a pool of magic you can draw on to power the spells that your god makes available. How I'm proposing to modify it is to add the idea that Initiates don't use up their pool when they use Divine Magic but can only renew it at High Holy Days (whereas Acolytes can renew at Seasonal Holy Days and Priests and Lords at any time). Spells marked as 'one-use' in the current sense still have to be sacrificed for specifically and you can't use the magic from you Divine Pool for them. Also you do have to learn how to do the various effects and your cult will a) charge you money b) only give you the knowledge if you are A Member In Good Standing c) only be able to teach some effects at larger temples. You do get taught any Common Rune Spells when you get initiated. And as a further restriction, you have to make a Ceremony roll to regain your diminished Divine Pool. - -- Michael Cule *************************************************************************** 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 #33 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.