From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #85 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Friday, September 22 2000 Volume 03 : Number 085 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance RE: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules 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, 22 Sep 2000 09:24:09 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) >It seems to me that balance is an issue of whether or not the PCs >are more (or less) powerful than their opponents; so adding a system >that would make everyone, PCs or not, more (or less) powerful would >keep the balance the same as it was. I don't agree - if you gave everyone in the country a large bar of gold, would the economic balance be maintained? If you doubled everyone's wealth in real terms, that would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. Balance isn't just about how hard the opposition is, it's about whether the situation can spiral out of control in a "rich get richer" sort of way. Players are always going to make better use of magic than NPCs, because they spend hours on end dreaming up new ways to use their magical gear, whereas the referee often just has a bunch of stats to look at for 30 seconds before the dice rolling starts. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ 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. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 05:09:04 -0400 (EDT) From: simon_hibbs@lycosmail.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules I don't realy see the problem. RQ3 already has plenty of ways to make '+1 swords'. For example : 1. Enchant a sword with a Bladesharp matrix. Ok, so the wielder has to spend 1 Magic Point to power the spell, but still. This costs 1 POW per point of Bladesharp. 2. Bind a Bladesharp spirit into the sword. The spirit can then be told to cast it's spell on command. The higher the pointage of the Bladesharp, the fewer castings you'll get per day because the spirit runs out of MPs. This will cost 2 POW for the binding enchantment, but that's the same for a Bladesharp 1 spirit up to Bladesharp 6 or more. 3. Bind a Magic Spirit into the sword and teach it Bladesharp, then use it as above. The advantage here is it can learn (or might already know) other spells too. Costs 2 POW. 4. Enchant the sword with a Bladesharp matrix, then enchant it with a linked Magic Point Matrix Enchantment to power the spell. This will cost 2 POW per point of Bladesharp (1 pt for the spell, 1 pt for the MP storage to cast it). This is the most expensive method, but Sorcerers have it easy with the rest of the magic system, so that's ok. You could probably think of other ways to do it too, perhaps using crystals embedded in the pommel. I like the idea that magic is a product of concious energy, which is pretty much paradigmatic in RQ. All these methods make sense within the logic of the magic system. They're interesting and can be used very creatively to achieve unusual yet sensible effects. I fail to see how making RQ more like D&D with it's bland, arbitrary and modernistic aproach to magic is going the improve it. Simon Hibbs *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:27:48 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules > I agree, but my question was about PCs vs. OPPONENTS. In > my experience, PC parties rarely go up against the mundanes > you describe. My thoughts are that military outfits which > have their own smiths would also have their own enchanter. > The enchanter's 'job' would be to enchant the armor/weapons > of the company. > Rich Allen It is certainly true that the Lunar College of Magics is making items for the army, but I figure that due to the small supply compared to the high demand, these items tend to go to the very best units and the combat leaders, with an appalling number going to the higher officers who rarely see combat and therefore rarely use them (it's a status thing). POW gains in RQ are difficult. If you get more than 5 a year you are either in combat constantly or breaking the bell curve on POW checks. This limits the effect that one person can have on a large following unless he takes years to build strength. > I don't really see the problem. RQ3 already has plenty of ways to >make '+1 swords'. For example : >1. Enchant a sword with a Bladesharp matrix... >2. Bind a Bladesharp spirit into the sword... >3. Bind a Magic Spirit into the sword and teach it Bladesharp... >4. Enchant the sword with a Bladesharp matrix... > You could probably think of other ways to do it too, perhaps using >crystals embedded in the pommel. > I like the idea that magic is a product of conscious energy, which is >pretty much paradigmatic in RQ. All these methods make sense within... >Simon Hibbs I agree fully with Simon on these points. This is using the RQ rules the way they were designed, to get a great deal of effectiveness leveraged through a modest expense of POW. The designers considered each additional POW invested to add effectiveness greater than the sum of points. Because of the usefulness of spirit binds, I find it very hard to allow any Spirit Magic matrix larger than about 3 POW. It might be the only enchantment spell that some people know, so they use what they have, but most people can get a Binding enchantment spell instead (or in addition) and they would use it to have a greater personal gain. This does often require the aid of a Shaman or Priest to acquire the proper spirit for the bind, but this whole question has been hinging around Spirit Magic specifically (though it could apply to sorcery as well). If you want to get practical, the person blowing all of this POW to Imbue would probably be better off dumping all of the points into Strengthening enchantments. > Yowza. That's pretty steep. Wouldn't Imbue (2) and Bladesharp 3 (3) >work equally well? >Tal Tal has a good point. If you are going to allow Imbue at all, it is probably written a little too expensively. The geometric progression for variable spells isn't needed, and the number of doses and charges for temporary items could be raised as well. After all, the person making these consumable items to sell, has to get enough uses to bring the price down to a range that people can pay. In my game, 1 POW is valued between 1000 and 1500L, and this is applied to all enchantments and magic items. If the effect gained doesn't match the cost, then no one will buy the item and no one will want to make one (simple economics). As an example; this makes small Thunderstones very rare and large ones very expensive (about 2000L). The excessive price reduces the market for the item so the supply is small also. This is a shame since they are very useful objects. My friend Glenn made the following counter-argument with some suggested variations... bob Stancliff ********* > One thing I've always wished RQ had was some way to create > magic items other than matrices and enchantments. Stuff like > a +1 sword, with a permanent Bladesharp 1 effect. I have a problem with this whole concept. One of the things which made the Machine City so terrible was that it was doing just this thing. The problem with a permanently activated Bladesharp seems to be that it draws magic out of the cosmos (as opposed to a normal matrix, which gets its power from the MP of the user). Since the item is taking and never recharges naturally, it depletes the natural magical resources of the cosmos. Make enough of these, and the cosmos will run down. There are a few possible solutions to this: 1) Some items are inherently magical. Dragonnewt skin appears to make excellent armor (though the books don't say how) largely because Dragonnewts are just naturally magical. In their lives they imbue the skin with magical power, and even after it is separated from them it continues to be magical. Some minerals are also inherently magical, esp. those of divine origins. 2) Enchanted items with permanent POW sacrificed into them receive magic from a living soul, and this then seems to generate a permanent magical aura. However, this is relatively minor, and generally doesn't allow changes on the rest of the cosmos without further additional MP. 3) Some items have spirits in them. These then provide the living soul which powers the item, rather than it drawing power from Glorantha itself. Example: a wand with a magic spirit. 4) A god could create an item. In this case, the power is not being drained from Glorantha, but is supplied by a god who, in exchange, gains power in some other way (the geases observed by Humakti reinforce Humakt's place in the cosmos, for example). In fantasy literature, most of the magic items fall into at least one of these categories. Stormbringer was alive, and Excalibur perhaps as well. Mithral mail was made from a rare and potent metal. Some "magic" items are creations of uniquely skilled craftsmen, who either create things which are alive or just create things which are so wonderful they surpass anything the rest of us can conceive. Certainly there is much room in the system for items which are simply so well made that they do extra damage, or protect better, etc. A critical enchant and/or craft might allow this. This would mean that the item created surpassed its creator's predictions. I would say that if someone wants to create a permanent Bladesharp, for example, that person should have to first obtain the finest possible weapon, probably made of some metal more magical than ordinary bronze. (Enchanted bronze might do the trick, but no one alive knows the spell). Even then, some POW donor should be required to activate the magic inherent in the item, either by a mortal giving up one or more POW or the blessings of a god (perhaps obtained through a Hero quest). Charged magic is a different matter. Dwarves already create charged items, using the Store Spell sorcery. Second edition allowed magic potions, which essentially held the MP for the spell in stasis until the potion was ingested. Temporary magic items don't create the waste of universal magic which permanent ones do, and some principles should be developed for this. In many cases, such as healing plants, this will be from using materials which are themselves inherently magical. There are also apparently saint's relics: items which continue to have spiritual/magical power due to the past association with a particularly POW-erful living soul at one time. Creation of these, and rules governing them, would be GM's option. Glenn Kirkconnell *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:13:22 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) > I don't agree - if you gave everyone in the country a large bar of gold, > would the economic balance be maintained? If you doubled everyone's wealth > in real terms, that would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. Would it? I admit not paying too much attention in Economics 101, but it seems to me that if EVERYONE'S wealth suddenly doubled, then you might have a few days of spending fever, but then merchants would just double their prices and everything would be the same as it was. > Players are always going to make better use of magic than NPCs, because > they spend hours on end dreaming up new ways to use their magical gear, > whereas the referee often just has a bunch of stats to look at for 30 > seconds before the dice rolling starts. Thanks, that kinda proves my point. The unbalance wouldn't be in the additional rules, it would rest entirely on the shoulders of the GM who doesn't compensate. The GM who doesn't have time to make adjustments to the NPCs might cry foul if the players suddenly got a lot more powerful, but then isn't the inclusion of any new rules up to the GM in the first place?? Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 07:15:54 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules *"Rich Allen" wrote: > I'm just wondering why so many people feel > that making magical items common place > in RuneQuest would somehow unbalance the > system? Possibly this is a holdover from Greg's somewhat stingy attitude? Personally, I'd like RQ to be flexible enough to be used with any level of magic. I think it's practically there now, but added the Imbuement system to correct what I saw as a potential lack. > In a game where it is possible for the PC's > to have 500+ percentiles in skills... Yow. Can't say I've ever gotten that high, in more than a decade of playing RQ. > Have I completely missed the point? Well, I balanced the cost of creation so that it would still make sense to create (and value) an item with a matrix or captured spirit. At the same time, I didn't want to make it so expensive that no one would ever use it. 12 POW for a permanent +4 sword seemed about right. They SHOULD be rare. If someone really wants a campaign with ubiquitous magic items, perhaps they should include a cheap source of POW? Still, this is why I posted the system here (and on my web site): for feedback. If the cost is too high or low, I can adjust it. Something else I should mention: this system is for Spirit Magic only. I envision something very similar for Rune Magic, with the possible difference that the spells Imbued would have to be reusable, and would be lost once cast into an item (sort of like Truestone, with a similar way to recover them -- i.e. if the item breaks, the spell is regained). As for Sorcery...the Duration skill may mean that this sort of magic item creation is redundant. =>Peter - -- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ Page! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:16:15 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance >Thanks, that kinda proves my point. The unbalance wouldn't >be in the additional rules, it would rest entirely on the >shoulders of the GM who doesn't compensate. That's the difference between "balanced rules" and "rules that can, with a significant amount of effort, be made to balance". I'm advocating the former. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ 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. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:30:31 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules > It is certainly true that the Lunar College of Magics is > making items for > the army, but I figure that due to the small supply compared to the high > demand, these items tend to go to the very best units and the combat I was basing my suppositions on RuneQuest, not Glorantha (yes, I consider them as seperate entities). I'm not a fan of Glorantha at all (although I do borrow parts of Glorantha, like Broo, for my own campaign world,) so I don't know for sure, but it may well be that introducing permanent spell effects into Glorantha would greatly imbalance the setting. In non-Glorantha RQ games, I don't think it would. It all boils down to how the GM handles it. Nuff said on my part. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:36:27 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules > Something else I should mention: this system is for Spirit Magic > only. I envision something very similar for Rune Magic, with the > possible difference that the spells Imbued would have to be > reusable, and would be lost once cast into an item (sort of like > Truestone, with a similar way to recover them -- i.e. if the item > breaks, the spell is regained). That reminds me! I wanted to ask what edition of RuneQuest you had in mind for your rules but forgot all about it when the balance issue came up. Your use of the term "Rune Magic" leads me to believe you're using RQ2, or maybe some kind of hybrid? Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 07:45:54 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules *Tal Meta wrote: > You can always add a spirit binding, with the > enchantment condition "cast Bladesharp x when > drawn, to be renewed as needed until > resheathed". 'tis what I've done in the past. Right, that's an aspect of RQ that always interested me -- creative use of spirits, matrices, and conditions seems to have all sorts of possibilities for strange magic items, as for example the "Eyes-Behind" necklace that has a spirit that casts Light in the eyes of anyone coming up behind the character while carrying a weapon. But a lot more data is needed for that system. For example, how quickly does a spirit cast? How complicated can the instructions be? How, in the case of the above example, can the spirit be aware of what's going on behind the wearer's back when it doesn't have eyes or any way to perceive the (presumed) assassin? Can a spirit use judgement, and not cast the spell on the wearer's friends who are backing him up in combat? And what about spell matrices with casting conditions -- under one interpretation, a matrix can cast a spell automatically if linked to a MP source, even though there is no spirit or intelligence guiding it. But what is the chance of success, and of overcoming, and how quickly can the spell be cast? Anyway, while many (though not all) of these effects can be duplicated with matrices and spirit bindings, I wanted to have the option to have a different kind of magic. After all, in many published scenarios there are magic items that don't seem to be spirit- and matrix- based, and it simply feels wrong to me to have types of magic in a game world which can be created by others, but not by PCs, simply because there are no rules to do it. One of the best things about RQ has always been that PCs and NPCs are treated equally. Of course, I realize that divinely-created objects such as crystals and truestone are an exception to the "PC-fairness" principle. No problem there. >> the magician has created a sword with a >> permanent Bladesharp 3 for a cost of 8 >> points of permanent POWer. > Yowza. That's pretty steep. Wouldn't Imbue > (2) and Bladesharp 3 (3) work equally well? 5 POW to create a +3 sword seemed way too cheap, considering that creating a sword with a Bladesharp 3 matrix would cost 4 POW. I don't want to remove the rationale to create matrices. And I like the idea of having a *spectrum* of possible magic items, all of differing value. And on a personal note, I just like the *feel* of "burning in" each level of spell. =>Peter - -- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ Page! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #85 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.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.