From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #86 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 086 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade Re: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Economics RE: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade Re: [RQ-RULES] Economics RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: 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 07:59:49 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules * Joseph Elric Smith Servant to Arioch wrote: > ...in a world where you have spells that > simulate magic times i.e. the blade sharp > etc. there will be less need to have an item > that is magic by it self. ...when you have > the ability to talk to the gods or draw the > power from spirits to to do the magic you > need at the moment I would think you would be > less inclined to make a permanent item Perhaps, but if you've ever been caught in a situation where you have to pause for a round or two to cast your Bladesharp you'd probably appreciate NOT having to wait. Not only would you get an extra round or two of combat, but it would be more likely that your opponents wouldn't get to cast at all. Also, this allows the possibility of unusual magic items through spell combinations that would not otherwise be possible. I was hoping when I posted the system that I'd get some suggestions on possible spell combination effects. Like, uh...combine Light and Disruption in a wand to get a blinding ray for use against vampires. Or Strength and Bludgeon to make a mace that makes you stronger when you pick it up. But I'm sure that there are much more imaginative spell combinations. Another point: this system is a cheap and easy way to handle Alchemy. Just use an Alchemy skill roll in place of an Enchant roll. =>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 11:02:41 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [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? Its a general attitude of all game designers since they know that any loopholes they leave will be abused by someone. >> 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. Unless you are intentionally playing 'super rune quest', this will only ever apply to combat, and even then, only a few cults have the combination of spells to come close to this value. Take a Zorak Zoran Death Lord with 100% Maul, Bludgeon 10, Berserk, Strength x and Coordination y to double those stats and, depending on the order you do the math, you will have about 280% to 360%. >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. If you put 2 POW into a magic spirit or ghost bind, teach it Bladesharp 4 and put the other 8 POW into a magic point matrix useable by the bind, you get a slightly slower effect (the spell has to be cast) but a more flexible object. >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). I had this argument with my players twice and lost both times. Under the old rules the spells that went into a Truestone might have been lost permanently, but under the newer write-up in Elder Secrets it is not mentioned. The spells appear to return. >As for Sorcery...the Duration skill may mean that this sort of >magic item creation is redundant. This seems to depend more on whether your game limits the number of simultaneous spells a sorcerer is allowed to have up. bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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 08:09:48 -0700 (PDT) From: dabick@excite.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade This goes to the game balance thread. Do any of you allow weapons with Flameblade to impale? If so, do you add the original weapon damage or the 3D6 of the Flameblade for the impale? Jim _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html *************************************************************************** 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 16:17:57 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade >Do any of you allow weapons with Flameblade to impale? >If so, do you add the original weapon damage or the 3D6 >of the Flameblade for the impale? Yup. 6d6. That's only 21 damage on average, what are you worried about? That wouldn't even slow down an average cacodemon. 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 16:18:14 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules >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 The problem with "creative use of" the rules is that a set of rules that is simplified for ease of use may inadvertently allow things that should not be possible, for example there was a problem with M:TG where three cards in combination could both generate infinite mana and kill all the other players instantly. If you have a game world that the rules are trying to simulate (such as, for example, Glorantha), you need to ask yourself "is this possible in the world", otherwise you'd end up with a trans-Genertelan telepostal service. 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 08:41:12 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules * "Bob Stancliff" 's friend Glenn wrote: > 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 ... That may be true for Glorantha, but it's not necessarily relevant to non-Gloranthan games that are run with RQ. Since RQ and Glorantha are now officially divorced, there's no reason not to use RQ for any sort of setting we choose -- and there are game worlds in which spirits and powered matrix combinations may not be appropriate. I felt that the option of Imbued magic items was a good one to have for those GMs who want it. Let me assure everyone right now that I don't plan to come to anyone's house and force them at gunpoint to use my system. :-) This is just an option I'm suggesting - if you don't like it, don't use it! The high POW cost of Imbued items is an attempt to reflect -- "balance", if you like -- the idea of cause and effect in RQ. I posted the system in part to see how people felt about the relative cost that I assigned, compared to the cost of creating a matrix or spirit binding. The idea of PCs creating permanent changes in their little corner of the universe doesn't particularly fill me with terror, AS LONG AS these changes are not disproportionate! Build a waterwheel or a windmill, and you can create a mill which will produce far more energy than you put into it -- granted, the energy comes from the wind or water, and ultimately from the sun, but the amount of energy gained is not unbalancing to the total world-system (at least, not on a small scale -- we can talk about magic-pollution and magic-eco-spasm some other time. Personally, I'd argue that those concepts need not apply to every universe). In making a spirit binding, a PC creates a barrier that contains the energy of a being. Is this so different from an imbued spell? Either way, it's a permanent effect. I have no problem with the idea of requiring that magic items be made out of special, "magical" materials, by the way. But that determination should be made by the individual GM to suit his world. I see no point in requiring construction out of pure Styronium-238 if your world consists only of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water! But I'm arguing now, and that's silly. As I said, this is an optional system that I'm suggesting. * "Rich Allen" wrote: > 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? Basically I use RQ3, with some common modifications. I'd love to play RQ2 again, but it's hard to find players (or time). But I prefer the RQ2 nomenclature (and the sense of fun of Glorantha of that era), which I sometimes use out of nostalgia. Sorry -- didn't mean to confuse. =>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 08:45:25 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Economics Regarding game economics, my understanding is that if everyone suddenly had twice as much gold, the result would be inflation with much initial disorder before adjustment took place. Much like what Germany tried to do to the UK by introducing perfectly forged 5-pound notes during WWII. =>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 11:53:18 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade >This goes to the game balance thread. >Do any of you allow weapons with Flameblade to impale? If so, do you add >the original weapon damage or the 3D6 of the Flameblade for the impale? >Jim We add the original weapon damage... it is still in there somewhere... Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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 16:53:38 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Economics >Regarding game economics, my understanding is that if >everyone suddenly had twice as much gold, the result >would be inflation with much initial disorder before >adjustment took place. Much like what Germany tried to >do to the UK by introducing perfectly forged 5-pound >notes during WWII. Yes, but real value (gold) is not the same as paper money. I think you'd be more likely to get deflation, which is much more damaging than inflation. 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 11:57:01 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules > If you have a game world that the rules are trying to simulate > (such as, for example, Glorantha), you need to ask yourself "is > this possible in the world", otherwise you'd end up with a > trans-Genertelan telepostal service. >Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Hmmm, this is far more possible than you appear to believe. Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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 17:41:02 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) Phil Hibbs : > >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? Erm, yes it would (gold isn't 'real wealth', except as a usable commodity) ; but while it's a poor analogy I agree with the sentiment. > If you doubled everyone's wealth > in real terms, that would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. It would have a huge immediate effect on birth rates, a huge middle-term effect on tax systems, and a possibly catastrophic long-term economic effect. Bit like RW 20th century West come to think of it. Ob-RQ, I did experiment with a system that made all of the characters in my game more powerful, and the long-term effects *were* catastrophic ... :-( > 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. Certainly, magic would tend to gravitate into the hands of the powerful, or otherwise (in smaller, well-knit communities) be slowly diluted among the populace via population growth (and consequent destruction of the close-knittedness). Wrong list ? ;-) I think that you *can* fiddle about with the game balance of RQ, but you have to be careful ; the balance of the game should mirror the balance of the game world, which is why RQ3 as written ended up being unsuitable for Glorantha. RQ *could* have been re-written , etc... Both RQ and Glorantha are well-balanced, but they don't have quite the same balance as each other. Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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 12:10:06 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules >Let me assure everyone right now that I don't plan to come to >anyone's house and force them at gunpoint to use my system. :-) >This is just an option I'm suggesting - if you don't like it, >don't use it! While I am generally opposed to adding any new spells, I actually don't hate this suggestion. It is especially useful for the temporary items. I have voiced my opinion that all of the costs are probably too high. Even more so if this system is used in a campaign that intends to replace spirit binds. Unless you change the species maxima and/or POW gain rules, no one is likely to ever enchant more than 10 POW. You have to keep enough POW to be able to bring it back up again in a reasonable time. I've brought characters up from 8 POW and it is hard and slow. Stancliff *************************************************************************** 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 18:16:54 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Well, I think that Peter's enchantment rules are pretty well-balanced myself. I agree that such methods of enchantment are indeed lacking in RQ. Not only do items like this appear in much fantasy literature and mythology ; not only do they appear in other game worlds ; but they are now part of Glorantha, too. There are other missing rules, like ways of enchanting one-use magic items such as scrolls, potions, medicine bundles, and whatnot. (Should they really cost permanent POW ?) Anyway, some specific comments on people's posts : Simon : > 2. Bind a Bladesharp spirit into the sword. I prefer the HW version of this. > I like the idea that magic is a product of concious energy, which is > pretty much paradigmatic in RQ. That's an interesting point, but I think that the issue here is whether permanent magic effects are possible in the balance of your game world, and if so how widely available should they be. In RQ, should only some people (sorcerors) have the ability to create powerful long-lasting non-conscious magic effects, and not others ? Bob Stancliff : > 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. I think that the Strengthening Enchantment rules *are* unbalanced. Glenn Kirkconnell : > > 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. No ; it's because it was mass-producing them : See Phil's everyone gets a gold bar idea, except in this case only some people were. ;-) > 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. Not true, because the item is filled with the enchanter's manipulation of cosmic POW, which will return into the cosmos when the item breaks. But as you say elsewhere, there are several solutions to the problem ; or non-problem rather. Peter : > > 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. Eminently sensible. cheers, Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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 #86 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.