From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #89 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 Saturday, September 23 2000 Volume 03 : Number 089 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] Economics [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Was 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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:36:20 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Peter Maranci wrote: >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. Rather than add some entire >new system, I've just worked out the following addition to the >rules. It's just preliminary, so any feedback would be much >appreciated. I'd particularly like suggestions for ways to use spell >combinations to make interesting new items... >To complete the list, a +1 item costs 3 POW, +2 costs 5 POW, +3 >costs 8 POW, +4 costs 12 POW, etc.... I like this. Particularly, it is costly enough that, if it were dropped into a campaign, it would be safe and not immediately unbalance the system. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com "A red moon? Why don't you say blue buttocks?" - -- The Holy Virgin Versus the Evil Dead *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** 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. *************************************************************************** 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 07:59:49 -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. *************************************************************************** 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. *************************************************************************** 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. *************************************************************************** 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. *************************************************************************** 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. *************************************************************************** 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. *************************************************************************** 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. *************************************************************************** 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 11:19:42 -0700 From: "Timothy Byrd" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Was Re: New magic item creation rules "Joseph Elric Smith Servant to Arioch" aka ken wrote: > Well I just have a couple of thoughts. 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. while it is true people especially sorcerer > could and might make magic, 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 > just my thoughts You've got me thinking about a David Brin novel called "The Practice Effect". Basicly, as part of an experiment, this guy gets shoved through an interdimentional portal. He's been given a set of camping/survival gear of crappy quality. He complains about it, but as he uses it, his gear seems to work better, the pack becomes more comfortable, etc. It turns out that the world has a "practice effect". You see vendors with signs that say, "Quality tools - all used - nothing new". Well, of course he gets captured, and they take away his gear to examine it. Their conclusion is since his items have a better base (non-degrading) quality, they must have been permanently imbued. (this word is much more popular now that D2 is out...) The only way to do this is with human sacrifice, so he must come from a country that places zero value on human life... A fun read. So how do you simulate *that* in RQ? - -- Tim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** 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 #89 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.