From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #36 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Monday, April 16 2001 Volume 04 : Number 036 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 RE: [RQ-RULES] 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? [RQ-RULES] Range of Divine Rune Magic [RQ-RULES] why would anyone bother summoning gnomes or salamanders? [RQ-RULES] background charts from RQ3, change each of the +1's on charts to be one experience check. [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust RE: [RQ-RULES] INT/SIZ Re: [RQ-RULES] Range of Divine Rune Magic Re: [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust [RQ-RULES] I think that this is an artifact of the rules. Re: [RQ-RULES] I think that this is an artifact of the rules. RE: [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party [RQ-RULES] some people have a 'category bonus' that would help them in a field of endeavor 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 08:41:16 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] INT = 2d6 + 6 >What are the Group's thoughts on RQ4's character-generation system, >specifically the concept of spending skill points on characteristic >increases? I don't see why modification should be limited by >professions. I liked the idea. The AiG character creation system had columns for trained, skilled, expert and master so a person could create experienced characters. If I remember the attribute increase stuff was to reflect the character training up their attributes. I've never played a character that I didn't train up an attribute during play. But in the RQ3 rules for creating "older" characters (which have lots of other failings) they didn't have a mechanism for the attribute increases. However, which attributes are increased shoud be approved by the GM. Imagine a mercenary that started with a STR of 11. After years of fighting it would be reasonable to assume he'd have a STR of 12 or 13. Or a forester could have an increase in CON. - -Andrew /*----------------------------------------------------------------- mailto:andrew@crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com -----------------------------------------------------------------*/ *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:33:34 -0400 From: trentfs@ix.netcom.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] 'fantasy' RPG if you're stuck playing Joe Shmoe? Robert Stancliff wrote: > Of course a rune lord is better than a 15 year old kid to start >with, but play them both for five years and see if the kid isn't catching up >due to better category bonuses. The rune lord will have 2 or 3 skills just >over 100 and the kid will have 10 or more in the 80's. Plus, the kid will >have enough magic to give the rune lord a decent fight. He will probably >still lose, but not by much, and it really depends on who has been playing >him. I can verify this from experience. In my last campaign one of the PCs started out very young (not 15, but several years younger than the rest of the PCs; ~18) but with enormous stats. Although he started out clearly inferior, by the time the campaign ended after about 2 game years he had easily caught up with the rest of the party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust since they had real trouble improving skills much above 80-85%. Trent *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:01:01 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Range of Divine Rune Magic In RQ2, Rune Spells had a range of 160 meters which was beyond the range of standard bows and arrows. RQ3 changed the range of Divine Spells to 100 meters which was within the range of standard missiles. This difference would have a significant effect upon the game world balance, yes? Is it important? Do any of you adjust the ranges for magic according to which game world (Glorantha, Fantasy Europe, etc.) you use for play? Some other game systems have ranges which simply extend to Line-of-Sight, yes? Meanwhile I have be asked to comment re: some suggestions for house-rule changes wherein the ranges for Divine Spells vary according to whether the caster is Initiate or Acolyte/Priest or Rune Lord. My first inclination is to say that the range is determined by the deity rather than by the caster. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:09:59 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] why would anyone bother summoning gnomes or salamanders? >In picking the stats for the lava elementals, it might be good to >remember to try to keep them from being more powerful or otherwise >more appealing than other kinds. Otherwise, why would anyone bother >summoning gnomes or salamanders? Because that's all they had access to? Most summoners have access to elementals via their cult which ordinarily specializes in just one particular element. A cult like Pavis is rare and special in its access to several elements, perhaps balancing its otherwise puny (non-adventurous) magic. Brad Furst Esoteric [A Working Title] esoteric@criticalpath.com (503)-265-1253 *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:20:17 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] background charts from RQ3, change each of the +1's on charts to be one experience check. I agree with Bob Stancliff here. I remembered his suggestions below from pasts posts. When several of our characters recently retired, we replaced those and added new characters done exactly as he describes. Yes, it it is very dice roll intensive, but the results were worth it. Plus the new players learned how the skill advance system operates for future opportunites. I highly recommend trying this for new characters or any NPC. >With one significant change, I greatly prefer the background charts >from RQ3. I change each of the +1's on the charts to be one experience >check. This immediately triples the awarded experience at low levels and >inserts a randomization that makes each skill unique, plus it tapers off >realistically at high skill levels which no other system I have seen will >do. By allowing another 10 to 15 checks per year to be assigned at player >whim, each character can have a specialty or a cult skill that isn't on the >generic list (like merchants learning Bargaining). > My idea takes a while since it is very dice roll intensive, but I >have rolled up most of the players this way and several NPC's including a 45 >year old shaman who was perfect. The results were fully in line with my >expectations. >Stancliff Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:28:44 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust I think that this is an artifact of the rules. I am not convinced that someone (from the real world) whose skill is at 75% by hard work and experience despite average characteristics is any less likely to improve by experience/training than the fellow whose skill is at 75% by occasional work and experience while adding a bonus arithmetically derived from superior characteristics. >Robert Stancliff wrote: > > Of course a rune lord is better than a 15 year old kid to start > >with, but play them both for five years and see if the kid isn't catching up > >due to better category bonuses. The rune lord will have 2 or 3 skills just > >over 100 and the kid will have 10 or more in the 80's. Plus, the kid will > >have enough magic to give the rune lord a decent fight. He will probably > >still lose, but not by much, and it really depends on who has been playing > >him. > >I can verify this from experience. In my last campaign one of the >PCs started out very young (not 15, but several years younger than >the rest of the PCs; ~18) but with enormous stats. Although he >started out clearly inferior, by the time the campaign ended after >about 2 game years he had easily caught up with the rest of the >party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust since they >had real trouble improving skills much above 80-85%. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:28:30 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] INT/SIZ In a message dated Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:14:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Stancliff writes: History has certainly shown Gygax to be a tiny Hitler who climbed over his partners to seize his game empire and hold it as long as possible. The same could probably be said for Microsoft and Bill Gates. At least Gygax and Gates have been creative enough to add something worthwhile as a legacy. It should be pointed out that while Gary at one time held the creative reins at TSR pretty closely, he was never the owner or principle stockholder. There were many decisions creative and business that were credited to Gary that were purely the province of the Blume brothers. Steve Perrin *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Range of Divine Rune Magic On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Brad Furst wrote: > In RQ2, Rune Spells had a range of 160 meters which was beyond the > range of standard bows and arrows. RQ3 changed the range of Divine > Spells to 100 meters which was within the range of standard missiles. > > This difference would have a significant effect upon the game world > balance, yes? Is it important? Do any of you adjust the ranges for > magic according to which game world (Glorantha, Fantasy Europe, etc.) > you use for play? Some other game systems have ranges which simply > extend to Line-of-Sight, yes? [...] I tend to do it by some arbitrary combination of the worshipper's power and piety, the nature of the deity, and the nature of the spell. If a Wind Lord were on a hilltop and summoning a rainstorm, I'd let him send it at almost anything he could see, whereas an Initiate of Seven Mothers on the same hilltop throwing a Mindblast would probably be limited by range. In short, I make it as arbitrary and capricious as the gods themselves. :) *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:51:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Brad Furst wrote: > I think that this is an artifact of the rules. I am not convinced > that someone (from the real world) whose skill is at 75% by hard > work and experience despite average characteristics is any less > likely to improve by experience/training than the fellow whose skill > is at 75% by occasional work and experience while adding a bonus > arithmetically derived from superior characteristics. It's based on the fact that the more you know on a subject, the less you have to learn, so the harder it is to find something you don't already know. *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:51:42 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] I think that this is an artifact of the rules. >I think that this is an artifact of the rules. I am not convinced >that someone (from the real world) whose skill is at 75% by hard >work and experience despite average characteristics is any less >likely to improve by experience/training than the fellow whose skill >is at 75% by occasional work and experience while adding a bonus >arithmetically derived from superior characteristics. Remind me of how this works in others of the _Basic_Role-Playing_ games. _Call_of_Cthulhu_ uses no bonus (derived from characteristics) to skills. Is that unrealistic or unbelievable? Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 11:15:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] I think that this is an artifact of the rules. > Remind me of how this works in others of the _Basic_Role-Playing_ games. > _Call_of_Cthulhu_ uses no bonus (derived from characteristics) to > skills. Is that unrealistic or unbelievable? Ringworld doesn't use category bonuses either; it uses category root maximums derived from characteristics. Not sure about Superworld or ElfQuest, but I don't recall any category bonuses in Elric. Are any of them more or less realistic? I don't think so. They're just different. It does make sense to me that your natural innate talents and abilities would positively or negatively affect your trained and learned abilities (skills). A genius might not have training in nuclear physics but might be able to make a better educated guess at it than a non-genius with no training. Likewise, a genius with training in nuclear physics might be able to apply more of his smarts to enhance his skill. *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:26:04 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party and was well on his way to leaving them in the dust > I think that this is an artifact of the rules. I am not convinced > that someone (from the real world) whose skill is at 75% by hard > work and experience despite average characteristics is any less > likely to improve by experience/training than the fellow whose skill > is at 75% by occasional work and experience while adding a bonus > arithmetically derived from superior characteristics. I suppose it could be related to the line of work, but in my job I see this all of the time. We have had situations where a programmer who has been working in a particular programming language for years and years has someone come in to the project with very little practical knowledge of that language, but about the same number of years at programming in general. The programmer was running circles around the other one within two weeks. That, to me, is how the superior characteristics come into play in RQ. The second programmer started with the same "programming" skill, but because he was able to understand the new language easily, he was able to progress his skill quite a bit faster. Rich *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:35:31 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: [RQ-RULES] caught up with the rest of the party > From: Brad Furst [mailto:brad.furst@criticalpath.com] > I think that this is an artifact of the rules. I am not > convinced that someone (from the real world) whose skill > is at 75% by hard work and experience despite average > characteristics is any less likely to improve by experience > / training than the fellow whose skill is at 75% by > occasional work and experience while adding a bonus > arithmetically derived from superior characteristics. In the real world we say 'that boy was born to be a scientist, he has a head for math', or 'that girl is destined to be an acrobat, she's just so graceful and coordinated'. We routinely perceive that some people have a 'category bonus' that would help them in a field of endeavor and we acknowledge that if they follow their strongest talents, then they will have an easier time of advancing and excelling. Yes, it's true that most people can excel at nearly anything with enough time, training, and effort, but there are also areas that a person can never do well at because they just don't have the essential traits (like a jockey or fighter pilot who is too big or has bad eyes). Anyone who has gone on to college should be able to relate a case where two people in the same class (that is, at the same level of skill), had entirely different approaches to study. One struggled and worked to learn each new concept while the other seemed to read the book once and grasp the concept intuitively. The difference in energy expended can be significant in some cases... so I must say that I disagree with your expressed opinion. Oh, but I do appreciate your testimonial to my character generation system in your previous post. 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: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:49:27 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] some people have a 'category bonus' that would help them in a field of endeavor > > From: Brad Furst [mailto:brad.furst@criticalpath.com] > > I think that this is an artifact of the rules. I am not > > convinced that someone (from the real world) whose skill > > is at 75% by hard work and experience despite average > > characteristics is any less likely to improve by experience > > / training than the fellow whose skill is at 75% by > > occasional work and experience while adding a bonus > > arithmetically derived from superior characteristics. I think that Brian Newman here >It's based on the fact that the more you know on a subject, the less you >have to learn, so the harder it is to find something you don't already >know. is agreeing with me, and affirming my hypothesis. I would be pleased to accord some bonus, according to characteristics, at the beginning when skills are initialized. > In the real world we say 'that boy was born to be a scientist, he >has a head for math', or 'that girl is destined to be an acrobat, she's just >so graceful and coordinated'. We routinely perceive that some people have a >'category bonus' that would help them in a field of endeavor and we Hence, I would be pleased to accord some bonus, according to characteristics, at the beginning when skills are initialized. >acknowledge that if they follow their strongest talents, then they will have >an easier time of advancing and excelling. But I would disagree with divergence after initialization and normalization, when both characters follow the same experiences and training and check for skill increases at the same increments of time. One character may understand easier or quicker, but we cannot assume that the entire interval is consumed by increasing. > Anyone who has gone on to college should be able to relate a case >where two people in the same class (that is, at the same level of skill), >had entirely different approaches to study. One struggled and worked to >learn each new concept while the other seemed to read the book once and >grasp the concept intuitively. The difference in energy expended can be >significant in some cases... so I must say that I disagree with your >expressed opinion. But they can both earn the same score on an exam and they both end up with the same degree, yes? After the initial handicap is equalized, they get to the same next increment. I will grant that in a self-paced school one will get there faster than the other, but in RuneQuest the tests and skill checks are not self-paced. Rather, the characters roll for increase after the same arbitrary time period (usually a week of rest and contemplation, right?). ____ Brad *************************************************************************** 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 V4 #36 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.