From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #80 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 Thursday, June 28 2001 Volume 04 : Number 080 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Canon material [RQ-RULES] Glorantha D20 [RQ-RULES] Stats to replace roleplaying [RQ-RULES] Attributes/Characteristics [RQ-RULES] Canon Cultists--burn em! RE: [RQ-RULES] Which is more valuable? Re: [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal Re: [RQ-RULES] Attributes/Characteristics RE: [RQ-RULES] Canon Cultists--burn em! 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, 28 Jun 2001 12:22:40 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Canon material > > In the old days, hero quests could change the core myths or even the > nature of the gods, but now all questing seems to do is allow individuals to > gain a deeper understanding of their god. If you get a better or worse > result than the myth it only affects you and your supporters, not the myths > or the gods. And yet, different areas can have many differences to the same > myth and these are considered to be equally valid. I can't help feeling > this is sloppy thinking and far from clever. Maybe I just don't enjoy a > good paradox any more. > Stancliff I thought that was explained as levels of Hero-Questing. The material I read spoke of Test Runs, HeroQuests and GodQuests - each with different depths and challenges to them. Maybe like a snowed-in house. Test Runs would be like looking out the window, learning about a path in the snow (the Myth, but from a safe distance). HeroQuests would be going out and following the path - if you got off the path a little, you'd really just get your feet cold and wet. GodQuests would be going out and altering the path or making an entirely new one. Now, from your perspective, why would you want to make a new path when there's a perfectly good one already? I don't really see the need for the characters in our campaign to change reality, and it should be nigh-impossible but it can be done. Usually, you'll just use the old path to go get things from the barn or the store that you need. Thus, people being people, most players ( and therefore characters ) are going to be most interested in what treasures they can get out of it. HeroQuests are more feasible and offer great rewards, so voila! 99% should be Test Runs and HeroQuests, though some GodQuests have happened (leading to the diversification of myths). So most of the material focus is on HeroQuests, and how to water them down for Test Runs. This is actually where I'm most interested in what 'Greg sez'. He quotes Joseph Campbell and it clicks with my interest and awareness of myth. It adds a depth to the world that is exciting and lets my party really explore... I don't really believe in game 'Canon', but I do enjoy playing in this world that so many have contributed to. Of course, I read everything I find and carefully consider it before it goes into my campaign. Thanks, all. Jeremy *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:20:17 +0100 From: RAMEAU Alain Subject: [RQ-RULES] Glorantha D20 For your information, my draft work regarding adaptation of D20 System (DnD 3e edition) to play in Glorantha is now available on my web pages, at the following address : http://karamo.nexen.net/dnd/gd20.htm Unfortunately, it is all in French, and I don't intend to translate it in a near future. Alain. *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 09:46:13 +0100 From: "Tom Zunder" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Stats to replace roleplaying Stats to replace roleplaying. I think wanting a stat for reputation is replacing the job of the referee with a number. BUT it is possible in several ways and accumulating points does make for happy PCs sometimes (including me when I'm in that mood). So: a: use Glory from Pendragon, basically experience points that just generate reputation and can be handed down in part to your kids. b: use allegiance from Elric!, scores in Law/Chaos/Balance, basically points for types of behaviour that fitted one of the three worldviews, once you had 20 more than all the others in one then the gods start to favour you, as you accumulate you approach Champion-ship. This could be used for RQ by having a point total per cult or pantheon, and this could either replace or supplement the requirements to be initiated, become an acolyte or achieve priestly or lordly status. It could also be used for Divine Intervention. c: use Elan from Stormbringer 1-4, similar to above but not quite the same. d: have a new derived stat of PIETY (Lee Gold used this in Lands of Adventure). Problem was for me that it worked great in a subjective sense, but not necessary culturally. - --- T H Zunder tom@zunder.freeserve.co.uk ICQ:1521799 *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 04:40:10 -0700 From: Simon Hibbs Subject: [RQ-RULES] Attributes/Characteristics For years I've wondered why RQ seperates characteristics from skill bonuses. It seems to me that Manipulation, Agility, Perception, Knowledge, Communication and Stealth are just as valid stats as STR, CON, SIZ, INT, POW, DEX and APP. I really don't see a need for a two-layer system. It makes much more sense to me to have one set of Attributes, then have one attribute affect a certain list of skills. My preferred list of attributes are : Strength Ability to project physical power. Includes RQ SIZ. Constitution As per RQ, but also equals Hit Points. Agility As per the Agility modifier Dexterity As RQ DEX, and replaces the manipulation modifier. Intelligence An per RQ INT and modifies ex-Knowledge skills. Psyche Call it POW if you will. Perception As per the Perception skill modifier. Appeal Or Appearance, or Charisma if you like. Agility, Dexterity, Intelligence, Perception and Appeal each have their own skill categories and you could just apply the attribute as a skill bonus as-is. I think RQ is too stingy with skill points anyway. Stealth is subsumed into Agility, which is now used to calculate saving throws for walking tightropes, etc, instead of DEX. Perception is used for saving throws related to surprise, and as the modifier for many ranged weapons. Just some thoughts. 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:38:16 -0400 (EDT) From: bjm10@cornell.edu Subject: [RQ-RULES] Canon Cultists--burn em! > As recently as a year ago I didn't want to use any material that wasn't > published by Chaosium. That was my definition for Canon law. Now, the more > often I hear Greg's opinion, the less I like the directions he is heading. > I spent years reading between the lines to try and understand the intent of > Glorantha, and I repeatedly find that I was either totally wrong, or that > the definitions have changed. The Greg is an old man, now. He sees the biggest thing he's ever made before him and he wants to make sure that it is under his control. Right or wrong, it's the way it is--and let's face it, most of us would want to do that, too. Why else would there be such a push to put the entire world to bed (embalm it, to all intents an purposes)? The older I get, the more work it takes for me to tolerate loose ends and variations on my interpretations. I remember that short period when we were told that "Your Glorantha is the true Glorantha". Now it's back to the Canon Cult. At one time, Glorantha was presented in the context of "very long ago and far away", thus it was implicit that even The Greg's statements were speculative--they were like archaeological reconstructions, and social archaeological reconstructions are the least reliable. Now it's being presented as "Glorantha as it is and as we KNOW IT MUST BE". This isn't all The Greg's doing. It also reflects how game design and presentation have changed over the decades. If you look at early Greyhawk material, a historico-archaeological approach seems to have also been used, at least for a while. Then things changed. Instead of "this is what we guess from the surviving records", we get "this is how it is". Part of that is changing fashion and the ossification of game designers' attitudes, part of that is the fault of mind-lazy and spineless fans who can't stand the possibility of ambiguity. > If the focus of all this wasn't on Greg's oh-so-unique vision (which, > while for the most part true, is something _I'm_ really sick of hearing), but > instead on something a little _less_ "unique", like say, _Greyhawk_ or > _Ravenloft_, I think this slavish insistence on limiting one's campaign to > what has or hasn't been determined to be holy writ from Greg-on-high, would > generally be received with, at _least_ a few snickers. It stinks like the status game it is. Don't DARE to be creative in public, or some statement made on a mailing list years ago will be resurrected to "correct" you. Of course, according to those who are in the clique, there is no status game and everything is perfectly reasonable and fair. *************************************************************************** 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:05:23 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Which is more valuable? > Brad Furst > Which is more valuable (to a character which has no cult > access to these and no enchanting skill of his own), as > a lure/reward from an enchanter: > - matrix of Fireblade (which need 4 POW to enchant, yes?) Very nice for mid-level characters who don't need the attack bonuses from Bladesharp, especially those who are small or weak and don't get big damage bonuses... Fireblade is an equalizer. > - 2 POW of Strengthening enchantment Depending on the points rolled, this makes a moderately successful character much tougher to kill. I adjusted the dice roll for this in my game, which changed the desirability of the spell, so I don't remember the original values. > - 2 POW of spirit binding enchantment A Magic Spirit (or Ghost) Bind can give you 10 to 18 more Int of Spirit Magic. This could be 2 big spells or several small spells you couldn't get otherwise. Remember that you can usually buy Spirit Magic from Allied cults, so the selection can be larger than first assumed. I generally value the Bind highest and the Strengthening enchantment just a tiny bit lower. We have enough Bladesharp in my game that Fireblade is only needed for Gorps. The quality and skill of the character determines which is more valuable in the short term. 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:13:10 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal >And, of course, this is why a high INT and high POW are more costly in >Creation Points in my current system of buying attributes... I was actually going to suggest that for people making new rules, but I figured most of them already knew that. ;) >Steve Perrin, who is not sure the breakpoints are right as yet. Anyone have >any comment? Well it depends upon if you just have INT or more. (Did you add Will?) Also, have you changed the modifiers? If you do that too, you don't nee to make INT as expensive. I don't know what you are using for a point scale, but I would suggest some sort of curve off a baseline. I.e. 11 cost zero, 12 cost 1, 13 cost two etc. This is done in GURPS and ArsMagica and is reasonable effective. For Int I would probably start doubling it after the first level. Such that the progression is 11 = 0, 12 = 1, 13 = 3, 14 = 6, or something. I would choose not to double the first one, because the GM probably wants to encourage most characters to be slight above average INT. It would be nice if it were cheap for the characters to get the first +1 INT for relatively cheap, but then after that they'd have to pay for it. - -Andrew >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:24 AM >Subject: [RQ-RULES] Attributes are *not* created equal > > >> I've been reading about a lot of posts about dropping INT from this >> or that, and I'm not sure that is neccessary. If one looks at the >> attribute composition how many are most a physical.: STR, CON, DEX, >> and SIZ. POW and APP are up for discussion but at best would only be >> marginally mental. So, you have 4 physical attributes vs 1 mental. >> Subsequnetly INT is going to be in everything. If there were mental >> stats as Memory, Learning, Analysis, etc then you'd see more > > breakdown. - -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 08:17:53 -0700 From: "Andrew O. Mellinger" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Attributes/Characteristics Harn has a different, but similar list of attribute, and skill bases. You should take a look at their list. - -Andrew >For years I've wondered why RQ seperates characteristics from >skill bonuses. It seems to me that Manipulation, Agility, Perception, >Knowledge, Communication and Stealth are just as valid stats as >STR, CON, SIZ, INT, POW, DEX and APP. I really don't see a need >for a two-layer system. It makes much more sense to me to have >one set of Attributes, then have one attribute affect a certain list >of skills. - -- /*----------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 12:01:45 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Canon Cultists--burn em! > Now it's being presented as "Glorantha as it is and as > we KNOW IT MUST BE". This isn't all The Greg's doing. > It also reflects how game design and presentation have > changed over the decades. I first saw this attitude when Gygax seized control of D&D and rewrote it in his image. There is also the copywriter protection issue and the "we shouldn't publish modules that don't conform to the official rules" issue. Not that Chaosium did a great job at that. On the subject of defining all of Glorantha, they better hurry, because every time the rules change, they have to start over. After 20 something years we are still defining Sartar and the Empire. RQ2 described Sartar, Balazar, Prax, and Dagori Inkarth. RQ3 managed to add Dorastor and sketch Genertela in broad terms. HW is finally detailing the Lunar Empire. If they had stuck with RQ2, we would have most of the continent done by now. The real problem with expansions for new regions is that focus shifted too completely to getting a Hero Questing game out. No one knew how to do it in the 80's and I'm not sure they do now, but at least we have an agreement on terms and techniques that will allow us to go back to world description. > Part of that is changing fashion and the ossification > of game designers' attitudes, part of that is the fault > of mind-lazy and spineless fans who can't stand the > possibility of ambiguity. All too true. I remember the rules fight in the D&D days. GM's want latitude, players want certitude. > It stinks like the status game it is. Don't DARE to be > creative in public, or some statement made on a mailing > list years ago will be resurrected to "correct" you. > Of course, according to those who are in the clique, > there is no status game and everything is perfectly > reasonable and fair. This was what blew me back off the Glorantha list. I am notorious for forgetting the details, and whenever I made any statement, it was compared to published 'fact', and flamed. Most of those guys are contributors to the undeveloped areas; they will do whatever they want as long as nothing has been printed, but they are proprietary about 'their' areas... no one else is allowed to touch it. I don't care nearly as much anymore. If something is printed that I don't like, I just never go there. It is easier to ignore than change. I stay on this list because I don't mind changing rules, but I am not going to change one until I believe it adds value to the game. A clear example of what I am willing to do is when I took the Woad spell from Orlanth and gave it to Storm Bull. It seems more appropriate for impulsive Berserkers with a blue god to paint themselves blue and run naked and screaming into battle. I consider Orlanth to be more reserved... he has an entire ritual just for putting on his armor and weapons. Woad is quaint to him. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #80 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.