From: Robert J. McArthur (Robert.J.McArthur@vulcan.anu.edu.au)
Date: Tue 12 Nov 1991 - 09:56:33 EET
I have been playing Dragon Pass now for some 8 years. In that time we, the
other people I play with, have come up with some rules revisions, changes and
clarifications. I am willing to post them (those that we can remember!) if
there is interest (?) but would also like to put a query to other players.
In the rules, it says that the attacker decides which defending units are
eliminated. Almost a categorical statement. The problem is, that elsewhere
there are definite indications that this is *not* the case. For example, what
is the use of ordering the stack and only killing from the top down? How do
you reconcile these two statements? Sure, you have the choice of taking from
the top of the stack or the top of the stack? hmmmm. We have always played
it such that the defender orders the stack how they wish it and the attacker
must take things from the top down. ie. no choice for the attacker. How
do other people play this? Spirit magic is easier as there is only a slight(!)
ambiguity in the rules about it, so we have ruled that the attacker *does*
have the choice in that situation.
One effect of this is that it seems to state in the rules that a superhero can
protect upto 3 units from spirit magic, but that the rest are vulnerable.
Elsewhere it seems to indicate that by ordering the stack such that the
superhero is on top, then no spirit magic can get "past" the superdoop to any
of the other units, no matter how many there are.... hmmm. Again, we have
just started playing the former method after using the latter.
I am very willing to share the rules mods and also some interesting things
that have happened in the way of tactics over the years. The best thing about
the game, IMHO, is that despite the extreme difference in the two sides and
the very great complexity in the various independents and special forces,
the sides are actually very evenly matched (playing the full game or the
marathon. Some of the other are, purposely, less evenly matched (Jareel vs
ducks, ducks and, more ducks)). Are there any players of Nomad Gods who
would like to comment? I haven't yet heard of someone actually admitting
they have a copy (I would have absolutely *bugged* them for a copy of the
rules otherwise). Given a lot of our campaign play is in Prax, I would very
much like to read the rules to find out some of the more interesting tidbits
that are refered to in CoP.
ciao
Robert
======================================================================
<Ack! I seem to have edited out who this was from. Please let me know
if you're the author so I can add the attribution...)
Some more suggested rule or interpretation changes:
DOMINATION:
In RQ II there were no spells that allowed one to take over the will of
another. Free Will seemed to be protected by the laws of Glorantha; while
you could take over someone's body with Harmonize or by possession, you
could never make their decisions for them. Even the Lhankor Mhy Truth spell
left people the option of remaining silent.
I liked this very much, as it gave a certain flavor to the world and gave
the weak a certain confidence in dealing with the strong. Even the gods could
not merely dictate the actions of men but must offer them rewards for service
or punishment (such as Spirits of Reprisal) for breaking faith.
In RQ III this went away with the advent of the Control, Command, and
Dominate spells. No longer did a brave hero challenge the denizens of the
spirit world to a fair battle with his body as the stake; instead sorcerors
or priests summoned hapless POW and INT spirits and stuffed them into matrices
while they were still stunned. Beasts of the field and air must bow to the
will of magicians. Ghosts bound to a locale need no longer be faced but
instead could be Dominated at range by sorcerors. And humans themselves could
be Dominated by certain rare sorcerors.
After playing with both sets of rules, I am pretty much decided to go back
to the idea that one of the Laws of Glorantha is that one cannot command the
will of another. Without this rule I cannot see why Gods or great Sorcerors
like Zzabur need ever bargain with mortals; they could simply Command and be
obeyed.
Now this doesn't mean that you can't use magic to influence, beguile, bribe,
or threaten others into doing your will - merely that you must do so rather
than simply take them over.
For spirit-summoners, I would give them some kind of Confine Spirit spell and
perhaps a Spirit Pain spell. Thus a Malkioni sorceror might summon the Hag of
a cave and command her to reveal its secrets, under threat of torture.
COMBAT
Special Hits:
I kind of liked to old Slash and Crush rules, but they wound up making
Slashing weapons optimal. In RQ III, IMpaling is much better than the special
knowckback of swords & maces except in certain special tactical situations.
How about:
Impaling weapons: roll weapon damage twice. ( I forget the old RQ II rule;
is this it)
Slashing weapons: double weapon damage AFTER armor & parry, if any.
Crushing weapons: double damage bonus dice.
This leads to:
Weak people want spears.
Strong people with heavily armored opponents want maces/hammers/mauls.
People with unarmored opponents want swords.
This seems to roughly reflect historical practice. Plate armor did almost
drive out the sword as a war weapon, for example.
For Flexible weapons, one could have to option of swinging to entangle on
a special hit, or of trying to go "around" the parrying object. In this case
a special hit would reduce the opponent's parry by one success level, i.e.,
they need a Special to parry. If they failed to parry at all the flail head
would do additional Crushing damage.
I like the Knockback rules in general, however, and would like to keep them
for plain damage & for shield rushes, etc.
Fumbles:
In thousands upon thousands of fights I've never "hit self for double
damage" or anything close to it. On the other hand people often are left
"wide open" after a fumble of some sort; they lokk the other way or whatever
and the opponent has a perfect opportunity for a full swing if they want to
take it. I think that the top end of the fumble table should be changed in
interpretation to reflect this. This also means that one doesn't get killed
in practice when one fumbles; your friends don't clobber you too hard even
when you give them the opportunity.
Fatigue
Pretty tedious to keep track of currently. Also, while armor does have a
deleterious effect on some skills, I find that it is not really a Fatigue
effect if you are in reasonable shape. Instead, a helm can give you a
substantial Perception minus (in real life), depending on its construction.
Worn armor gets in the way a bit but the weight is so well distributed that
even in plate you don't feel it too much unless it is hot and humid.
Fighting itself is very tiring if you are really keeping it up at a high pace.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone with a play-tested alternate fatigue
system.
======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:24 EEST