From: Carl Fink (carlf@Panix.Com)
Date: Thu 10 Jun 1993 - 05:02:56 EEST
People have requested that replies be limited to one per day,
therefore this will be quite massive. Sorry.
First, a response to some of Nick Brooke's comments of Tuesday:
>Why do you use "1d6" where the RQ3 rules use "1D6"? More to the
>point, why use "RQIII" where RQ3 uses "RQ3"? You're also sloppy
>about "statistic" where the rules say "characteristic". This is
>a contamination from other games, and should be stamped out.
Because we haven't done the final (or even penultimate) editing
yet. We're still more interested in content than form right now.
>You use uncommon and exotic examples in what should be the basic
>Gloranthan rule book: nightingale floors, Oriental weapons and
>martial arts, Krarshtkids and timinits....
True, and a very good point.
>Knowledge Skills Modifier
>This will be more useful if unaffected by POW (which affects too
many skills as it is)....
...let's see, Knowledge, Magic and Stealth. That's too many?
>Character Generation
>
>Arlia is lucky to have POW 10 and CON 15. This makes her look
>good when rules which require you to divide POW by 5 or 30 by
>CON come up. Rurik, with POW 12 and CON 16 would make the rules
>look more clunky. So will most player characters. Rules examples
>should be simple, but not deceptively so: showing how the
>easiest of all possible characters gets through generation will
>not help those who lack her natural advantages (and will find
>themselves dealing in 0.05's of a characteristic point).
Another good point.
>General Note
>
>You keep supplying rules allowing players to roll their initial
>culture, magical background, profession. Nobody sane would use
>these; anybody insane enough would create their own. I'd prefer
>my rule set not to include this generic, soulless twaddle.
Nick, you seem to be using "nobody sane" a bit loosely. I know
lots of people who like to roll randomly and generate characters
based on the rolls - it's a challenge. That's why we have
several ways to do it, so people don't have to use methods they
don't like. Does the physical presence of a rule you don't use
in the book bother you that much?
>Can anyone explain why INT should not be increasable with time
>and study, like any other characteristic? And don't use science,
>IQ studies et al, as Glorantha isn't a scientific world. A
>common man's perceptions tell him that long studies make you
>more brainy; if the Gloranthan man believes this, then it's the
>way the world works. (I don't need to remind you that the world
>is also flat, and the sun goes round it: is "fixed intelligence"
>more important to us than either of these?). Sure, make it
>expensive, but it might as well be possible.
>
I agree. Now convince Oliver. <g>
>Cultural Equipment
>
>Give specific Genertelan cultures' weapon selections rather than
>the "generic" lists here at present.
Good point, and a good idea.
> Also, rename Bezainted armour as Studded Leather: there is no
>Byzantium in Glorantha. (Sog City isn't quite the same). And
>reintroduce some of the "whimsical" items of professional
>equipment into the profession lists; I was sorry to see them
>gone.
I favor removing Bezainted based solely on the fact that no two
gamers I know pronounce it quite the same way, :-)
>I hate POW gain rolls. They unbalance every RQ campaign against
>every other, as no two GMs concur on when to allow them, how
>frequent they should be, etc. Also, players distort their
>characters' behaviour in order to earn them: worse than with
>other "skill checks", as the potential reward is higher.
>I would like to abolish them, and characteristic training in
>general, and go the Pendragon way....
We're trying to maintain continuity with RQ-past and -present,
which would make us very reluctant to simply discard POW gain
rolls. What do people think of adding Stormbringer-style
characteristic increases? (If you "stress" any stat, you roll
2D6. On a 7, the stat increases, on a 2, it decreases.) This
would apply *mainly* to POW, but if someone, say, has to
tightrope walk across a gorge full of Midget Slashers while
juggling daggers blindfolded, they might get a DEX increase roll.
The Pendragon system doesn't "feel" Gloranthan to me. Note
also that Pendragon assumes a total of one adventure per game
year, while Glorantha is much more active.
>
>Skill Training and Research
>
>Remove EVERY option to take a fixed increase instead of a die
>roll. If we are afraid of being unlucky, why do we role-play
>with dice at all? These ludicrous opt-outs distend the rules and
>provide shelter for whining cowards. Be firm: let them grow up,
>or drop out!
Same as above - if this really bothers you, abolish fixed
increases in your game (I am). Why enforce your taste on
everyone?
>Results of Damage
>
>I think dying of thirst or starvation would be among the last of
>my worries if I was unconscious with a head wound. This looks
>intensely silly, and should be changed: bleeding to death or
>dying from exposure are far more immediate risks.
>
There was a case in today's newspaper - a man got beaten up
badly at a party, and lay unconscious in an occupied apartment's
living room for two days before anyone realized he wasn't just
asleep! He died of thirst.
>Fumbles
>
>These become far too common with weary or exhausted characters
>having 10-20%+ chances to fumble. I'd suggest adding 1% to the
>fumble chances of tired, 2% for weary, or 4% for exhausted
>characters. Still tough, but not so ludicrously dangerous.
Disagree - if someone tries to fight hand to hand while
exhausted, they're going to be swinging long, heavy weapons while
barely able to move, staggering, etc. I think lots of fumbles is
(as software designers say) a feature, not a bug.
>Sancta Simplicitas
>
>"When crossing more difficult terrain, multiply the above
>distances and the practical maximum daily movement rate (and any
>amount moved beyond that) by the appropriate percentage for the
>terrain... Modifiers are cumulative... Arlia will have to make
>another fatigue roll every 0.11 kilometers..."
>
>I rest my case. Write proper movement rules that you don't need
>a calculator to use.
Good point, we'll try.
>Why should an adventurer who backs up a Rune spell with magic
>points have to delay casting it? His god is taking the power
>from him as the spell comes through: he is not manipulating it
>as a spirit magician or blaspheming sorceror might. This looks
>odd and feels wrong to me.
Because the god isn't involved in casting divine magic. Gods
grant mortals the power to cast spells, they don't intervene
every time you cast Fly. They *can't*, the Compromise forbids
it. Casting Shield is just as much casting a spell as casting
Bladesharp.
>Maneuver Skill
>
>Horrible and unnecessary. This should either expand to fill the
>rules and eventually replace the DEXx5% roll, the DEX
>characteristic itself, the Strike Rank system, and any similar
>concepts, or else it should be killed at once. What can this do
>that a DEXx5% roll can't?
>
Change with experience. Do you really think a recruit and a ten
year veteran have the same skill at "ranging" opponents? As an
ex-fencer, I can tell you that a few years of experience
*matters* in this.
>Wonderful to see slashes and crushes back in play. Maybe you
>should run the impale/slash/crush rules together with the
>Special Options (feint/flurry/weave/etc.) as other special
>options in their own right: as you can't do special damage and
>use a special option at the same time, it makes no real
>difference, but does force weapon users to consider their
>fighting style more closely.
I thought we did. Most untrained people use
impale/slash/crush, but one can be trained to use something else.
>Is there really no DEX requirement to Feint? A Flurry should
>depend on STR alone (the Airy characteristic), and not have a
>wimpish DEX opt-out clause tagged on to encourage weedy
emulators of my Orlanthi prowess...
Okay, find a STR 20, DEX 8 person and have him flurry with a
Morningstar. But not in the same room as me, please....
>Why doesn't Weave have a Maneuver prerequisite? Answer: because
>...Maneuver skill is a mechanic that doesn't fit into the game
>system!
Because we didn't use skill prerequisites. Anyway, I
personally never liked Weave.
>And why has DEX 13 become so important all of a sudden? >It's
>like living in RQ2 again: thresholds, thresholds everywhere!
Half the people want more RQ2, half complain that it's too much
like RQ2....
>Remove the naginata, shuriken, kukri et al. from the basic
>weapon list and rules examples. Where we come from nobody uses
>them; where they come from the gamemaster has already put enough
>time and effort into designing a campaign to create his own
>weapons list as well. Also, call a shortsword a shortsword, a
>javelin a javelin, and find some non-academic term for
>"composite bow" - horn bow, back bow, double bow, anything but
>this horrible technical term that almost kills the game for me
>each time I see it used.
This is parochial again: "I don't use these weapons, so take
them out of the game." If you don't want to use them, don't. If
their presence bothers you, white them out. I for one run in the
East Isles, and there's a Kralori character or three in other
local games, so we need these weapons.
>I am a great fan of culturally-specific weapons lists; if the
>RQ4 table was broken up into Primitive, Nomadic, Barbarian,
>Civilized and Exotic weapons I'd be a happy man (and players
>would produce more reasonably-equipped characters).
This makes a lot of sense.
>Are you going to write more about all of the Six Worlds in this
>section (perhaps reprinting the World of Glorantha: Glorantha
>Book article in its entirety)?
Not a bad idea at all. Ken?
>Good to point it out. Can we have a bit more, please? Also
>needed is information on the Spirits of the Dead: like the new
>Daka Fal concepts relating to the Courts of Silence, the seven-
>day downward path, and the crossing of the Styx. In which case
>an article on the Gloranthan Underworld makes eminent sense
>here. And if you're having that, there's no reason on earth not
>to do the rest of the Six Worlds...
Good idea in principle, but you forget that there is no
"Gloranthan Underworld". Each culture has specific views and
knowledge. An article on the Orlanthi ideas about the
Underworld, if we had space, might go here.
>Appeasing Spirits
>...Remember also that we know shamans can do this kind of stuff;
>don't set up a rule that makes it impossible for anyone else,
>and difficult for them to boot. Why do shamans get a special
>bonus as well as the advantage of having more MP on tap than
>anyone else?
Because that's what shamans do, what they're for. That's like
asking why priests get so much divine magic.
>Apparent Effects of Magic:
>
>Remove the reference to Krarshtkids from the basic rules. We
>don't know or care how they work; if their senses are so
>interesting, include a box on them where you write the species
>up. Most normal folk will hope never to meet them (as with
>timinits, kukris, naginatas, etc.).
Another good point, except the last three words. :-)
>...The random table is boring, colourless, and will only be used
>by idiots; why should we help them?
Because we want their money.
>A rule that says players don't know how large their characters'
>magic spells are is doomed to be ignored by everyone who reads
>it. Better simply to say that you can't tell objectively how
>large a spell that isn't yours is without some very
>sophisticated magical perception.
Right. I thought we said that the *characters* don't know
numbers for the size of their spells. In any case, that's what
we *should* say, you are quite correct.
>...You should also note that spell effects vary as well as the
>names. I'm a Humakti, and have piously learned Swordsharp 4.
>Cast on a spear, this spell will have exactly NO effect: it
>isn't "Bladesharp by another name", but a different, distinct
>spell. Get people used to thinking like this and we'll have a
>lot more realism and fun in our games.
I'm not so sure we want to dramatically weaken Spirit Magic
this way. (I.e if you learn Slay Pest, you can't hurt humans or
elves.) BTW, "realism"? About Glorantha?
>Befuddle: the kind of "clever management" that would be needed
>now beggars belief. Cut this reference from the spell
>description: it's hardly plausible any more. Also, as a 2-point
>spell, Befuddle seems less useful than Demoralize.
Befuddle is better than Demoralize to me. It renders the
victim completely helpless, where Demoralize let's him keep
fighting, or flee, or cast Fanaticism.
>Mobility: also called "Athlete's Foot".
Bwahahaha!
>Have you considered including David Cheng's excellent RunePower
>system as an optional rule in this section? It makes far more
>sense than the current system (which still suffers from shades
>of the D&D cleric), and is easily converted to by experienced
>players without needing any stat. changes. (If you are
>unfamiliar with the system, it basically turns the list of Rune
>spells known by a character into a "pool" from which he can cast
>any spell available from his god, selecting only at the moment
>of casting).
Nothing personal, David - NOT EVEN OVER MY DEAD BODY! Rune
magic is spells, individual spells. It has nothing in common
with a Champions Power Pool at all. Godunya magic does this, and
only Godunya magic.
>Learning and Using Spells
>
>I've often wondered why you don't give a straight 100% cast
>chance. Why multiply die rolls unnecessarily?
Greg said no. That's the only reason.
>Madness: Befuddlement is no longer a severe enough penalty:
>replace with Demoralize?
I still say Befuddlement is *worse* than being demoralized.
>Yanafal Tarnils (and through him the Seven Mothers) ought to
>receive True Scimitar and not Truesword. I am pretty convinced
>that a Yanafal Tarnils cultist who returns from the dead will be
>afflicted with Humakt's Swordbreaker curse and find himself
>unable to use straight-bladed weapons. Also that (in Genertela
>at least) the scimitar is not a Humakti weapon (maybe it works
>for the North War Wind with Pentan cavalry sabres, but that's a
>different matter). The straightness of Humakt's path precludes
>its use; as an a renegade and apostate, Yanafal has passed the
>anger of his god onto all his followers, and introduced the
>(originally Pentan) scimitar as a form of "curved Death" so he
>could still fight.
Nonsense. Sorry, but I *am* a Yanafals cultist who has
returned from the dead, and this isn't how it works.
Okay, seriously, this is not a rules question per se, it's a
Glorantha point that should really be referred to Greg.
>I detect envy of Warhammer Roleplay in some of your new skills.
As far as I know I'm the only one in the group who has ever run
Warhammer Fantasy, and I had minimal input into the skill system.
It owes more to GURPS, I think.
>These rules are obsessed with "Training". Stop and think for a
>moment: does the Lunar Army have Scan classes? Jump classes?
>Search classes? Intimidate classes, even? Would you be prepared
>to role-play your characters through aday at such an event? Do
>you know how these skills would be taught? If not, DON'T make
>"Training" into such a fundamental part of every character's
>life.
I thought this was explained better. No, there are no Jump or
Scan classes...but there are obstacle courses, and there are
Scouting classes for future scouts. Oliver's example is a person
who takes a Judo class four hours a week. After fifty weeks,
he's got fifty hours of DEX training, fifty hours of Fist Attack
training, fifty hours of Dodge training, and fifty hours of
Martial Arts training under his belt. Yet he never attended a
DEX class.
>Bargain
>
>"The person selling the item will ALMOST never take a loss"? Why
>this change to a good and sensible rule?
To allow for con men.
>Courtesan
>
>Better termed "Seduction", unless this is a females-only skill:
>if you told the Red Emperor he was a master Courtesan he'd look
>askance at you - if you were lucky!
But it isn't "Seduction" - that's the art of making someone
agree to sex, not the art of making them enjoy it. It should
really be called "Swiving", but that's obscure.
>Terrain Types
>...Where in Glorantha do you find Arctic terrain? (answer: in
>the Hero Plane/Outer World, where normal RuneQuest rules don't
>apply).
...or on tops of mountains, or on Valind's Glacier, or ...
============================================================
And for those who've actually read this far, Loren.
Loren, I hate Charisma. If it ends up in the game, I'm going
to insist that it be labelled USE THIS NUMBER INSTEAD OF
ROLEPLAYING. The whole purpose of Charisma is to let the players
not have to be charming when they want their character to be
charming.
I am no martial artist, but I agree that the current rules
don't simulate real karate/judo/savate/whatever too well. OTOH,
all the suggestions we've seen for improving this add even *more*
complexity to combat. Your "four flavors of damage" system, for
instance, would probably slow some fights down by 50%. If
included at all it would need to be an optional rule.
> There's a thin line between TQM and Mutiny
Hey, my company's been implementing Crosby-style TQM for a
while. Does this mean I should take the CEO hostage?
>i tried using the experience methods given in the new rules and
>must say i don't particularly like them. i never had a problem
>with check frenzy, which is the problem that the two experience
>methods are supposed to fix, so i don't see the need for them. i
>also don't like experience point systems, which is basically
>what the new systems are. finally, i don't think it's a good
>idea to make such a total break from the earlier experience
>systems in rq 1-3. i would prefer if the new rules used the old
>experience system, with suggestions on how to avoid skill check
>frenzy, and perhaps gave one of the new methods as an option. of
>course, this also would force a change in the
>easy/medium/hard/very hard skill structure. Perhaps they should
>simply have extra bonuses or penalties to skill rolls, like
>steve maurer's idea in maurer heroquest?
I included this whole thing because I agree. I represent a
minority opinion that hates the "limited number of rolls" system,
and I also had no problem with check frenzy. Okay, one problem,
but I squelched it fairly quickly.
>On reflection, I'd like to see only one difficulty level for
>skills. Get rid of all the multileveled skills and all the
>skills that encompass other skills. This is not elegant, guys.
>This is a mess. This done, you may suggest that when rolling
>for skill increases you can only roll for 10 skills or so. I
>think that my objection to a limited number of skill increase
>rolls sprang from the overly restrictive number and from the
>"rules weenie feel" I got when this rule was combined with the
>multiple level of difficulty rule.
OTOH, some skills are just plain harder than others. How about
this: when you succeed in an experience check in a Hard skill,
you get 1d3. Ordinary skills you get 1d6, Easy skills 1d10, and
Very Hard skills 1 point. How's that work?
>Tell me if this system is workable: when rolling for
>experience, you add your BASE CHANCE to the roll. Like normal,
>you gain points by rolling over your skill level. This means
>that you'll be able to increase faster with an easy skill (that
>has a high base chance, like Jump) and more slowly with a hard
>skill with a low base chance.
>
>And for training, have training time based on the number of
>points you are above your base chance.
I think this is good. Actually, I always ran this way under
RQ3.
I won't repeat Loren's whole language and script section, I'll
just say that I agree with all of it.
==============================================================
Graeme Lindsell
> b) I don't like the new duration/range rules: access to the
>better tables only if you spend a point of POW or spend as long
>to cast a spell as it lasts. I don't like the first as I have
>always seen POW creating some permanent effect (One-Use Divine
>Magic an exception), and the second seems pointless.
Well, the point of both was simply a game-balance thing: to
cut down on the amount of magic a sorceror can keep up at a given
time. Either he's lowering his power, or he spends all his time
chanting and doesn't have time to keep very many spells up. As
for POW always producing permanent effects: Divine Intervention.
The Saints' Blessings.
If you made it this far, I'm very impressed. Thanks to all of
you for your suggestions and criticisms.
-- Carl Fink carlf@panix.com CFINK (NVN) 0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:39 EEST