From: gharris@Jade.Tufts.EDU
Date: Fri 18 Jun 1993 - 23:54:31 EEST
I thought I'd do a little follow-up on my sorcery
comments, and then give my opinion on a few other areas of the
RQ4 rules.
SORCERY
Just to clarify things, I think that similarities between
Also, I generally dislike the idea of some sort of
a sorceror's Twin and a shaman's fetch should be DEemphasized.
Really, these two schools of magic are about as dissimilar as
possible, so adding a clear parallel like this is a big jump.
Thus, I don't think there should be any very stressful trial for
a sorceror to gain a Twin. This would be governed by the
sorceror's training and the society in which the sorceror lives.
I don't think this is in danger of being unbalancing, as as has
been pointed out, the sorceror's Twin is much less useful than a
shaman's fetch.
spiritual upkeep being necessary for a Twin. I think any sort of
vows or geasa kept by sorcerors should for the most part be
cultural, much like Catholic priests' vows of celibacy or some
orders of nuns' or monks' vows of silence or poverty or any of a
number of other things. If one insists on having these be
magical vows, I would say have them be means of *increasing* the
power of the Twin rather than be necessary for attaining it.
That said, let me say definitively here that I much
One, backwards compatibility. Many have scoffed at this
prefer the idea of just making exponential duration (and perhaps
range) ritual rather than creating some new mechanic for sorcery
such as the Twin. The reasons for this are twofold.
requirement, expressing the opinion that no one uses RQ3 sorcery
anyway, and that any who did could continue to do so. Well, I'm
afrain they are mistaken. We have already heard of other
campaigns that have multiple sorcerors, and the campaign in which
I am currently involved has two PC sorcerors and countless NPCs.
Making changes as to the types and extents of manipulations
allowed and the way some of the skills work doesn't require any
real conversion of characters, merely reevaluation of their
capabilities. Creating a new concept such as the Twin would
force any players with magus characters to do wholesale overhauls
of their character, which is something to be avoided if possible.
Two, I prefer the system of using skills to limit
manipulations and ritual exponential manipulations becuase it
tends to make sorcerors *less* naturally powerful. For a
sorceror to become more powerful and capable of maintaining more
and better spells, he would be required to improve his skills.
At the levels where they become very useful this will be a time-
consuming and tiresome process, requiring much deliberate effort.
However, if a sorceror's prowess increased with his Twin, then it
pretty much advances as he gains POW. This process tends to
happen at its own rate regardless of effort, so just by surviving
a sorceror would gradually become more powerful. Of these two
models, I much prefer the former, in part because it
distinguishes sorcerors from priests and shamans.
Now, the only real objection to this system I have seen
is that by creating spell matrices and enchanting Duration into
them, a sorceror can still become unbalancing. Well, the
solution to this is simple, and in fact has already been
incorporated into the draft rules: prohibit the enchantment of
sorcerous manipulations into matrices. In ither words, just have
a spell matrice increase the casters effective percentage in the
spell, allowing hir to manipulate the spell more, but still limit
the amount of each manipulation to the caster's skill in that
manipulation divided by ten. Matrices would still be useful, as
they would allow a magus to combine different high-level
manipulations, but they would not increase the amount of any
single manipulation available to the magus.
Oh, one other suggestion I saw in tandem with the ritual
magic suggestion was to decrease a magus' spell-casting chance by
some set amount for each point of manipulation used (I believe
this was mentioned by Joerg Baumgartner [hope I got that right]).
I think this is a decent idea, as it makes it easier to cast
smaller spells, which is certainly a reasonable effect that one
might want to model. I believe the suggestion was -5% for each
point of manipulation. I think that would be okay for range and
duration, but that -2% per point of intensity would also be
reasonable, since there are many sorcery spells that require a
reasonable level of intensity to be at all effective (Palsy, Skin
of Life, etc). In general, sorcery tends to be about half as
effective as spirit magic on a per magic point basis.
On the whole, I think a lot of the ideas put forth for a
sorcery system using runic manipulation skills, having a sorceror
create a Twin and enhance his magical abilities by taking vows
and taking on geasa are excellent ideas, and could lead to a
really atmospheric and interesting magic system. Unfortunately,
I don't think that it would be good to patch it on to RuneQuest.
One, it wouldn't be compatible with previous characters, which
*is* a valid concern, even if you personally don't have any
sorcery-using characters in your campaign. Two, it would (IMHO)
give a very non-Gloranthan flavor to the magic. Something that
is generally true of Gloranthan magic is that it is powered by
POW and magic points. Having sorcery be powered by subverted
carnal desires just doesn't fit. While it is true that many
sorcery-using cultures make special requirements of their wizards
(the Rokari and the Kingtroll sorcerors have been mentioned), I
think it is perfectly reasonable for these requirements *not* to
have any real game effect, that is, for them to be cultural. Are
there not requirements of thanes in Orlanthi Barbarian societies
that are restrictive, and yet do not directly give them more
power? How about Khans? In our world, what do priests get out
of celibacy? I think that giving strictly historical and
cultural explanations for these restrictions is reasonable, and,
for consistency's sake, desirable.
To change the focus a little bit, there is one suggestion
made in the sorcery rules for which I fail to see any motivation,
either in the context of Glorantha or from a game-balance
viewpoint. This is the change that sorcerors be required to
learn each different type of enchantment and summoning spell as a
separate skill, rather than use the general Enchant and Summon
skills. My main question is, why?
The only possible need I would see for this would be if
it were easier for sorcerors to attain high power levels, and you
need to require them to learn these as separate skills to slow
them down. This isn't true, though, since a sorceror needs to
train in Intensity, Duration, and Range, all hard skills, as well
as in a host of separate spells. Generally, it will take a
sorceror *much* longer to attain competence than for a priest or
shaman, so forcing them to learn different skills for Enchant
Magic Point Matrix, Enchant Spell Matrix, Enchant Iron, etc.
seems to be adding insult to injury.
The only possible rationale for this would be if Enchant
and Summon were only useful to one particular school of magic,
and their utility doesn't extend to sorcery. However, this isn't
true, either. Enchant and Summon are both used in exactly the
same way by spirit magic users and divine magic users. Now,
spirit magic and divine magic are about as different as you can
get. Why Enchant and Summon should work for both of them, but
not for sorcery, is difficult for me to fathom.
So, I would strongly suggest that sorcerors continue to
use the Enchant and Summon skills in the same way they always
have, and in the same way the spirit and divine magic users
continue to do.
POW, APP and CHA.
I think that some sort of change certainly seems to be
made in APP, moving it at least partly back in the direction of
CHA in RQ2. However, I don't see it as replacing the various
communication skills (bargain, etc) either. I like the idea of a
characteristic which somehow represents what people think of you
and how you carry yourself. In other words, CHA would note be an
entirely inherent stat, but would represent to some extent your
relationship with your culture. I think it would be reasonable
for CHA to go up under certain circumstances under this
interpretation (the old CHA checks), eg when one attains mastery
of a skill, or performs some public service. Since the
downgrading of CHA to APP, people have wanted to pin a lot of
this on POW, which I think is more appropriately reserved as a
measure of magical strength.
I oppose basing one's chance of increasing one's POW on
one's initial POW. While this would to some extent model
something frequently seen in literature, it would also make
trying to play a character that started with a very low POW
extremely frustrating. As to the idea of just using starting POW
for skill modifiers, I think this would best be presented as an
optional rule, after pointing out the potential problems of
having modifiers based on a stat that fluctuates frequently (it
has always been my custom to record the modifier separtely from
the skill, so I only need to change one number. This rules
change would gain me nothing).
TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
I have never seen skill check frenzy very much, so I
question the need for limiting the number of skills rolls
available to the characters by GM whim. I have always seen the
mechanical nature of the RQ experience system as a strength, and
think requiring more GM interference is unnecessary. However, I
do think it would be valuable ot include this suggestion as an
optional rule, after noting the potential problem of skill check
frenzy. This would be a case of leaving something alone in
campaigns where it works, but offering a fix if there is a
problem. I think this would be the best approach in this area.
I also like Oliver's proposed simplification of the
training rules. Eliminating the need for Instruct rolls is a big
plus, as is the option of removing the skill bonus from the
training time. This change would also allow the construction of
training charts (using the default values), which would make
getting characters through long periods of relative inactivity
much simpler.
Well, all for now. More later.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:57 EEST