From: Loren J. Miller (MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu)
Date: Fri 21 Jan 1994 - 08:40:59 EET
Comments on _RuneQuest: Adventures in Glorantha_ manuscript after
a first reading.
by Loren Miller
Part I of II
I think if this were software the version number would be RQ4b4
so that's what I'll use for shorthand. The rules are quite a bit
different from RQ4b2 (I believe a beta version went missing in
the middle) but the ideas are much the same.
I haven't yet played this draft (that'd be damn fast, eh?), but I
played with the previous drafts and this one answers many of the
issues that I and the other simplicity-hounds (e.g. Nick Brooke
and David Hall) raised with them. All in all, it is quite usable
as is, but as you can see from the number of my comments I'd
still want a few changes here and there, with the biggies being
changes in terminology.
INTRODUCTION
CREATING AN ADVENTURER
Random Method of Character Creation
Appeal
I like it, but it seems odd to see this huge essay (14 pp of 10
point Times) on Glorantha, including a bibliography, in the
chapter that is supposed to entice new readers to buy the book. I
made the same error in the 1st draft of my own book, so I'm
sensitive to it. The essay itself is terrific if the reader has
already committed to Glorantha (bravo!), but I think that the
message of an INTRODUCTION should be, "This Game Is FUN. Buy It,"
rather than "This game is like studying history." Keep the
Glorantha essay and all the other stuff, but put it in its own
chapter; chapter 15 should have all the deep Glorantha info, not
just part of it. That said, it wouldn't hurt to start RQ4 with an
*brief* overview of Glorantha (no more than 2 pages) like that in
the beginning of RQ2.
Everything looks nice. Still, as you may have suspected, I have a
few comments.
Do you really want to make "4d6 keep the top 3d6 as in
AD&Dv1" the standard method of rolling characters? I think it
should be optional, as with all the other methods presented. IMO
the standard method should be to roll the characteristics
straight, as we RQers have always done. Bypass the trap of stat
inflation.
I really appreciate APPeal as a replacement for APPearance.
And it's cool that the RQ3 fogies who prefer appearance won't
have to change their character sheets. The change, however, may
require a corresponding change in the point value of APP in the
character creation process. In RQ3, POW took the place of CHA in
quite a few areas and APP was basically worthless, but with APP
now standing for Appeal and much closer in spirit to RQ2 CHA than
to RQ3 APP, it might be worth more than 1/2 point per point of
APP. This question should be resolved with the playtest. Let's
keep it in mind.
Abbreviations
Battle Magic vs Spirit Magic
Adventurer Culture/Profession Tables
I am not a big fan of abbreviating and anagrammatizing
everything. Sometimes it has its place, but to my mind there are
too many abbreviations here. HP, MP and SR make for a sufficient
quantity of abbreviations. They're probably too many. We don't
need AP, DB, HL, HT and MV too (Armor, Damage Bonus, Hit Points
per Location, Hit Location Table, and Move). The Hero system,
Rolemaster and Dangerous Journeys have a corner on the
Abbreviation-heavy school of RolePlaying, let's not try to beat
them on their own turf. OK? Same with later obscurities such as
the EWF. IMHO. FYI. SOL. AWOL. FWIW.
The manuscript is inconsistent in its terminology. Sometimes
you see it called Battle Magic, and sometimes it's called Spirit
Magic. This doesn't only happen in Chapter 2, but that's where it
starts. Personally I prefer to call it Spirit Magic on the
pretext that spirits are the sources of the spells. Battle Magic
gives the impression that this type of magic is only used in
warfare and that it's the only magic used in warfare, and that is
not true. Sorcery and Divine Magic are used in battle too.
Anyway, choose one term and stick with it.
Excellent, excellent, excellent! Three cheers for these
sections, which should make starting campaigns about a bajillion
(one bazillion jillions) times easier than it has been in earlier
editions. It will also help a LOT with us poor GMs who have to
make up NPCs on the fly. You say Hurrah and I say Hooray! By the
way, could we also have a section for Pent/Grazelands horse-
riding nomads? They're as important in the Dragon Pass region as
the nomads of Prax/The Wastes. I know they've been ignored in
previous versions of RQ, but there are some traditions we don't
need to carry on.
GAME MECHANICS
Skill versus Skill
For the most part this doesn't change all that much from the
earlier drafts and earlier versions. This is a GOOD thing. I have
very few comments.
If we can possibly remove the additional die roll in this
section let's do it. How about we use the rule given in Sun
County and the other recent RQ3 publications? If two characters
use skills against each other and both succeed, then whoever
rolled lower wins. This keeps the integrity of the RQ meta-rule
that "low is good" better than adopting the pendragon-style
"highest success wins" rule, and to be frank I'd rather have a
quick, consistent and reasonable rule than a perfect rule with
extra die rolling and a table consultation.
List of Abbreviations (on p.51)
Again, is this really necessary? Does RQ need this many
abbreviations in the rules book? Remember that every important
abbreviation in a game makes learning the game that much harder.
If you replaced this with a "list of key concepts" I'd be much
happier.
SKILLS
The chapter is excellent, but some of the language is confusing.
Since this is the kind of thing that Editors are normally hired
to fix I'll leave it to the editor. The various LORES are still
pretty funny, though. Think about replacing some of them with
<AREA> LORES.
TIME AND LEARNING
Intelligence Training
I'm happy that the rules allow the GM to decide the relative
importance of Experience, Training and Research, rather than
forcing one interpretation or the other on things. I had been
perfectly happy with the RQ2 balance which made Experience a lot
more important than the others but now realize that other people
might want things to work differently. Earlier drafts of RQ4 went
too far in the other direction (for me, at least). The current
system allows the GM to tune advancement as desired. Very good.
This isn't mentioned in the chapter, and Chapter 2 says that
such training is impossible. I don't believe it though.
"Everybody knows" that if you read, study, argue, practice logic,
play chess and roleplaying games, and do all that other smarty-
pants stuff then you will get smarter, more intelligent. That's
part of our common human belief system (aka mythology). In a game
that is supposed to represent mythic reality shouldn't it be
possible to increase the INT stat? After all, we're not talking
about IQ scores here, but about a combination of wisdom and
reasoning, both of which respond to study. Right?
COMBAT
Special and Critical Hits
Optional Effects of Special Hits
Shield Coverage
Damage to Locations
Weapons Tables
Armor Table
Spirit Combat
Knockback (90)
Mounted Combat (91)
I'm still skeptical of the new combat phase structure, but it's a
lot better than the move by SR rules in RQ3 (since 2 movement
phases are better than 10) so I'll give it a try. It also appears
to be aimed at those who play out their battles with miniature
figures on a battleboard, and I don't play that way. Try to keep
in mind that not all RQers collect, paint, and use miniature
figures.
Clarify that double damage only applies to the base weapon
damage, not to damage bonus or magical damage bonus. One sentence
is enough to clarify this, and will save a lot of hassles down
the road.
You might as well generalize this section. In addition to
Crushing, Impaling, and Slashing weapons you could equally well
characterize other weapons as Entangling (whip, flail, lasso,
bolos, etc) and Tripping (staff, spear butt, etc) weapons. Why
not consolidate those other special rules into this section?
While you're at it you could include all the Special Combat
Tactics skills here, and just note which ones require distinct
training.
IMO, if you hold a shield in front of a location or three
you should benefit from all its Armor, not just half. What, is it
thinner if you use it that way? Is it more realistic? More fun?
Given the lowered weapon damages can we reduce the damage
required to cut off a limb? I know that limb-hacking was
unrealistically easy in RQ2 and became somewhat of a joke (with
Gimpy's Tavern, etc) but the most recent RQ4 rules have made it
well-nigh impossible to cut off an arm or leg, or a head for that
matter, and that's an aspect of RQ that I really-really-really
enjoy. Don't ask why, it's probably some deep-rooted
psychological trauma. But in any case, let's allow for a few more
flying limbs than at present. Please?!
These are quite good. It's hard to imagine improvements in
the weapons tables, but these manage it. To be specific, I like
the Category/Group distinction and the percentage relationships
between similar weapons. One thing seems odd, though. Are sling
stones and bullets really impaling weapons as implied by the note
at the bottom of that table? Also, since bolos are used by the
Bird-Lizard-riding pygmies of Prax, shouldn't they be included on
the weapons tables? I thought only outlandish weapons were to be
excluded from the main weapons tables. BTW, have you thought
about including comprehensive weapon and armor tables in an
appendix, with all the outlandish items that would never be found
in a Manirian or Lunar campaign but are a necessary part of a
world-spanning campaign or one set on another game-world?
Is it necessary to mention that the various metal armors are
made of Bronze? You don't mention that all the weapons are made
of Bronze, yet it's equally true. They may be bronze in
Glorantha, but that is *assumed* in Glorantha, and it makes the
table impossible to use as-is on other game-worlds. While we
rightly want to emphasize Glorantha, we should not create
additional barriers against those who would use RQ4 with other
worlds.
It's very nice that the rules for Spirit Combat can be kept
to one page. Would it be possible to describe a simplified
version of the Physical Combat rules in one page? Note, this is
not the question of an illuminated riddler, it's a real question.
Why not simplify the rule to this?
"If an attack does the foe's SIZ or more in damage the
attacker can choose to knock the foe back. The foe must roll
against DEXx5, with failure meaning it loses its balance. Each
additional 10 points of damage over the foe's SIZ moves the foe
back 1 meter and reduces the DEX multiplier by 1. An attack doing
the foe's SIZ+10 to SIZ+19 would knock it back 1 meter and force
it to roll DEXx4 or less to avoid falling; damage from SIZ+20 to
SIZ+29 would knockback 2 meters and require a DEXx3 roll, and so
on. Armor and parries have no effect on knockback, though armor
will absorb its share of the incidental damage (scrapes and
buffets, etc) suffered as a consequence of being knocked back."
The combat summary says that mounted combatants are at -10
to attack skill, but it doesn't say anything about it here.
Personally, I think that anyone who has enough Ride skill to use
his full attack skill should not be penalized, and would remove
that line from the combat modifier summary, but if the summary is
right then you should mention the modifier in this section.
Surprise (91)
Where are the rules for getting surprised? There should be a
pointer in this section.
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
"Enough sound bites. Let's get to work." -- Ross Perot sound bite
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:29 EEST