Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!steven
From: steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Runequest & other Chaosium games
Message-ID: <853@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Feb-84 17:49:00 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.853
Posted: Fri Feb 17 17:49:00 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 10:41:58 EST
References: <4907@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <171@tymix.UUCP> <825@qubix.UUCP> <1201@pur-phy.UUCP>, <636@ihuxp.UUCP>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 72


>>  Let me explain.  In my opinion, RQ is fantasy.  It is not Heroic
>>  Fantacy.  It is the day-to-day living for a while and then dying of an
>>  average character.  The magic system, until you get Rune level magic
>>  is just sooooo dull.  Gods have to help the thief, for a starting
>>  one might have some of his rolls up to a 50-50 chance of succeeding.

	Actually, a 1st level D&D thief has about the same chance of
    disarming a trap in D&D, as a beginning RQ II character has.  (Of course,
    if you play the RQ II previous experience rules, you can start out
    at about 60% { perhaps 6th level D&D equavalent }).

>>  But for a thief, who is trying to disarm a trap, and who will have it
>>  spring on him with the poison needle, etc., these are lousy chances of
>>  survival.  A true thief is unplayable.

	No doubt this is because you believe in flawless traps, which always
    spring, and always have death-inducing poison on them.   In D&D, we used
    to HOPE for these kind of traps, so we could coat our arrows with this
    mythical stuff.


>>                                          A mage is unplayable of any
>>  sort because it is not worth it in terms of the magic attainable.  The
>>  magic items themselves are so rare and so normal that they fit in with
>>  the rest of this boring game.

	What you actually mean is that it takes a long time to get really
    excellent magic; you are not able to become 18'th level in as many
    adventures (like I have seen in D&D).   Runequest II magic is just as
    powerful as D&D, although it is admittadly more play-balanced.  For
    example, a 1st level D&D MU can take out up to 16 other MU's his level
    with a single spell -- sleep.   In Runequest, even the most powerful
    characters can magically kill at most 4 other characters at a time
    (Multispell 3 with 4 Sever Spirits).

	It sounds to me that the game you should be playing is Champions
    (or SuperWorld).   In those games, you can play a Super-Hero, and have
    all the fun you like beating up on Agents and normals, without the
    least difficulty, or the smallest chance of failure.

    What fun.  Whammm!!!   He is knocked out.   Oh here comes another one??
    Whammm!!!  He's knocked out too.   Whamm!!!  Whammm!!!  Whammm!!!!!
    (What a boring excersize in dice rolling).


>>  I'll give the rebuttal now before I get hit with the editorial.  The
>>  pro-RQ will say:  "But that's the beauty of the game in being an
>>  undeclard multi-class".  To that I say horse-pucky.  Every character
>>  in the game is a fighter, with a few embellishments.  (Why do they
>>  call it battle magic...because all it is is an aid to a fighter.)  

	Tell it to my Lunar Shaman.  He is 55% in his best weapon, but
    I suggest that you do not try to attack him, or you'll get your Mind
    blown away so fast (curtesy of Mind Blast), you won't even be able to 
    get an arrow off.  Of course, every character in the game fights.   But
    that is completely diffrent from saying all the chartacters are "fighters"
    (in the D&D sense of the term).    Would you accept your thief being
    unable to use weapons??   What about your clerics??


>>  For me, give me the spell-caster or the thief...you can keep the
>>  fighter.

	Thats good.   You can keep them all, since in RQ II (at least), there
    are no "fighters"; (what a stupid concept 'fighters' -- what do you call
    Magi?  magicers?   "Magic User" is even worse... what to you call Men at
    Arms?  "Mele Weapon Users"?). 

    Steven Maurer