New RuneQuest Design Note (15)

[Yelm's Light]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

That's a great point, and a good argument for the mechanism.  Does anyone NOT hate the POW-bouncing economy and the constant futzing it implies to all related attribute bonuses?

 

You could have extrapolated that from RQ2, but it certainly wasn't in the rules.  In my game we never recalculated bonuses unless permanent stats changed, and most of the time that was at one particular point (POW = 21 to below that) for Rune Priests and took about two minutes to do.

[hkokko]

It depends a bit on the length of the character's career in the game and how many games the character is expected to be in thruout the campaign. Perhaps someone with mad statistics skills will run the maths and see how many games would a character stay at various percentage levels 40, 45,50, 55, 60...100,105,110 and so on if they have skill increase possibility at every game and use the skill successfully at every game. If the increment is something else than 5% that can perhaps also be calculated. My campaigns tend to be long ones but that is not usual I guess. 

This is of course a bit academic as many of the d100 games use similar mechanic for skill increases but it still might be enlightening. We might be straying far from the original topic :-) 

Edited April 17, 2017 by hkokko

[styopa]

2 hours ago, hkokko said:

It depends a bit on the length of the character's career in the game and how many games the character is expected to be in thruout the campaign. Perhaps someone with mad statistics skills will run the maths and see how many games would a character stay at various percentage levels 40, 45,50, 55, 60...100,105,110 and so on if they have skill increase possibility at every game and use the skill successfully at every game. If the increment is something else than 5% that can perhaps also be calculated. My campaigns tend to be long ones but that is not usual I guess. 

This is of course a bit academic as many of the d100 games use similar mechanic for skill increases but it still might be enlightening. We might be straying far from the original topic :-) 

Not precisely your question, but I'd posted earlier in this thread something like it:

"Becoming a Rune Lord (RQ3) generally involved becoming 90% in what, five or six skills?   Generally, those would be things that the character is doing/enjoys doing (otherwise why pick that cult?) so we could assume they 'start their Rune Lord effort' at better-than-middling skills

Starting at a base of 60%, with a skill mod of 5%, getting to 90 takes 32 skill rolls (st dev 12 - I only ran about 170 iterations, that would settle down with more)

Likely the character is going to try like hell to get a skill check in every one of their primary target skills at least once each play session, certainly.  Let's say they only manage that in 80%.

Playing 2x monthly, then would be 40 sessions or a little more than a year and a half of play."

[Darius West]

On 4/12/2017 at 0:21 AM, Jeff said:

In both RQ2 and RQ3 it was extremely difficult to become a Rune Master and gain access to reusable divine - so much so that when I asked how they had Rune Masters in the Chaosium House Campaigns, the answer I got was "we just created our characters as Rune Masters - we almost never managed to raise an initiate to Rune Priest or Lord."

That's what David Dunham and I used to call the "initiate trap" - all the cool magic (ie reusable magic, allied spirits, iron, etc.) becomes available at Rune level, but it was nearly impossible to get there (especially if you were foolish enough to use your one-use Rune magic). Admittedly, it was easier in RQ2 than in RQ3, but in 20 years of pretty constant play, the number of Rune Masters I manage to achieve was ... maybe two. Given that a lot of the rules were about being Rune masters and that is when you really got to play with the fun toys, everyone on the team agreed that there was a BIG disconnect between Initiate and Rune Master. The disconnect was so bad that plenty of players and GMs assume that RQ was designed so that Rune Masters were really for play and should be retired. A look through the Chaosium house campaign folders say exactly the opposite.

While I agree it was difficult to get the appropriate skills etc to get the spells, it was far from impossible.  It took commitment from players and GMs.  Also we knew damn well that after rune level came herodom, and we had a pretty good idea of what constituted a hero quest even back then.  Most GMs used what lore was available and winged it.  Most Rune level characters took about 1-2 years of play.  Then again, if it was easy, anyone could do it.   On the other hand, very few players ever managed to achieve rune level with characters who weren't a bit over-equipped to protect themselves, and an Issaries rune lord was pretty much unheard of (for example), as who could survive using a staff?

[hkokko]

17 minutes ago, styopa said:

Not precisely your question, but I'd posted earlier in this thread something like it:

"Becoming a Rune Lord (RQ3) generally involved becoming 90% in what, five or six skills?   Generally, those would be things that the character is doing/enjoys doing (otherwise why pick that cult?) so we could assume they 'start their Rune Lord effort' at better-than-middling skills

Starting at a base of 60%, with a skill mod of 5%, getting to 90 takes 32 skill rolls (st dev 12 - I only ran about 170 iterations, that would settle down with more)

Likely the character is going to try like hell to get a skill check in every one of their primary target skills at least once each play session, certainly.  Let's say they only manage that in 80%.

Playing 2x monthly, then would be 40 sessions or a little more than a year and a half of play."

So maths support that it is relatively straight forward and easy to get into the 90-100 range in a year (give or take) of play. 40 sessions to get to a level where things started to get bogged down (see "clink" above). I have had a minimaxing player that uses training every chance he gets so things would require even shorter session amount (on the above it could be 20+ sessions if he could use it after every skill usage increase) to get to 90-100's range.  That would cut the calendar time to well below a year. Getting the iron armor (to get to fully protected clink) and the spells might take longer than that of course as this could be protected by questing and GM stinginess which I can provide in plenty...

So if there are long running campaigns (=more than 20+or 40+ sessions) it can be important that the system does not get bogged down mechanically (the clink) if the players continue and expect to have crunchy satisfying fights (with no sudden death spells). Of course it might be that campaigns are shorter than <40+ sessions and the style of play among those is different...

This "clink" can of course be tested by creating few high level characters with (ordinary characteristics - no indecent damage bonuses and just ordinary cult specific weapons) with high level armor (iron armor) and protection spells (shield 4 + protection 4 comes to mind :-) and having them duke it out in practice... Then tuning it with lesser armor and spells. At rune levels you would expect rune level protection spells and armor.  That would be interesting to test out....

Oh my... going down the analytics rabbit hole :-). Too many vacation days...

 

 

 

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Not precisely your question, but I'd posted earlier in this thread something like it:

"Becoming a Rune Lord (RQ3) generally involved becoming 90% in what, five or six skills?   Generally, those would be things that the character is doing/enjoys doing (otherwise why pick that cult?) so we could assume they 'start their Rune Lord effort' at better-than-middling skills

Starting at a base of 60%, with a skill mod of 5%, getting to 90 takes 32 skill rolls (st dev 12 - I only ran about 170 iterations, that would settle down with more)

Likely the character is going to try like hell to get a skill check in every one of their primary target skills at least once each play session, certainly.  Let's say they only manage that in 80%.

Playing 2x monthly, then would be 40 sessions or a little more than a year and a half of play."

With physical skills, you could gain experience, then train, then gain experience until you reached 75%, then it was all experience. Non physical skills could use trainig up to 90%, which was useful.

 

[styopa]

4 hours ago, hkokko said:

This "clink" can of course be tested by creating few high level characters with (ordinary characteristics - no indecent damage bonuses and just ordinary cult specific weapons) with high level armor (iron armor) and protection spells (shield 4 + protection 4 comes to mind :-) and having them duke it out in practice... Then tuning it with lesser armor and spells. At rune levels you would expect rune level protection spells and armor.  That would be interesting to test out....

One would expect that was definitely on the list of beta testers.

I hope the rules have been tested by people who actively try to exploit/break them.   That's how you make a tight, consistent rules system.  You simply cannot write good rules if your betas are all bought-in to playing the way the author(s) "think" it "should" be played.

Then again, I come from a wargaming background that sees min-maxing as simply taking the game seriously: doing everything a serious player can do to be successful within the rules as given, not a sort of violation of polite gaming society...That literally just occurred to me why min maxing probably doesn't bother me at all.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

... Then again, I come from a wargaming background that sees min-maxing as simply taking the game seriously: doing everything a serious player can do to be successful within the rules as given, not a sort of violation of polite gaming society...That literally just occurred to me why min maxing probably doesn't bother me at all.

That's a ... really good insight .

It's probably one that's valuable to others (on both sides of that debate).  I think a lot of "real role-players" <wince> presume an unspoken contract that "role" based RPG'ing (character-centric & explicitly non-MinMax'ed builds (e.g. the STR-max'ed pacifist), in-character perspective & "non-optimal" decision-making, etc) are always "better" than are choices made with best-mechanical-options in mind...

In war-gaming, achieving the victory-conditions are the whole POINT of the game.

"GNS Theory" & kin may have fallen out of vogue, but there are multiple ways to play RPGs, and the only "wrong" way is one that causes problems at the table:  so long as everyone's having fun, nobody's doing it "wrong."

 

[olskool]

On 4/16/2017 at 6:09 PM, Jusmak said:

At first it was bad idea to put a fight between two combatants both having plate armor and knifes as a weapon. But when getting older and  having better understanding of basic rules, there comes improvising. It may become frustrating trying to harm a person in plate, so why doing so? Start wrestling, and if you have both hands empty, aimed wrestle to head. Do you get hold, if do, and dice is under martial art skill. you may choke opponent. Next round suffocation rules apply.

Knockback rules do a lot good.

Joint locks were developed for hurting armored opponents. Martial arts as a skill needs a bit developing. It is dull and unrealistic to use in RQ3, there is no sense, that any kick is doing 2D6 damage, more than battle axe or heavy mace or any 1 handed sword. Rather see, that success in martial arts should lead into tactical or positional advantage, leg sweep, intentional knock back, choking, joint locks (instead of throwing opponent doing extra damage directly to arm or leg)

 

 

I actually imported the STUN DAMAGE system from Fantasy Hero.  The Fantasy Hero STUN Damage system and RQ mesh like they were made for each other! 

[olskool]

23 hours ago, hkokko said:

This "clink" syndrome was frequently encountered worry in our long campaign with RQ2/Rq3 from 1983 onwards. We played in the first intensive stretch of a campaing about once a week very regularly for almost 20 years or so. Eventually all of the players were rune lords or rune priests with iron armor and shield + protection spells - which means a lot of protection to go thru if you pass the parry. Few of the players managed to get several of their consecutive characters to be rune lords. With enough playing that eventually happens and does not have to take years to do. I think the highest fighting skill number was in the 160s for a Lanbril with Orlanthi and Humakti not far behind. 

Individual fights with high skilled opponent or even with multiple opponents often became quite boring and long with attack/parry sequence lasting for a night or with Cradle scenario - multiple nights waiting for the failure in parry + critical attack combination to get enough thru the high armor and magic to cause any real harm. So "prepared" fights - (players have armor on and are looking for trouble - the opponents as well) became a thing to avoid - go for faction intrigue, mysteries, constrained scenarios (being in a city without your massive armor and weapons), non fighting missions, stripping you somehow of the weapons or tactics, restarting with novice characters and many other things that helped but caused sometimes dissatisfaction from many of the players who liked to be powerful in fights, liked the fights originally and earned their experience and equipment with long play with their well loved characters. Players liked the crunch of the system - that is why we play RQ - but the original RQ2/RQ3 fights broke down into a grind in the above scenarios. Players liked Glorantha - that is why we still play there. 

 Your mileage will vary (and must have done so). 

 

I countered this with a reality based armor system.  It does add a bit of "crunch" (just call me "crunch master") but it works.  Armor doesn't cover 100% of a location.  My old RBR Level 3A Ballistic Vest only covered about 80% of my chest and 20% of my abdomen.  My AR500 Plate Carrier only covers about 75% of my chest.  I gave each piece of armor a % of Coverage Rating.  A Cuirass would cover between 90% and 95% (if well fitted).  I would roll percentile dice at the same time I rolled 1D20 for location.  The player would check to see if my percentage roll exceeded his Coverage Rating.  If it did, the armor was bypassed.  

I would also allow Armor Damage.  Whenever weapon damage exceeded an armor's AP, that armor would take damage.  This damage was recorded as a reduction in that armor's Coverage Rating. Crushing weapons would do but 1% Damage to the armor's Coverage Rating (reducing a 90% to 89%).  Impaling weapons like arrows, daggers, and spears would do 1D3% Damage to an armor's Coverage Rating.  Slashing weapons like axes and swords would do 1D6% of Damage to the armor's Coverage Rating.  

If the weapon's damage was 2 X AP, you would add 1 to the Damage Roll BUT the MAXIMUM ROLL COULD NOT BE EXCEEDED (ie 1D3 roll maxed at three).  If the weapon's damage was 3 X AP, you would add 2 to the Damage Roll (max cannot be exceeded).  This continued on until you hit the maximum damage rollable.      

 

Shields were treated like weapons in that they had both an AP and a HP.  Every time the shield's AP was exceeded, it lost a HP.  This eventually results in a broken shield.  Because of these house rules, my players never felt like they could take on the Barbarian Horde singlehandedly.  

[Jusmak]

43 minutes ago, olskool said:

I actually imported the STUN DAMAGE system from Fantasy Hero.  The Fantasy Hero STUN Damage system and RQ mesh like they were made for each other! 

Can this stun damage system be easily found somewhere? Or could you tell simply it's basics? Sounds good. If I was using fatique system in RQ3, then success in martial arts and extra dice roll could be used to decrease fatique. 

I think most exiting combat was at skill level 50-70. So, I think best thing to do is to use give option to decrease opponents parry the percentage skill is over 100% and contrary, as there is option to do two attacks at half skill.

Armor coverage sounds also interesting way to keep characters vulnerable enough to maintain exitement in fights.

 

[olskool]

1 minute ago, Jusmak said:

Can this stun damage system be easily found somewhere? Or could you tell simply it's basics? Sounds good. If I was using fatique system in RQ3, then success in martial arts and extra dice roll could be used to decrease fatique. 

I think most exiting combat was at skill level 50-70. So, I think best thing to do is to use give option to decrease opponents parry the percentage skill is over 100% and contrary, as there is option to do two attacks at half skill.

Armor coverage sounds also interesting way to keep characters vulnerable enough to maintain exitement in fights.

 

 

I don't know if this violates any Copyrights laws, I'll take it down if it does.  The system is located in Fantasy Hero the RPG (a good reference but VERY CRUNCHY even by MY standards).  Stun damage is a form of fatigue damage that renders you unconscious.  I used CON + STR + WILL (I added this) as the base damage for STUN. Exceed this and you're out.  When fist fighting, every 5 full points of STUN damage results in 1 point of KILLING damage (taken off of HP) in addition to the STUN Damage.  Punch damage is based on a chart like the STR Damage chart.  Damage starts at 1D4 and runs into LARGE Multiple dice for things like Trolls.  When you hit for STUN damage and roll the Location, each of the locations has a STUN MULTIPLIER that you're rolled damage is multiplied by.  Those Multipliers are:  Head X2, Chest X1, Abdomen X1.5, Arms X0.5, and Legs X0.5.  After multiplying the damage by the Location Stun Multiplier you subtract it from your [CON+STR+WILL] Stun Total like they were Hit Points.  Armor does absorb STUN Damage.

Weapons also do STUN Damage.  Every weapon has a STUN MULTIPLIER ranging from X1 up to X5.  The weapon's rolled damage is multiplied by this number and that amount of STUN damage is then checked against the Location Multiplier.  For Instance, A Broad Sword (damage 1D8 in my game) hits for 4 points of HP Damage.  It has a Stun Multiplier of X2 so it does 8 STUN in addition to the killing damage.  The player rolls left leg (Stun Multiplier X0.5) and the STUN Damage is reduced to 4 again and applied to the character's Stun Damage track.  As a general rule:

Arrows, Daggers, and Spears are X1 Stun Multipliers

Swords and Axes are X2 Stun Multipliers

Hammers are X3 Stun Multipliers

Maces are X4 Stun Multipliers

Whips are X5 Stun Multipliers

The STUN Damage allows you to vary your weapon's damages to closer replicate real world weapons.  For instance, the Nightclub/Single Stick in my game now does 1D4 Damage but with a X4 STUN Multiplier.  It doesn't kill as easily (like in real life) but will do up to 16 STUN in a single blow.  This makes it great for "braining" drunken characters WITHOUT killing them in that bar fight.  The Warhammer falls in between with a Damage of 1D6 +1 but a STUN Multiplier of X3.  It can manage 21 points of STUN Damage.  A battle axe doing 1D6+2 with a X2 STUN Multiplier will do the same STUN as that nightstick.

I highly recommend you get a copy of Fantasy Hero and check out Stun Damage for yourself.  

   

[Jusmak]

Hmm... nice. I'll try first how this would work with basic fatique rules. In RQ3 fatique does not affect play too often, so there is no reason to use it. But if every blow affects also fatique, it will affect all skillchecks and resistance rolls... A bit simplyfied way and leads also unconsciousness... Althou needs to fix, that burden is dealt diffent way. Under certain weight does not affect fatique at all. Maybe ENC under STR.

STR+CON normal fatique, and every point below maximum gives -1%. When it becomes 0 or under, unconscious. 

 

Thanks for this. I like it already. It will build fatique gradually, and is somethin to care about. Sounds realistic. Need to try this.

 

 

 

[Jon Hunter]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

That's a ... really good insight .

It's probably one that's valuable to others (on both sides of that debate).  I think a lot of "real role-players" <wince> presume an unspoken contract that "role" based RPG'ing (character-centric & explicitly non-MinMax'ed builds (e.g. the STR-max'ed pacifist), in-character perspective & "non-optimal" decision-making, etc) are always "better" than are choices made with best-mechanical-options in mind...

In war-gaming, achieving the victory-conditions are the whole POINT of the game.

"GNS Theory" & kin may have fallen out of vogue, but there are multiple ways to play RPGs, and the only "wrong" way is one that causes problems at the table:  so long as everyone's having fun, nobody's doing it "wrong."

 

I'd agree that there are multiple ways of playing games, but war gaming is war gaming  and roleplaying is roleplaying, they cross over but they in fact different things with different goals.

Now the reality is you can play at RPG as war game, and you can Role play at war game. The issue is if that isn't the expectation of everyone at the table it may cause stress

Now in a RPG min maxing suits certain types of characters, its doesn't suit other types of characters. Warriors and combatants IRL tend to interested in efficiency and getting the edge, and min maxing is what they try to do IRL. However Sages, entertainers and more day to day people will less interested in it. Id guess a world like Glorantha pushes most people to mix maxing a little just to survive.

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

I'd agree that there are multiple ways of playing games, but war gaming is war gaming  and roleplaying is roleplaying, they cross over but they in fact different things with different goals.

Not always.

Remember that the old Gygax&Arneson D&D games began as wargame-variants, or maybe "next generation" wargames:  whereas the prior-generation of wargames had had multiple units (often of different types) on each "side" of the combat, original D&D opted to give each player a single unit (with a bit more complexity).

In many ways, most RPGs' "character sheets" are STILL just glorified versions of the old die-cut wargame chits/counters ...

And some people treat their character in a RPG as a "unit" with which they attempt to achieve "victory conditions."

YMMV, but I have seen -- and played at the table with -- this kind of gamer.

 

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

... However Sages, entertainers and more day to day people will less interested in it ...

HAH.

You just try telling that to the Academic Ethics Committee who deals with cheating/plagarism explulsions every year, and sometimes even has to fire professors/etc who are "supposed" to know better!  

Tell it to the George Carlin who delighted in his "Seven Dirty Words," and other "foul language" comedians, and their derivative "Shock Jock" stars.  

Tell it to at least 2-3 star-powered Hotties every year at events like the Oscars and the VMA's... they give the term "Min-Maxing" a whole new meaning, in their search for optimum... exposure.  

Yeah, they ALL got RL min-maxing on their minds...

[Darius West]

12 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

I'd agree that there are multiple ways of playing games, but war gaming is war gaming  and roleplaying is roleplaying, they cross over but they in fact different things with different goals.

Now the reality is you can play at RPG as war game, and you can Role play at war game. The issue is if that isn't the expectation of everyone at the table it may cause stress

Now in a RPG min maxing suits certain types of characters, its doesn't suit other types of characters. Warriors and combatants IRL tend to interested in efficiency and getting the edge, and min maxing is what they try to do IRL. However Sages, entertainers and more day to day people will less interested in it. Id guess a world like Glorantha pushes most people to mix maxing a little just to survive.

I think Sages also minmax, just different skills.  Entertainers who don't minmax are more common and are called waiters.  Minmaxing in real life is symptomatic of loving your job, which in the Grimoire of Calvinism marks a person as being "of the elect".  As one of the central tenets of Calvinism is Total Depravity (the notion that the natural human condition without the grace of God is one of Total Depravity), and given the mentally abberant attitude of someone who actually loves their work, I am inclined to view "the elect" as the ones who are depraved.  Workers of the world... Relax!

Edited April 18, 2017 by Darius West

[Pentallion]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

Tell it to the George Carlin who delighted in his "Seven Dirty Words," and other "foul language" comedians, and their derivative "Shock Jock" stars.  

 

First, and I'm sure it will be the last, time I've ever seen George Carlin lumped in with Shock Jocks.

[olskool]

 

Quote

In my game, Encumbrance determines how many STUN points you lose to Fatigue (this comes off of the STUN total as well).  I use weight (in Kilos) and Bulk (in points) ala Twilight2000 V2.2 for Encumbrance because I'm very familiar with it.  The more weight you are carrying, the more STUN you burn per round.  My STUN by weight for a character with a STR (and CON) of 10 would be:

 Light ENC (10kg or a little more than 20lbs, about the weight of a police officer's duty gear): 1 STUN per round

 Moderate ENC (20kg or almost 45lbs, about the weight of a soldier's LBE or Chest Rig when fully loaded): 2 STUN per round

 Heavy ENC (30kg or more than 65lbs, about the weight of a soldier's load when SAPI Plate armor is included): 3 STUN per round

 Burdened (40kg or more than 85lbs, the "road march" weight of an UNARMORED soldier with an "assault pack"): 4 STUN per round 

 Overburdened (50kg or more than 100lbs, the "road march" weight of an ARMORED soldier with an "assault pack"): 5 STUN per round.

Recovering Fatigue is done by resting for a combat round.  If a character does NOTHING for one combat round, he may regain up to his CON in STUN if he rolls CON x 5.  Resting for 10 minutes will regenerate a character's STUN completely, but this is dangerous to do in a "dungeon."  Healing regenerates the Caster's POW in STUN for every Intensity of the spell (ie a Healing 2 will give the recipient 2 X Caster's POW of STUN back). 

You will have to adjust this to the "Things of ENC" Runequest uses.  This shouldn't be too hard though.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by olskool

[g33k]

4 hours ago, Pentallion said:

First, and I'm sure it will be the last, time I've ever seen George Carlin lumped in with Shock Jocks.

Not "lumped in with," but a derivative of a derivative -- the comedians who took "foul language" somehow as the "most important" part of Carlin's schtick... hey, the surprised and nervous laughter is still laughter, right?  And they in turn lead to the Shock Jocks ...

[davecake]

FWIW, I found the 'initiate trap' to be not so bad in RQ3. I had a long running RQ3 game, and the majority of PCs were some form of rune level by the end, some quite experienced and dangerous. The Acolyte status helped. 

I even once had a PC qualify for rune level character creation, totally within the standard rules - a fairly old Green Elf (he rolled 15 on 2d8 for prior experience), he qualified for Wood Lord immediately (that 15 gave him 15x5 =+75 to a few crucial skills). 

I did find that sorcerers, allegedly a big play balance problem in RQ3, were the opposite - the 'apprentice trap' was far far worse than the initiate trap. Working a sorcerer up to scary magus status very hard. And if your character was not a sorcerer with significant previous experience at the start of play, forget about trying to become one in play! The scary super sorcerers in RQ3 books were wildly unrealistic in play, and mostly made scary by having hundreds of POW points worth it items and spirits. Your actual PC sorcerers very different.

[olskool]

On 4/19/2017 at 1:28 PM, davecake said:

FWIW, I found the 'initiate trap' to be not so bad in RQ3. I had a long running RQ3 game, and the majority of PCs were some form of rune level by the end, some quite experienced and dangerous. The Acolyte status helped. 

I even once had a PC qualify for rune level character creation, totally within the standard rules - a fairly old Green Elf (he rolled 15 on 2d8 for prior experience), he qualified for Wood Lord immediately (that 15 gave him 15x5 =+75 to a few crucial skills). 

I did find that sorcerers, allegedly a big play balance problem in RQ3, were the opposite - the 'apprentice trap' was far far worse than the initiate trap. Working a sorcerer up to scary magus status very hard. And if your character was not a sorcerer with significant previous experience at the start of play, forget about trying to become one in play! The scary super sorcerers in RQ3 books were wildly unrealistic in play, and mostly made scary by having hundreds of POW points worth it items and spirits. Your actual PC sorcerers very different.

 

I think they should keep the Initiate at "one use" for Rune/Divine Magic and 10% of income tithed to the Cult.  They should have to donate 50% of their time to the Cult, however.  You would then have the Acolyte as an "intermediate step" to Rune Priest with access to the reusable magic. On the Rune Lord side, they could have the Disciple with some of a Rune Lord's powers but not quite as skilled or equipped.  They could set the POW requirements at like 15 and Skill Levels around 75%.  They would have to give 50% of their income and 75% of their time to the Cult as they work their way to Rune Level.    

[Yelm's Light]

So, becoming a priest saddles the PC with all kinds of responsibilities in exchange for an allied spirit, a 20% better POW gain roll and a couple of other minor advantages?  Yeah, not seeing it.

People keep saying how difficult it is to become a Priest, but I haven't seen that either, barring permanent death.  I had one player get lucky with a few rolls and have the POW requirement within three sessions of play.  Add a year of service as an initiate, which could be a few months or less depending on the time scale involved for the group, and you've got instant rune priest.  (As it happened, it took him a little over six months to hit Priest status; he failed the examination the first time, at around four months.)

[davecake]

To be honest, I've never liked one use Rune Magic. If I was to run old school RuneQuest again, I'd make it simply harder to re-use - say, an initiate has to participate in a Holy day ceremony to regain it, but a priest can perform a small private ceremony to regain it more or less as they wish. 

I do very much like the Runepower idea for the same reason Jeff puts - the minor, flavourful and particularly close to the gods domain, spells like Wind Words or Cloud Call never got used because who would sacrifice for them when they could get another point of Shield or maybe a Thunderbolt? 

[Pentallion]

We've integrated Rune Pools into our latest RQ 3 campaign and it's excellent.  Suddenly, it's a hard choice:  drain one point out of the rune pool for a spell that would be incredibly useful right now, but not be able to cast Resurrection until you can refill your pool or hang onto it?  Hang onto what could be a needed healing trance later or boost up  a big ole Crush spell now? 

Choices are good.