Bren

I don't think there is a lowest common denominator. I find some level of complexity desirable in a game and, if done right, it adds to my fun. Make it too simple and it's too boring for me. Simple enough so anyone can play will be too simple for someone to enjoy. If we sidestep the "is it really a game" issue, Candyland is simple. It's not much fun to play though.

Way back when in the days before and shortly after RQ1, most people I knew who roleplayed were what we called "nerds." And nerds tended to be good at arithmetic and math in general. Many of the initial players in my high school were involved in the Wargame Club where various board games were played. I think that was a second filter that tended to weed out people who were poor at arithmetic or math-phobic. I think the gamer population is more diverse or generalized than it used to be. You aren't really comparing the same types of populations. That said, it certainly seems like kids these days, when they aren't standing around on my lawn, are not as facile or adept at arithmetical operations. The elementary math lessons I've looked at (and admittedly I haven't spent a lot of time looking) use a method that seems to compare stacks of things (beads, apples, groups of 1s, 10s, 100s, etc.) rather than focusing on rote memorization and multiplication drills e.g., using flashcards. I vaguely recall from when I was a young lad, that I spent some time in the kitchen doing flashcards and multiplication table drills with my parents. The new method seems to focus more on the meaning of numbers and arithmetical operations and less time drilling a functional rote knowledge of how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. I've met high school graduates who can't really multiply numbers. I don't recall ever encountering anyone like that way back in the Jurassic when I was in school.

I didn't intend to suggest that you were innumerate. My point was that I found your suggested simplification way more complicated for me (to the point that I would never want to use it) than any of the possible arithmetical solutions and I find it interesting that different people find different things to be simple or complex. That's the method I was trying to describe. I think you described it better.

My players (who have just named their group The Heroes of Apple Lane) are in the midst of the adventure, "The Dragon of Thunder Hills," from the GM Adventures. (Mild Spoilers for the adventure follow.) They sent two characters to Clearwine to buy more Hazia. A lot more Hazia. They have the funds to buy 40 doses. We are off next weekend, so I have about 10 days to prepare. How easy should it be to get Redeye high enough to Discorporate? What do you see as the potential complications and how would you suggest running this?

During last night's session, I pitched the idea of creating a unifying passion for the adventurer group. Their two ideas were to have a loyalty to their nominal leader, the PC who is the Thane of Apple Lane, or a loyalty to the group or band. The majority of the players favored loyalty to the group. One player then said, “We need a name.” Their choice was “The Heroes of Apple Lane.” The new name is brilliant, as it’s kind of cool, kind of corny, and ties into the long Runequest history of roleplaying in Apple Lane. I started them all with a loyalty of 60%, per basic rules for starting passions, but I said that anyone justifying a higher or lower passion could do so. The player of the Apprentice Shaman said that in play, her character had been more loyal to the group than to her shaman master. Which is true, she has been absent minded and tardy with fulfilling some of the odd tasks assigned by her master while she has focused on helping the group with their adventures. The player said her character’s loyalty to the group should be higher than her loyalty to the shaman. She has Loyalty (Ditgurat the Shaman) 64%. So, she now has Loyalty (Heroes of Apple Lane) 65%. One character has already successfully used his Loyalty (Heroes of Apple Lane) for an augment. Thanks again jajagappa for your suggestions and for sharing what you did with group loyalty in your campaign.

It's interesting that people don't agree on ways to "simplify" a process. Just parsing this gives me a headache. Trying to remember to do this in play would add a lot to my handling time vs. realizing that most rolls* require no calculation to figure specials (or criticals). * As Atgxtg mentioned, for rolls between 21-95 you don't need to determine anything other than success and failure. So no calculations are required.. For specials I multiply by 2 and divide by 10. (Multiplying by 2 is pretty easy. Dividing by 10 just shifts the decimal one place.) So for a 41% chance to succeed, take 41*2 (82) then 82/10 = 8.2. So 8 or less is at least a special success. Since I'm lazy, I memorize the critical probabilities so I don't need to do that arithmetic.

But shouldn't it say, next round? Surely the Cliff Toad doesn't leave its prey dangling at the end of the tongue for 5 minutes before trying to swallow it?

In my long ago campaign. One group of main characters (mostly foreigners) recovered the Windsword. They combined with the native Balazaring PCs, allied with the King of Trilus, and successfully made a surprise attack on Ellkoi. After ousting the Lunars, they put a Balazaring PC on the throne of Elkoi. The campaign ended before any Lunar response could occur.

That's a good idea that I will happily steal. I'll also ask the players to give me their assessment of how loyal their PC is to the leader/group. That way they can possibly have a loyalty that is higher (or lower) than 60%. Much higher or lower and I'd want them to explain/justify why it should be higher. Yes, as has generally been the case in every campaign I've ever played in or run, the players do tend to have their characters act as if they were loyal regardless of any in-universe relationships other than being PCs. One thing I've always liked about the passion/traits system is the ability to capture and track that mechanically.

Most of the PCs I see do not have a loyalty to each other, so the highest relevant passion may not have any clear connection. It's interesting to understand how other campaigns work. Do the PCs in your game all have loyalties to each other? Is that a group loyalty, like to a warband, or do they have a series of loyalties, like Loyalty (PC1) 60%, Loyalty (PC2) 80%, etc? I like this example. This approach seems like it would for the characters in my group.

How does Six Seasons handle pregnancy?

If my players would only play faster, I would get a chance to run Black Spear before my delayed retirement SS kicks in.

I think this is reasonable. Now and again I think, "Huh, the Gloranthan year is only 294 days while an earth year is 365.25 ish days." Then I shrug and go on to worry about something more concerning, like "What does the Glorathan sky look like at night?" or "In Sartar, can you see the Red Moon in the daytime?" or "Why don't people like including the ducks in their Glorantha?"

Waste of time may be too strong, but overall I agree with you. I don't think there is one right answer. Some Storm Bullers will be more thoughtful than others. But fighting Chaos is where I'd expect the true Storm Bull worshipper to use their Berserk spell. If they are thoughtful they will cast some defensive magic or ask their friends to cast some before they go Berserk. An impulsive Storm Bull worshipper of one run by an impulsive player may go straight to Berserk and charge! I've seen both happen in play. Simply killing the child doesn't sound interesting or fun. Putting them in a reed basket and floating them down the river or leaving them alone in the forest are the actions of folk tales and myths. That's what should happen. YGMV and all that.

I wouldn't do that. In part, because it wouldn't be more fun for my players or me. Those are the rules for player characters. I don't apply the same rules to all the NPCs. It's canonical that without continued POW sacrificed to the deities by their worshipers the deities would fade away? That surprises me. Do you have a citation? I see that as a different thing from POW sacrifices to deities and I agree that is necessary to the continuation of the Compromise. Seems somewhat different to me. And I expect the geasa of commanders would have a big influence on what actions their regiment will entertain. Humakti regiments are going to be doing a lot of ambushing...and maybe none at all. Same with strong passions. Hate Lunar Empire 90% is going to make a permanent alliance with the Lunar Empire very difficult (if not impossible) to put in place and maintain.

The part that is odd is not that defending the clan lands from horseback, it's that the guy that stays home is a mounted warrior while the guy who goes questing and raiding (probably) is not.

That would make it easier on the animal's hooves. But sand and light gravel washes and blows away, so having those as a top layer would require annual maintenance. That was interesting. Thanks! I am wondering at the source of their claim regarding the purposes of the side ditches. Those depicted wouldn't have done much of anything to increase visibility, stop highway bandits, or prevent people from entering the road. The ditches would be easily climbed or jumped by wild animals, wouldn't have stopped highway outlaws, and one would only need to lay a pair of thick boards over the ditch so a cart or wagon could cross.

If you had said, epicureans instead of "Epicurean philosophers" I would have assumed the common definition. Epicurean philosophers get a bad rap in the modern world. So when someone is wrong on the internet, duty calls. Tranquility does sound closer. I was going off my recollection from a long ago Introduction to Philosophy class. You're correct that it was more than just freedom from fear. As I recall, their ideal seemed to be living simply, eating simple food, not drinking to excess, and studying mathematics so as to avoid worry, stress, and pain in life. I particularly remember the math part as I majored in math, so I found the Epicureans advocating studying math amusing.

Contradictory opinions, that seems pretty Gloranthan of you. 😉 While I have seen players take actions that didn't fit what I saw as their cult beliefs, I don't think I've ever wondered would the god use this spell rather than that one. I may not fully understand what you mean. Is this something you've seen in play? Can you think of any examples?

You raise some interesting points. I didn't intend to imply that. For one thing, I don't think most people in Glorantha are fervent worshippers. I also don't think most NPC initiates have more than 1, 2, or 3 Rune points. So for most initiates their choice would be, can I only embody one aspect (Rune spell) of the god or can I embody more than just one. So most people in Glorantha will focus on a limited set of aspects of a deity (such as midwife, crop fertility, or Queen) simply because they don't have more than a few Rune points. Once we get into exceptional NPCs (or PCs), there are a few cults like Orlanth and Ernalda, where there are too many spells available for most people to gain all of the Special Rune magic. They will have to be somewhat selective. For other cults, like Humakt, it is possible to gain all the Special spells, but only if Enchantments are not chosen. Adding those, once again the worshipper will have to be selective. In regards to associated cult spells those to are aspects of the deity. They represent events in that deity's myths and they are cast with the same pool of points as are direct spells of the deity. Focusing on Orlanth's Sandals of Darkness isn't less Orlanth than Windwords or Thunderbolt. I see no conflict in choosing those associated aspects of the deity. We may have a different underlying concept of the nature of the relationship between deity and worshipper. My view of pagan religious worship is that it is essentially a transactional relationship. One offered sacrifices and worship to a deity in return for something from the deity. In the real world it typically was the favor of the deity (good harvest, healthy children, victory in war) or to avoid disfavor or curses from the deity (sickness, plague, famine, or defeat). Gloranthan theism seems similar with the added bit that there are clear and unambiguous marks of favor in Glorantha (Rune spells) that the deity provides. The idea that a deity should be worshipped with no expectation of anything in return seems more Calvinist Christian in nature to me. God has decided ahead of time who is saved and who is damned and nothing you do will change that. You can't bargain with god, so any worship is essentially unselfish. So a fervent worship worships for unselfish reasons. On the other hand, if one has the view that the Gloranthan gods need POW sacrificed to them to maintain themselves like Apollo and the other Greek gods in the old Star Trek episode "Who Mourns for Adonis" then I can see why one might interpret someone who gives POW to the deity and takes less in return as being more devout. But I don't think the Gloranthan gods require worship to remain in the God Time of Glorantha. But if I did have that view, I would think that more people manifesting all the aspects of the deity would make the deity stronger not weaker. Whereas if nearly no one picks and uses the Morale spell or the Sandals of Darkness, maybe those aspects of Humakt or Orlanth are weakened. Given the transactional view I do have, I am having a difficult time reconciling a fervent Humakt worshipper with a worshipper who decides, "You know I don't want to be able to raise the Morale of my regiment of fellow Humakti's or Bind the Ghost of any of my dying fellows to the regimental standard, even if they would really, really like that. Sure I will be able to cast one more point of Shield or Cast Truesword one more time, but I won't ever do those other things. And the reason I don't want to be able to do those other things is that I am really strongly devoted to Humakt." [Well that ended up to be a lot longer of a post than I thought it would be.]

I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Just thinking aloud...keeping the home and hearth safe and mounted combat aren't connected in my mind. Yes, yes, I know knights were mounted and they guarded their own castles, but, mounted warriors seem to be more of a natural fit with going off on journeys, quests, and raids than with staying home.

If they were doing that, they weren't Epicurean philosophers they were hedonists. For Epicureans, the supreme good they sought was ataraxia or the freedom from pain.

But then they are consciously choosing to be less like their god than they could be. Rune spells replicate the attributes of the deity. The more spells you have, the more like the deity you can be. Choosing not to gain those attributes seems less fervent to me rather than more.

To be fair, a storm did interfere with any rescue. But the Athenians back home were definitely not happy. They executed 6 of the 8 generals who commanded the fleet.

Yes, drowning makes naval battles very costly once a ship is lost. However, the Athenians condemnation of their fleet's failure to rescue sailors from their lost ships at Arginusae indicates that complete loss of a ship's complement was unusual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arginusae