Bren

On 1/28/2022 at 7:56 AM, Storm Khan said:

I considered a Lune. It’s movement of 6, though, makes it in ineffective chaser. This could become a foot race instead of a confrontation, a race my antagonist will likely loose. 

I wouldn't have the Lune chase after the character. I'd have the Lune appear adjacent to the apostate by sliding down a beam of red moonlight, vertically growing up out of a patch of moonlight on the ground, stepping through the moonlight shining on a wall or mirror as if through a door, or have a patch of moonlight break off from or step away from its location and unfold itself into the shape of a Lune. Make the spirit of reprisal's appearance weird, eerie, something that violates the usual rules or expected behavior of moon light.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

One argument here might be that while it’s surely better to be used to fighting from a chariot, it might be below the level of granularity of the RQ rules. And further, that while a charioteer is likely to be good at his craft, it’s a less likely skill for most warriors to pick up. Basically, if you use this rule, most people would be better served by avoiding chariots unless they’re the very rare specialist.

The designers may well agree with your argument. (I haven't ever seen an explanation for that design decision, though I'd be interested in what the thought was.) But my  counter argument would be that the Ride skill already includes that level of granularity. With the current rules, the Drive skill operates as if riding in a chariot across a field is like riding in an enclosed automobile down a highway. Easy-peasy. I think a better analogy would be standing up in the bed of a pickup truck driving at speed across a pasture without holding on with either hand. I'm sure it can be done, but I don't think it would be easy-peasy and I think my ability to hit something with a thrown object or an arrow would be negatively affected.

The existing rules for the Ride skill means that people who aren't good riders dismount to fight. That doesn't prevent people from using horses (or other mounts) for transport. So rather than most people avoiding chariots, I think what we'd end up with is most people who aren't used to Driving chariots would be better served by dismounting to fight like the warriors in Homer's Iliad. They would use the chariots as a way of getting to the battle or retreating from the battle. I think that's in keeping with the way Orlanthi in Sartar are described as using chariots.

And even with my proposed change, the charioteer's skill still matters in negotiating obstacles on the way to a battle, in escaping a battle, and in other situations of chase or pursuit. Averaging the skill of the passenger and driver means that a good charioteer allows an unskilled person a better chance to use their weapons from a chariot car than from a riding animal. The chariot also allows a caster-passenger to maintain an active spell. I think those are sufficient reasons for some people to use a chariot and to hire a charioteer while explaining why most people don't go to the expanse and why, in general, mounted cavalry supplants chariotry in Glorantha, just as it did in our world.

If one feels that my change is too harsh, a compromise between the existing rules and what I proposed would be to allow the passenger to use the charioteer's Drive skill so long as they hang on with at least one hand. That provides some justification for how an untrained person is standing upright while it would prevent the use of bows and force the passenger to choose between using a weapon or a shield. That way there would be some benefit for a skilled passenger over an untrained one when fighting from a chariot.

59 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

It might be easier to just make the passenger take either a Dex x5 or Drive Chariot roll when something bad happens.

I'd do that anyway just as I would for something bad happening when on a riding animal.

14 hours ago, lordabdul said:

And if an NPC isn't powerful enough for a specific bunch of PCs, adjust the stats.

That's an important point.

10 hours ago, Stephen L said:

I *think* but am not sure, that Leika and Nameless are all real player characters from Gregs RQii house campaign.  There was a jump in skill levels, RQiii characters were better than RQii characters, and RQ in G are even better.  Whilst I'd believe they'd been given a brush up for the RG in G, I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't changed significantly.

They might not need to, as RQ in G Player Characters are heroes.  Starting out, they are the same age of Kallyr Starbrow, when she did her Hero Quest for the star fragment set in her brow.  So that's probably a better standard to measure by.

Their stats may not have changed, but it's also possible that their over all power has been decreased. An old article (from Wyrms Footnotes I think) provides stats for Ken Kaufer's PC, Londra of Londros. Based on Tales of the Wooden Sword, she adventured for a time with Nameless (or Naimless as it was sometimes spelled). Since her stats include a Defense score of 50% I assume her stats are for RQ2, not RQ3. She has multiple weapons skills in the 95% - 110% range - that's more weapon skills at mastery than a starting RQG character will have, but the range is close to what a good starting warrior character might have for their best weapon skill. So her best weapon skills are lower than

Magic is where Londra's real power lies. She's listed as a Runelord/Runepriest of Humakt and a Priest of Orlanth. Between personal POW, Allied and bound spirits, and crystals she has 60 MPs, some special crystals, and a lot of Spirit Magic. And for Rune Magic she has a whopping 63 Rune Points (yes that is six-three) and her Allied Spirit has 12 Rune Points of its own. As for her age, I'm hoping there is a misprint because the write up says the stats are as of 1617 and that she was born Godday, Disorder Week, Dark Season, of 1605. Which would make her all of 12 years old. She must have been initiated really young. That Argrath guy better watch his step. 😉

10 hours ago, Stephen L said:

As an aside, my RQii/iii characters, when they'd been knocking about quite a bit and campaigns invariably wound down, had typically got to around 80% or so in their best skills.  That for me was a sweet spot for the RQ game mechanics.  Fights or other contests would generally be resolved in a few rounds or rolls, when someone failed their skill or parry, the opening their opponent was waiting for, and hoping for a good roll/damage.

In the RQ2 campaign we (myself and the other GM) almost always used the RQ2 prior experience rules. For warriors types, that gave them 50% weapon skill plus their starting skill bonus so it wasn't unusual for characters to start with best weapon skills of 75%. We had multiple characters reach 90% or better with their best weapon skills after running through about as many adventures as the Duke Raus of Rone Borderlands campaign. But that was back in the 1980s when we had a lot more time to play. The PCs with very  extensive play time did end up as Rune level with skills as good or better than Leika.

Of course that's just a couple of data points. Anecdotally interesting perhaps, but only marginally relevant to what goes on at someone else's table. As others have said, the GM will have to decide whether to adjust NPC stats up (or down) based on what the PCs look like in their campaign.

Characters who fight while mounted are limited to the lesser their weapon skill and their Ride skill. This has the effect of deterring poor riders from fighting mounted -- as it should. With chariots a character (other than the charioteer) is limited to the lesser of their weapon skill or the charioteer's Drive skill. By the rules, the Drive chariot skill of the passenger is irrelevant. With a skilled charioteer, a passenger who has never even once ridden in a chariot is able to use their weapon skills at or nearly at their full ability. But put that same warrior on a trained mount (cavalry or war mount) and suddenly the warrior is nearly incompetent with their weapons. That seems odd to me -- and by odd I mean wrong. Standing upright in a bouncing, swerving chariot while using both hands to shoot a bow or to hold a shield and throw a javelin seems to me like it would be a lot more difficult than trying to perform the same tasks while standing on solid ground...even if the driver is the charioteer equivalent of Mario Andretti.

It's more reasonable if an experienced chariot warrior is better at fighting from a chariot than an inexperienced warrior. I don't think this requires a separate skill for Ride (as opposed to Drive) chariot. Also, I can see an argument for the charioteer's Drive skill being more crucial than the Drive skill of the passenger/warrior. 

So what I'm going to do is to limit the passenger's attacks and parries to the lowest:

1. The passenger's weapon skill
2. The charioteer's Drive skill
3. The average of the Drive skills of the charioteer and the passenger

This prioritizes the Drive skill of the charioteer, while making the Drive skill of the passenger matter, but it is of lesser importance.

Thoughts?

On 1/27/2022 at 1:44 PM, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not a fan of rewarding "good roleplaying" because it's so subjective, and some people just aren't very good at it and I feel bad punishing them for being dullards. Feels like "punching down" and elitism.

 

I've been to a few open games (Cons, organized play events, and the like) where the person who some folks at the table thought was roleplaying the bestest was the person I felt detracted the mostest from the table by hamming it up maximally while hogging all the attention. So it's definitely a subjective thing.

I've also seen it become a competitive thing. And competition in a predominantly cooperative activity can become a problem.

On 1/27/2022 at 1:39 PM, PhilHibbs said:

I have already been corrected, in that you can cast spells on yourself despite Countermagic or Shield on yourself. You are inside the protection so it's not "incoming".

I may be misunderstanding, but I don't think that's the same issue. Casting Sword Trance after casting Countermagic or Shield on oneself is fine. What I was highlighting was that once the caster is in a Sword Trance, the spell doesn't allow the caster to cast spells like Countermagic or Shield at all because those aren't sword enhancing spells. So the caster needs to cast defensive spells before casting Sword Trance,* rely on friends and allies to cast protective magic for the caster, or just be one with their sword without the advantage of any protective spells.

* Which the caster may or may not have time to do. One disadvantage of Sword Trance is that its value depends on the number of additional magic points the caster spends. And adding magic points adds 1 SR per MP. So it may take an entire round or more before Sword Trance is effective. I know this first hand from running a Humakti with POW 9. It usually requires multiple rounds to succeed in casting Bladesharp and/or Protection. Using a POW storage crystal he can then cast Sword Trance backed with 10 MPs which gives him +100% to his Sword skill, but casting with that many MPs added takes almost an entire round. The situation often doesn't allow the luxury of enough rounds to get the protective spell cast before he needs to cast Sword Trance and enter combat. I fully expect that may get him killed one day.

18 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

So, is the lack of wyter from the lack of community, or is the lack of real social cohesion and community because of the lack of wyter?

I'll go out on a limb here and say, yes. Yes it is. 😉

I noticed the same thing Soccercalle. Here's my two-part explanation.

1. In the real world, the PCs are the focus of play and in-game, they are supposed to be people of destiny.*
2. The NPCs don't use the same rules as the PCs.**

[Edit] Should the exact skill numbers ever be relevant, I'd probably increase a number of skills, stats, Rune Points, or whatever as seems appropriate.

* Well those who don't die are.
** Except for when they do.

Just doing a little back of the envelope...

1. I assume PCs get a bonus to their starting skill and their experience rolls from their attributes of 10%.
2. I took the standard flat increase of 3%.
3. For your breakpoints I used 90% for the top tier and then assumed the midpoint of the range for the other tiers.

I calculate the expected value by multiplying their chance to succeed on a skill increase roll (including their attribute category bonus). That results in the following expected values. [My additions to what you wrote are in brackets.]

If they have 90-%. They can add 1%      [20% x 3 = 0.6]

If they have 70-89%. They can add 2%  [30% x3 = 0.9]

If they have 50-69%. They can add 3%  [50% x 3 = 1.5]

If they have 1-49%. They can add 4%.    [95% x 3 = 2.9]

Your awards are a little bit higher than my back of the envelope expected values. That doesn't seem overly generous and it has the virtue of being simple, graduated, uses whole percentages, and it avoids extra die rolling. Seems like a pretty reasonable idea to me.

On 1/23/2022 at 10:12 AM, Kränted Powers said:

And your system?

Box ticking.

Plus the rules for training, seasonal skills, etc. in RQG. I will occasionally give out a check or a skill add for something that occurs but that didn't rise to the level of requiring a skill roll. A character who is a below average rider, but is spending a lot of time riding would get a check or maybe even just add a few points to their skill. I'll probably do this for Location Lore for a character who spends a lot of time in a new Location e.g., a Sartarite PC spends a lot of time in Prax, they get an increase to Prax Lore.* Similarlly if you spend a lot of time interacting with Trolls you might gain a check or an increase to Insight (Trolls).

On 1/23/2022 at 3:17 PM, Kränted Powers said:

How do you award players for good roleplaying? or good ideas?

By saying, "I really liked the way you played your character, Emrys Lodanson, interacting with that Earth Priestess. It felt true to character and it was a lot of fun to hear." or "Wow! That was a great idea. It worked really well and its something I never even considered!"

On 1/24/2022 at 9:52 AM, Kränted Powers said:

Yes, I understand. 
I think the opposite way – it is not fair to punish the players who actively participate and contribute to the story, only if one of the players happens to be the more passive type of a player.

I don't think what I do punishes those players. Active participation is often its own reward. Plus, compliments!

I'm glad what you are doing works for you and your group. Back in the day when I ran and played a lot of D&D and D&D like systems, I used to be very meticulous about variably awarding and tracking experience. Mostly this was before RQ2 was published, so pre-1980s. Now, tracking experience sounds like too much work for me as the GM.

But I'm glad it works for you and your group. Unless you feel a desire to try a different method, you should probably keep on doing what you are doing despite anything others.

* This is a tangent. Maybe it's just me, but I dislike using the term "Homeland Lore." It feels confusing if the party includes PCs from multiple homelands, "No sorry Wawa the Praxian, when I said 'make a roll on Homeland Lore' I meant roll Homeland Esrolia Lore only." It also requires more characters to record multiple locations for characters who spend significant time in multiple locations. I dislike the redundancy of needing to add the word "Homeland" e.g., Homeland Lore (Sartar), Homeland Lore (Esrolia), Homeland Lore (Prax) to what are Area Knowledge skills for different areas.

I wanted to follow up one of Phil's comments from two days ago. Since Dismiss et all was moved here, this seems like the place.

On 1/24/2022 at 5:07 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, you could cast Countermagic on your sword after you cast Truesword or Bladesharp on it. And you could cast Countermagic on yourself to protect your Sword Trance.

But after the user casts Sword Trance their ability to cast other magic spells is very limited. "While entranced, the user may cast only weapon-enhancing spells such as Bladesharp, Repair, etc." from the Red Book of Magic p97. Countermagic doesn't enhance the weapon, so no casting. At least that's how I see it.

Sometimes I roll secretly for the players. Other times I ask them to roll, but I don't tell them what the roll is for. But mostly I let the players roll. Logistics is a big part of that, but another reason is that I sometimes feel a little guilty when I roll very badly for the players. Plus it's usually more entertaining for them and for me when they are 'responsible' for their own successes or failures.

16 hours ago, Aprewett said:

Hi Bill, I get the impression you read my post as opposed. Just in case wire’s are crossed. It was the same roll. Ref rolls the players perception, the same as player. Could be used for any roll where some element of doubt is possible. If the player failed and the refs secret roll failed, the ref can give false info. Ref failed but player succeeded, some version of the truth. Etc. The player only has half the idea if it is good or bad info.

Not certain I'll remember this, but I think this Truth table-like mechanic is cool. The player knows what they rolled, but the GM's roll is like a hole card that the player can't turn over and check. So if the player succeeds they know that they have either SS or SF so they know they did OK. If they fail then they know they have FS or FF so they know that if they are lucky they just did OK.

I think it would be could be very interesting in a situation where the effect may not be immediate like summing up for a jury before they go off and deliberate, persuading the ruler or the council, convincing a crowd. It's reasonable that the PC should have useful information based on the body language and minor responses of the audience, but sometimes the outcome will not be known right away or the GM may want to allow for a multi-step process. Players now have some information so they can decide whether they want to add more weight to their arguments.

And it doesn't only work for arguments, might be nice if the players are building a bridge, crafting some item, doing some alchemy, performing a long ritual or meditation, or just doing something around the farm where the effort now won't be fully tested until sometime later. Again it's reasonable that they have some information on how well their efforts went, but they may not know how successful their effort was until they drive that wagon full of stones over the bridge and they see if the bridge stays up. But giving them some info allows them to try harder if they want to.

50 minutes ago, ffilz said:

And the D30 hadn't even been invented yet. You had to use a d6 and a 0-9 D20 (because the d10 hadn't been invented yet either) if I recall.

Yep. Way back in the day, we had to color half the numbers on the icosahedron to make it function as a D20. (That or roll a D6 to determine high or low.) Later somebody made D20s with a + on half the numbers so coloring or multiple dice wasn't necessary.

50 minutes ago, ffilz said:

I really wish I hadn't got rid of Space Quest, it was definitely a unique game.

I have my copy in a box in the basement with my little brown books for D&D. I liked Space Quest's system for determining stellar type, number of planets, etc. and I liked the 3D coordinate system for star charts. I always thought Traveller's 2D galaxy fell a little flat. I've used parts of the Space Quest system generation and coordinates for other space settings.

And having to use square roots to figure out distances was clearly intended as a benefit, not just a feature. It's one reason I assumed the designers were engineers or physics majors. Another was the creation of a metric system for measuring time. None of this Babylonian divisible by 12 time intervals for a space going civilization stuff for the Space Quest civilization, no sir. That focus on precision combined with void sharks and old show Star Trek style space monsters gave the game a quirky, wacky fun vibe.

On 1/12/2022 at 1:06 PM, ffilz said:

On the other hand, the little known Space Quest clearly has skills that are separate from its character classes and are clearly improvable with training, so even if we discount Traveller's improvement system, we still have another example that predates RQ.

And Space Quest used the not really all that revolutionary D30. I don't know if the designers thought it made the game 50% better than D&D which used a D20 or that they would commit some sort of IP infringement if they used a D20.

You are the only other person (besides me) I've ever seen reference Space Quest.

So perhaps a First Age site converted to EWF use and then blasted to ruins during the Dragonkill War? That might work.

I was also thinking of something odder like a buried egg shaped structure designed to aid an EWF person in trying to ascend to Dragon-hood. The eggs shape is in imitateion of the eggs that Dragonewts hatch out of in their various incarnations.

On 1/10/2022 at 5:22 AM, French Desperate WindChild said:

I will encourage you to split your tongue, you will understand your mistake    (no no no don't do it, please I have no money for a lawyer 😛 )

The dragon did not says what you wrote, but someting like ... "Ouroboros". that is not a question of food, but a question of merging

Do dragons in Glorantha have split tongues?

The Starter Set says,

Quote

Citizenship in the city of Jonstown is like clan membership. Eligibility extends to all members of tribes of the Jonstown Confederation who choose to live in the city, to priests of the temples, and to full members of a guild. Starter Set, Book 2, p 31, City Politics > Citizenship

We are also told that citizenship is not automatic. So while all members of the Orleving clan are automatically members of the Malani tribe and all members of the Malani tribe who live in Jonstown are eligible for citizenship, some Orlevings (most really) will not be citizens because they don't meet the various other requirements for citizenship.

57 minutes ago, metcalph said:

There is a EWF temple-tomb that plays a role in the RQ Gamemaster Screen Adventure so the EWF did make use of tombs.  The highest honor IMO would be being devoured by a Dragon.

That doesn't sound like something I'd want my friends to do to me -- So the dragon says to the priest, "Why don't come to my place for dinner?"

While it dates to the Second Age I think the tomb predates the Empire of the Wyrms Friends.

While I want clarity in my RPG rules (well actually any sort of rules), I dislike casuistry of the too subtle or specious kind.

And I agree that an actual oath would be a very nice to have, especially if is or becomes a Chalana Arroy initiate.

11 hours ago, soltakss said:

I would have butchers employed at Chalana Arroy Temples to do such a thing, to ensure the Chalana Arroy Initiates can keep their hands clean.

I love this idea! 😃

I can also see sweepers carefully removing dirt and dust so as not to harm a spider. I can also see some few (but not all) temples where the CAs would have non-initiates do the sweeping so as to preserve the purity of the CA initiates and rune levels.

I want to have my players discover an item from the Empire of the Wyrms Friends. I was thinking they could find it in a tomb. Then I realized I don't know if the EWF had tombs.

What were the funeral customs in the Empire of the Wyrms Friends?

I suppose some might have turned into dragons of some kind, but surely the vast majority were unable to do that. I suppose Delecti might have grabbed some, but surely that too was an unusual result. So what did the EWF do with the bodies?

If this is covered somewhere and my google-fu missed, sorry for the repetition. For those interested the burial customs of others, I found these posts were helpful.

Apologies if this is addressed elsewhere. I looked on the corrections for Runequest Roleplaying in Glorantha and didn't see anything addressing this. In the section on Coins on p. 151

Quote

Bolg: 300 per ENC

That would be 3.3 grams per bolg. This sounds a bit light. Should this have been 30 per ENC?
 

Once you have a working model from your design, making more is manufacturing, not engineering.

On 12/10/2021 at 8:51 AM, French Desperate WindChild said:

 a new storm bull initiate starts with 10-15%

that means that 85% of the time the sense say nothing about the chaotic creature in front of the buller.

And at a 10% skill level there is a successful detection 10% of the time and a fumble (false positive or false negative) 5% of the time. Unless the incidence of chaos is very high in the population being sniffed, it's more likely that the thing that smells like Chaos actually is a false positive than it is a true positive.

We know Argrath has a bonded Eurmali trickster and we know that Orlanthi leaders can bond a Eurmali. It's difficult for me to imagine Kallyr has a bonded Eurmali. She just seems to take herself very seriously. If she doesn't, that could be another reason her quest doesn't turn out well. But what about Queen Leika, has she bonded a Eurmali? She attended a party with the Duke of DIsorder in Snake Pipe Hollow to get her harp. I don't know if that experience would influence her one way or the other.

What about other tribal leaders? Do we know of any who have a bonded Eurmali?

10 hours ago, Alex said:

Well, I did say in terms that it's be muttered under their respective breaths.  Not (necessarily) bellowed at the top of their lungs during a lance charge. 🙂

You did. I was just filling in some of the mutters.

12 hours ago, Alex said:

Bear in mind the Yelmite is actually a Yu-Kargzantling (if you will).  Their first...  difference of emphasis is likely less whether to be smugly complacent (paging Dara Happa!) or rabidly fanatical about chaos, but to stare balefully at the other's choice of riding animal and mutter "... unspeakable abomination..." under their respective breaths.

As long as they aren't in Prax, it's not so hard for the Praxian to keep the cursing to mutterings under their breath since the horse riding prohibition doesn't really apply to the rich, fat, grassy lands of strangers. "Just let him try and bring that finicky, water guzzling, grass eater to my country and see how well it does."

And, as far as I recall, the Yu-Kargzantling don't have a prohibition on other people riding strange, non-horse animals. That the Stormbull does would just be one more proof that the Bully just doesn't understand the golden path of righteous living the way the Yu-Kargzantling does. "Poor benighted fool, riding some strange animal. He doesn't even know enough to shake the desert sand out of his undergarments. The chaffing probably explains why he is so angry so much of the time."