rabindranath72

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 6:12 PM, JonL said:

Shadow weakness? Nay! The twin tragedies of the Eldar are Hubris and Fate. If I ran a Beleriand HQ game, any Firstborn characters would chose one of those two as their high-flaw, and tie the other as they wish. Any who swore the Oath or otherwise fall under the Doom of Mandos would get a +M to those flaws when it rears its head.

That's a good point, but I reckon that Hubris is just a manifestation of the Lure of Power (one of the Shadow-weaknesses, to use a TOR term).

As Tolkien talks about the Fall of Elves in his letter to Milton Waldman, "Their Fall is into possessiveness and (to a lesser degree) into perversion of their art to power". I'd say therefore that both Lure of Power, and Dragon-sickness (greed, possessiveness), another Shadow-weakness, would be appropriate Flaws. 

If there's a problem with the application of concepts from TOR to HQ, is that the Shadow-weaknesses are tied to Callings, whereas it would seem more appropriate to divorce them (in fact, Callings in TOR do not bring much to a character in terms of concept.)

On 6/19/2019 at 12:31 PM, frodolives said:

I'm late to the party with this news! One thought I've had for a while is that the HQ rules would be perfect for a Silmarillion-esque game. Sweeping, epic events taking place in a single session, pyrrhic victories, rising action, climactic scenes & resolutions, group extended contests used to settle massive battles, etc.

Just yesterday I started re-reading the Silmarillion, with the idea of creating an HQ campaign. I have The One Ring, but the "tone" of the game isn't appropriate, and the rules themselves wouldn't support the theme. So the plan is to "HQ-ify" The One Ring, and take Cultures, Callings, Traits and Virtues, and transform them into Abilities. The Shadow-weakness would be the first Flaw of a character. The High-elves and Rangers would be the two main cultures.

3 hours ago, Ian Cooper said:

This is the key, I think. HQG is what we expect someone to do with HQ: take the Core, then drop some rules and add a few new ones to better emulate your setting. It should still be recognizably the same, but its ok to vary a little. (Think of the way BRP often had slight differences between systems).

That obviously makes a lot of sense. But it's not something one can "learn" from the book, as it's completely silent on this aspect; I suppose tweaking the number of abilities and ability points is kind of a "meta rule". To a newbie like me, reading HQ2 and HQG only contributes to the sense of confusion (and I am saying this as a RPGer with 30+ years of experience!)

22 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I went through at one point comparing the two, and IIRC did find them consistent, but just geared in HQG to create characters with stronger associations with their cults/gods or spirit traditions.

That is interesting. I attempted a comparison, but whereas I could find a match for the number of abilities assuming one of them is free (let's say Culture, as it's suggested in HQ2), the number of ability points seems way out of the suggested 20, unless one makes a few assumptions about starting scores for abilities. HQ2 seems to suggest that only one ability can start at 17, so everything else must be bought. Supposing that the occupational keyword ability gets the baseline 17, we end up with:

- 12 points spent on Runes

- 4 points spent on the distinguishing characteristic

- 12 additional points

for a total of 28 points. So 8 points come seemingly out of nowhere.

Now, the Glorantha chapter in HQ2 suggests magical abilities starting at 17 (but it's not clear whether this 17 is "free," or it's supposed to be the 17 we get automatically anyway.) Even assuming we get another free 17 per HQ2, we are still 4 points off.

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 2:38 PM, JonL said:

HQ2CR is not exactly known for being a paragon of clear and consistent presentation. 

Thanks for confirming my suspicion  

I suppose that even the number of abilities and points in HQG don't really match the suggestions in HQ2?

18 hours ago, JonL said:

The "Breakouts are a +1 (or more)" style is referred to as the "Umbrella Keyword" approach in HQ2. HQG, being a specific implementation of the HQ framework rather than a generalized toolkit book like HQ2CR, standardized on the Umbrella approach.

With Package style, the distinction between a keyword and a stand-alone ability is major. With Umbrella, it's more arbitrary. An ability becomes a keyword when you add a breakout. Otherwise there's not a big difference in play.

Thanks for the reply.

However, the Glorantha Magic chapter in HQ2 mentions umbrella keywords when referring to magical abilities, but it doesn't use the "+x" syntax, hence my confusion. On p.108 HQ2 says:

Quote

All the magic systems make use of umbrella keywords (see p. 10).

So, if umbrella keywords are supposed to work with "+x" syntax as you say, either the above is a typo, or the magical abilities definitions are wrong.

16 hours ago, JonL said:

What's maddening is that just looking at it in a different format I immediately caught two mistakes that I didn't see previously: No line break before section 1.4, and section 2.2 being skipped in the numbering.

<sigh>

If you need "fresh" eyes to look at the material, I am willing to help. I am a newbie to the game (so I have essentially no bias) and I am a published author, quite used at writing, editing and reviewing (I am a mathematician, so I write very complex text, and I developed a good attention to detail; or as my colleagues put it, I am a pain in the ass .) I have also helped edit some gaming products; the latest one, Modiphius' Conan (with Jason Durall.)

Nice find! Here's hoping that character creation is explained better than in HQ2 and HQG, because as a newbie, I am finding the whole process obscure. For a rules-light game, one would expect it to be explained in a simple and straightforward way

17 hours ago, Corvantir said:

Unless I am missing something, I see no difference between the List Method and the As-you-go Method.

In the List Method, you have a Keyword (the other Keywords used in your campaign are free) and then pick 10 abilities right from the start.

In the As-you-go Method, you start with a Concept that includes a Keyword and an Adjective and then add abilities while playing until you have a total of 11 abilities (your Keyword, the Adjective and 9 additional abilities). I assume that the Keywords used in the campaign are also free but it is not clearly stated though.

In both cases you assign a score of 17 to your best ability and earn a basic score of 13 in all the other ones. This means that you end up with 11 abilities (with free additional Keywords) and can distribute the same number of points (20) whatever the character creation method.

About the Breakout Abilities without a +1, I have not found what you are pointing at in the Creating Genre Packs section of HQ2. Can you give me a page number?

In the Gaming in Glorantha section, are you pointing at the spells? If this is the case, the spells are not Breakout Abilities (and thus don't have a +1). However, a spell is part of a Grimoire that IS a Breakout Ability with a +1.

Yes, the difference I was outlining is whether culture, religion (and community, which is suggested to be free in the relationships chapter) are free also in the as-you-go method. The free abilities are marked with an explicit step (2.) in the list method, not so in the as-you-go method.

The Genre Packs chapter doesn't mention that breakout abilities should get a +1, and on page 10 where the Keyword concept is explained, it simply notes that the player should note how much they have improved the breakout abilities (two examples are shown, at +1 and +2; again, nowhere it's stated that breakout abilities start at +1 automatically.) The Genre Packs chapter shows sample occupational, cultural, species and religious keyword with long lists of abilities. Since there's no mention of +1s, I reckon that singling out breakout abilities at the rating of their keyword, means the remaining ones are considered non-specific? (so for example, in a contest, someone with a more specific ability would get a +3 or +6, as soltakss seems to suggest?) In the sample species keyword box (Elves of Ammelon), it also states: "plus any one of the following abilities", which I suppose is a way for the player to customise the keyword.

In the Glorantha section I was referring to spells. But there's no mention that magical abilities are breakouts. Actually, it states that magical abilities are keywords (and they explicitly start at 17) so it seems the spells in a grimoire (and charms) should then be considered breakouts following the convention previously established (i.e. no +1). If they aren't breakout abilities, at least they are syntactically equivalent. 

At this point, it's not clear whether the magical ability is free, or if one chooses a magical ability and it automatically counts as the first ability at 17. And also it's not clear whether spells or charms are free or should be bought. It's noted that Charms can be increased like breakout abilities by expenditure of hero points at +1 or whatever, and that spells are learned and improved like other skills. My gut reaction is that since it's not spelled out explicitly, spells/charms should actually be bought as abilities (up to 5 charms, as explicitly stated in Spirit Magic section, and 4 spells.)

Comparing with the HQG character generation and analogous topics, it's clear the authors changed quite a few bits, and I wonder whether the changes are only meant to reflect Glorantha, or if they should be considered as updates/errata of the HQ2 rules.

Thanks in advance for any and all help!

Cheers,

Antonio

4 hours ago, boradicus said:

I also found these, but am not sure if the are related to any of the Hero Games (HQ, DC) that you suggested:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/107799/Champions-Complete

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/207058/Champions-The-Super-Role-Playing-Game-4th-edition

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/207333/Hero-System-Rulesbook-4th-edition

Blood of Heroes is based on the Mayfair Game System (used in the various iterations of the DC Heroes RPG). The Hero System is a different beast entirely.

22 hours ago, Corvantir said:

As far as I know, HQ2 and HQG character creation are close but are each their own beast. The HQG character rules are not an option from HQ2 and are even different from the ones you can find in the Gaming in Glorantha section of HQ2.

As far as I understand the rules, you don't earn another ability slot if you chose to make a flaw of your distinguishing characteristic. About the lack of trade-off, I would reply that the HeroQuest 2 rules are not about optimizing your character but about creating the character you want to play.

You will find a summary of both character creation rules in the following file:

HQ2G_Character_Creation_Summary.pdf 85.49 kB · 5 downloads

Thanks for chiming in.

I'd add that the HQ2 rules aren't exactly straightforward when it comes to character creation. For example, the Gaming in Glorantha section shows breakout abilities at the same value of the keyword, but is that correct? What's the point of having breakouts at the same value of the keyword, if the keyword subsumes a potentially larger set of abilities anyway? (as shown in the Genre Packs chapter.) Also, is the magical ability at 17 in addition to the 11 abilities (so, it's free), or is it supposed to be the main ability that gets the 17 rating? Why the discrepancy about the list and as-you-go methods in terms of free abilities? (cultural, religion).

Thanks,

Antonio

Hi all,

so as I am slowly wading through the material for my Vikings campaign, I have noticed that the HQG character creation is apparently different from the HQ2 system. Apart from the free cultural keyword, HQG seems to offer many more skill points. Is this an optional rule somewhere in HQ2, or am I missing something?

Also, it's not clear what happens if a distinguishing characteristic is instead taken as a flaw; can you choose another ability in its place, or the ability "slot" is simply lost? (doesn't seem a good trade-off)

Thanks,

Antonio

Thanks again!

On 5/12/2019 at 4:12 PM, Joerg said:

I guess I would tie RQ3 Vikings divine magic to Futhark runes, possibly in a system similar to RQG. Inscribing the runes to gain the divine favor, which then is a derived ability from the applicable rune with the best rating, and can be augmented with an appropriate secondary rune. Some of the runes could be matched to the Gloranthan concepts, inheriting those associations.

Such inscribed runes would be something like words of power - inscribing and then invoking them could release the magic.

As we are talking about HeroQuest, the individual feats should be somewhat based on myths from around Yggdrasil. Rather than requiring initiation, I would make this Viking magic opportunistic polytheism, where even svartalfr or trolls could be invoked by the magician. Always for a price, to be paid in blood or blot (sacrifice).

(I'd probably produce a number of skaldic kvaths in alliterative poetry as examples...)

I am afraid I am not very well versed in Gloranthan lore to understand how magic works. 

Are you suggesting that each character should start with three Runes?

Looking at HQG, I was thinking of making Runes work roughly like spells; the ability (similar to a Grimoire?) would be Rune-Casting, and the Odinic Priest would choose five of the Futhark runes for free at the start of play, with the possibility of learning more runes or perfecting the knowledge.

There is also the issue of Occupations. My player will convert his Odinic Priest character to an Occupation, so would magic/runes perhaps be best described as a breakout ability? (But then I suppose I'd lose the ability to define breakout runes like spells in a grimoire.)

If I keep Rune-Casting as a separate ability, could the Odinic Priest occupation (or one of his breakout abilities, e.g. Read Runes or Odinism) be used to augment the magical ability?

Thanks in advance for your help, I am still not entirely sure how to handle it all.

Cheers,

Antonio

Thanks everyone for your feedback, much appreciated!

A little bit more background to put things in context. I have actually already started a campaign, we are two sessions in and I used Pendragon 4e/Land of Giants, with a lot of background info taken from Legend Vikings (LV) and RQ3 Vikings (RV). 

The campaign is the one laid out in RV, and I plan on using also the two scenarios in LoG, and the suggested scenarios in LV at some point. 

Now, for a series of reasons my players aren't happy about Pendragon, so I thought I'd go with HQ2 which has similar but overall simpler mechanics (my group isn't much into complex games in general.) In terms of magic, the level I expect to inject is mild fantasy; ideally, I'd use the magic rules in LV (Divination, Shape-shifting, Rune Casting, Seidr) and I'd like to each as skill (breakout?)

Following the HQG framework, I think I'd use:

1) Professions from LV, and make them into Keywords abilities

2) Magic skills from LV, and make them into Keywords abilities (with each Rune as a breakout?)

3) Traits from LoG, and make them into Flaws and Distinguishing characteristics

4) Clans/Tribes from RV and LoG and make them into Keywords

I am not sure how Runes would work if I used them as in HQG.

Anything I am missing?

Cheers,

Antonio

Hi all,

long time lurker, I have recently bought HQ2, and I'd like to start a campaign. As I am a sucker for everything Viking, I thought of perhaps converting/adapting the Legend Vikings and/or RQ3 Vikings material, but I am a bit at a loss where to start. Has anyone done something similar? Or is there a "conversion" of RQ to HQ?

Thanks in advance,

Antonio

p. 24, the boxed text. The first bullet item, Zoran Zoran should be Zorak Zoran. 

Also, the formatting inside the box is weird (look at the last three rows.) I have seen the same weird formatting in other boxes, and in columns of text throughout the book. I'd suggest looking at all of them again.

This is the reply I got from the author of the conversion. Hope it's helpful to someone else!

The races side of things wasn't something I was asked to work on/fix with SGB otherwise it would have been different.

So you're probably looking for something like:

Using the core rules cultures, of Barbarian, Civilised, Primitive and Nomad along with the Xoth ones of - Decadent, Degenerate, Enlightened.

Azimbans: Primitive or Barbarian

Bhangari: Civilised

Djaka: Primitive

Ghazorites: Civilised

Ikunas: Primitive or Degenerate

Jairanians: Civilised

Khazistanis: Nomad or Civilised

Khazrajites: Nomad

Khoran: Civilised or Decadent (pirates can be pretty decadent)

Kuthan (halfbreed): Decadent

Kuthan (pureblood): Decadent

Lamuran: Degenerate

Mazanians: Decadent or Primitive (depends how you want to play it)

Nabastisseans: Civilised

Ptahaanans: Decadent or Civilised (I would play it the former, due to their Atlantis-like civilisation falling and failing)

Shomas: Nomad or Civilised (they tend to be both)

Susrhanites: Civilised

Taikangians: Civilised

Taraamites: Civilised

Tharag Thulans: Barbarian

Yar-Ammonites: Decadent or Degenerate (depending on how you see Yar-Ammon)

Zadjites: Civilised

Zorabi: Nomad since they're raiders and skirmishers that do not have massive cities.

 

Thanks for the reply.

I posted on MG website but I got no reply. I wonder how people really run these scenarios without these basic information

I finally got the pdfs, and I am reading the material. Very well done.

However, I noticed that Legend's cultural backgrounds are completely ignored here

I can identify some of the backgrounds from the racial descriptions in some cases, but in many others, it's nebulous at best. Is there an errata?

I have been playing 5e since August, and we are loving the system. It does indeed look like a "cleaned up" 2e, although we have found that magic has been somewhat nerfed, with a lot of spells having much less impact than before (see for example Phantasmal Force) and some class abilities being less broad than before (e.g. the inspiration ability of 5e bards vs. 2e bards.)

I have been running a Birthright campaign, and converting the 2e stuff has been relatively easy.

The three 5e core books form an excellent basis for all the classical D&D stuff, from race and class options (more than core 3e and core 4e) to the excellent DMG which covers dungeon design, outer planes, lots of optional rules to tweak the "feel" of the game, finishing with the Monster Manual that has a lot of excellent stuff, striking a good balance between interesting mechanics and background info.

I have sold most of my 3e stuff, since 5e scratches the "itch" of a "modern" D&D very well, and with its simple mechanics, I can see it as a good replacement for 2e also. I have never been a fan of 4e for all the reasons that Darkholme described.

I am also a big fan of 13th Age, and I have been torn between running it and 5e, but the latter won because it's just a lot easier to port the 2e stuff I have got, both in terms of rules and "feel." 13th Age works as an excellent rules-light replacement of 4e, and if one wants to run a more heroic campaign from the start, I'd recommend it.

So...for the foreseeable future 5e will be our "go to" D&D (unless I have some newbies; then I'll always start with the Mentzer Red Box; it's just too good ) although I can see how 5e could be easily streamlined to get an even simpler game (e.g. there are options in the DMG to completely remove skills.)

Thanks again for the inputs, much appreciated!

I have the RQ6 pdfs, and while nice, the whole system looks ponderous. I don't plan on buying hardcovers; actually, one of the aims of this campaign, is to decide which RQ should I keep on the shelf and which to sell. Looks like RQ3 is going on the chopping block.

Thanks for the inputs guys! Perhaps I'd just be better off using MRQ 2 with CoC spells, rather than change everything. To be honest, the only reason I chose RQ3 is that it's very close to CoC (which I like quite a lot) in terms of system (this, plus I LOVE the cultural backgrounds,) so porting Sanity and magic would be very simple.

Or perhaps use Elric! ? I'd re-classify the skills according to the RQ3 categories to get the ability score bonuses (which I like.)

Problem is, I'd have to create cultural background packages...

Is Elric! more survivable than RQ3? I haven't played it in a loooong time (like, 15 years ago...)

@Soltakss: I'd like to run an Hyborian Age game, and magic should really be of the Mythos type, definitely not spirit or healing of any type. Although Conan does cast a spell (well, he scribes a rune, really) in one of Howard's yarns, I don't think giving magic to ALL characters would fit the setting.

MRQ II allows games without any magic; I'd try to reproduce the same thing in RQ3.

Thanks for the reply!

Would you give a flat bonus to spend, or give more skills, or increase the per-year multiplier of existing skills?

Dear all,

I was thinking of starting a RuneQuest 3 campaign, but I don't like the "common magic" approach for everyone. I am not expert at this game, so I don't know whether removing magic skills from all character types (except "proper" magicians) would affect the balance of the game. A possible solution could be to give the non-spellcasters additional skill points. If so, how many?

Thanks,

Antonio