• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


styopa last won the day on March 29

styopa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

295 Excellent

About styopa

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • RPG Biography
    Been playing RPGs since 1979, incl RQ since about 1980.
  • Current games
    RQ(3), BRP, D&D5e
  • Location
    Mpls, MN
  • Blurb

Recent Profile Visitors

823 profile views
  1. Let's not forget that those are both intended IIRC to be very much 'beginning adventures'? For me it's sorcery. My players like it, and as one of them has started a campaign with his own friends, in their party of 4 there are 3 with varying levels of sorcery and 1 shaman. I get the sense that shamanism will (hopefully) be covered reasonably well in the Dragon-Pass-focused RQG, but it sounds like sorcery will barely even be an afterthought (only included because of the retcon of Lhankor Mhy use of sorcery). I think to Yelm's Light's point there is a clear and strong anti-standard-magic-items theme in Glorantha, cf the God Learners, the Clanking City (Greg's not much for utilitarianism, or empiricisim apparently). In my view this was nothing more than a meta reaction against D&D's gobs and gobs of more-or-less-standardized 'bucket o magic'. The D&D approach cheapens the importance and meaningfulness of magic items in context when players are digging through forty different weapons filling their monstrous bag of holding, trying to decide "do I use the +2 spear or the +1 bastard sword or the +4 glaive without proficiency?". Further most items (in D&D) even had NO game mechanical underpinning either; how would one even make a +1 sword in D&D? (shrug) to say nothing of the more esoteric items like a decanter of endless water or deck of many things. RQ(3 at least) systematized it, explaining pretty clearly how such items were produced, and thus constraining magic items conceptually to those that could indeed be made. The crux here is how you run the use-constraint: either the default is caster-use (and POW can to be spent to make it generally usable) or the default is everyone-use (and POW can be spent to constrain who can use it). The former makes for a very magic-item poor world since even if the characters kill the big bad guy, likely her Super Awesome Magic Weapon can't be used by anyone but her. I don't believe magic items have to be astonishingly scarce to be meaningful; I believe a world like Glorantha *suffused* with magic everywhere would have lots of people (whoever could afford it) toying with more durable uses of magic than a 5 minute spirit magic spell.
  3. PERSONALLY, no, me neither. But I'm's my opinion that gaming groups in their 20s are characteristically different not only in their different expectations/desires of RPGs, but they approach and play them pretty differently as well. At least that's what I've seen.
  4. I'd second the spell cards idea too - I've noticed people like those a lot (although they'd be of more value in the current divine-spell paradigm, where you use THAT SPELL up until you get it back). I was thinking of 'sets' of cards for available spells generic and by cult, so everyone would have the generic, universally-available 'deck', while each cult would have a sub-deck just for them. I have a daughter who's a professional graphic designer so they'll possibly look a lot better than if I did them.
  5. If only there was a massive compilation of all Gloranthan lore? I have to expect that it would be at least two really big books. Probably a whole additional book just as an atlas. Jeff, get on that.
  6. D&D3 had a lot of roots born explicitly from RQ mechanisms. "Jonathan Tweet's own words: "I never could have done D&D 3E without a lot of pro experience. RuneQuest in particular was a big influence on me and my design approach."
  7. Not another game system, but there's a crapton in Star Trek DS9 Cataloged by Andre Jarosch. Actually mentioned by Chaosium
  8. Exactly what I feel about mostali. Fascinating, but their worldview (curious that my phone auto corrected that to 'worksite) is so alien I can't see them as enjoyable pc's. Face it, the main charm of Glorantha is a combination of credibility and non-Tolkienesqueness...which means that if we take it reasonably seriously, the first thing to go is the trope of the mixed party of adventurers including the obligatory elf, dwarf, human, etc. Sure, it's not inconceivable in Glorantha, but in a Gloranthan context you even more risk jumping the shark before your party has even find adventuring...
  9. Always liked Aftermath's approach to combat, but way too detailed and simulationist for today's RPG market. I've always thought that if one were rewriting a combat system, it would be STR that does the damage (STR applicable being capped by the weapon size, for melee weapons and also capped by attacker's SIZ for melee weapons), and then converted to cutting/stabbing damage by the weapon, as appropriate. Attacker starts with 100% chance to hit, reduced by the target's (DEXx5, less the sum total physical non-natural AP on the target) - thus an avg dex toon (11) wearing 8pts of armor everywhere isn't getting any inherent avoidance benefit from dex increased by attacker's skill. Defender can also apply their own dodge as a further minus to the attacker's chance, but this % also comes off the defender's attack roll(s) as well that round. Max damage for blunt/cutting is 2x the location's hp. Max damage for thrusting is 1x location hp. Any damage to body hp is resisted (cumulatively, with a new roll when new damage occurs) vs CON on the resistance means target can ignore pain and keep functioning normally. Depending on location of strike: (All presuming the location itself isn't anyway incapacitated by the damage) Limb/Abd: Success means that location stunned for that round (no action), Special: stunned for that round (no action) target has init penalty in subsequent rounds = damage done on that strike, Crit: limb disabled. Chest/Head: Success means stun for that round (no action) target has init penalty in subsequent rounds = damage done on that strike, Special: incapacitated, Crit: death.
  10. You should read the designer notes, chap 14: "...But with Rune points, you don't pre-buy specific Rune spells. Instead you can spend your Rune points to cast ANY spell known to your cult and subcult. ..."
  11. Never saw that, that's really good. Thanks!
  12. That'd be too bad. I never bought the RQ3/AH version because their money-grubbing splitting of Trollpak into what, 3 different products? always bugged me. Trollpak was magnificent. I would have loved a comparable treatment of Aldryami and Mostali to complete the set. What we got in Elder Secrets was so abbreviated & pretty weak - hell, the Dobyski illustrations alone still haunt me. I ran a very short interstitial campaign that was all Elves with people that had been pretty experienced Gloranthan players (so they tried not to just play them like humans with elf-masks on), so I'd had to drum up a much more substantial treatment of elves that kept them relatively alien, not to mention fearsome in their home woods.
  13. Was talking with a player yesterday, and we hit upon the simple mechanic of 'stances' as realistic and potentially useful tactical options for RQ characters. There are 3 possible combat stances: Normal: allows you the usual 1* attack and 1* defense option in each round. All-out attack: You ONLY get your 1* attack at half-again your skill. You get no defense action. All-out defense: You ONLY get your 1* defense at half-again your skill. You get no attack action. *: as usual, if >100% you can split The above is probably the simplest version. Then the Minotaur's 'enrage' doesn't have to give them a special magical ability, it just puts them into all-out attack mode. It also makes missile weapons more lethal (if you allow it to everyone), if the shooter isn't threatened by immediate attack. Alternate versions, not really thought through: - Attack/Defense stance lets you split attacks/defenses using that higher value, even if it's not above 100% (you don't care about getting hit)? - Attack lets you attack slightly faster (no hesitation for self-preservation)? - Defense might allow a shield to parry multiple attacks from a single attacker (ie like a normal dodge, but at half value for subsequent attacks after the first), or to allow dodge to be used against multiple attackers (but at half-value for each dodge after the first) - Defense might even allow additional AP to a parrying item (1d4 or your strength mod, whichever's greater, re-rolled for each attack), or allow a SPECIAL parry to still count against a CRITICAL hit (the current way a normal shield success works against a special)? NOTE: NPCs wouldn't be able to access stances unless it is something intrinsically sensible to the NPC - ie a minotaur. Otherwise NPCs (who often don't care about tomorrow) would be overpowered. Anyway, just some ideas we were bouncing around.
  14. Except, as I understand it, each pool is available to cast ANY spell that god provides, so wouldn't each line in that case be the full list of spells you could get from Storm Bull and Waha respectively? Seems like that could end up being long lists. I think in this context 'cinematic' is used specifically to refer to combat that is less realistic, more demonstrative & flashy; part of that too is an improbable reduction in lethality. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon had very cinematic fights, for example.
  15. 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.