styopa

Depending on your inclination, being able to summon a fire elemental (and then just running away) might be useful enough. Just sayin'.

Did you ever check Runequest Cities - that had a nice downtime resolver too. It would certainly need some machining around the edges to fit in RQG, but it's got good interesting ideas, certainly. https://rpggeek.com/rpgitem/49956/runequest-cities https://www.ebay.com/itm/Runequest-Cities-Chaosium-Midkemia-Press-Avalon-Hill-RQ-Great-MegaExtras-/352588458346 ...although at $50 on ebay, ask Anton nicely and you can probably borrow mine.

Once you try to run them in your campaign, you'll pretty quickly note that RQ2 scenarios contain some rather overpowered loot that wasn't that hard to gather. Not a lot of regards for balance over long-span campaigns. Rather than flat gains, it would make more sense that books would give someone multiple checks (like 5 or more) against their lore skill like a skill gain roll...this would mean they could still be big gains for people who knew nothing about the subject, and still be relatively treasured by experts.

(spoilers) Hell, the quickstart is pretty much about

I'm not sure we necessarily agree on what a fact is, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to completely make crap up. You might want to look up Dunning-Kruger effect.

Except that depends ENTIRELY on your definition of what a "position of power" IS, doesn't it? Why, for example, are you assuming a female society would be as exclusionary of males as primitive male ones are of females? Sorry, but your model sounds more like "government by men with mammaries and vaginas" than actual women. Read the wiki that's been linked; many feminist scholars defend the argument that the "opposite" of a patriarchy is an egalitarian society because that's what women tend to. (IMO, I think that's a wee bit idealizing women as being somehow morally superior...not sure I'd go that far.) Man sits on throne, is ostensibly king. Woman make all his decisions, and decides unilaterally what woman will marry his son, so that she knows someone competent will be making his decisions. Man literally just parrots the orders she gives him: "matriarchy"? The women have all the power and control, but don't wear the vestments of power. Meaningful? As I said previously, to me it's pretty simplistic to believe that the only possible 'valid' model of matriarchy is some weird negative-mirror-image of male structures. Presumably where women are the generals and wave the swords around? I hope I'm not offending anyone to say: that's simply not how most women seem to work, collaborate, or build power structures. Women are intrinsically different; they are far more verbal than physical, far more collaborative than competitive, more manipulative of social orders than outright violent, more likely to kill with poison than a club to the head in a stand-up fight. There's literally no reason (except to defend this strawman argument we're having) to presume that societies in which women have control would be in any way structured like men's. cf: female forms of power and the myth of male dominance: a model of female/male interaction in peasant society https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1975.2.4.02a00090 or https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1521&context=cmc_theses

I know you weren't entirely serious, but truly: I'd rather they spend that time/$ pushing to get the books out.

Here sir, let me help you from the kindness of my heart, and overwhelming generosity: I will give you a fedex code and you can simply send me a book, saving your poor shoulder and luggage the strain. Because I'm just a great guy, that's why.

Er, are you seriously talking about a print run ... of the preprint version? Seems like if they were going to make a print run of it...that would be the print version, no?

Seriously? Who said they "have" to exist? I said: It's the interfaces that are where the interesting shit happens - in chemistry, biology, and even in cultures. There are going to be cultures that are 'men-have-all-the-rights-and-women-have-none' (I was going to say 'hidebound traditionalists' but that would be pejorative and frankly unfair), there are obviously cultures where women have the same unquestioned dominance. There are going to be slaveholding societies and societies that react to slavery with revulsion. All this over saying "there are" instead of "there could be"? Get a flippin' hobby, man: the whole sentence was a hypothetical. And wasn't even the point, TBH. Not sure that you're entitled to conclusively define socio-anthropological terms. Among actual professionals, the definition of matriarchy is a debate that's gone on at least since 1924. Your argument basically devolves down to the No True Scotsman fallacy. You ad-hoc some narrow definition in your head, and then insist that according to THAT, nothing fits. Personally I prefer using words with the meaning generally attributed to them by the world at large. To your standard, I certainly concede: you win the solipsism award.

So if I understand what you're saying, it's "we can't imagine any matriarchies in Glorantha because none exist* on earth historically"? I don't want to put words in your mouth, just want to make sure I understand your assertion clearly. *to your definition. You seem to have disregarded my entire point that matriarchy may be exercised in a form that isn't just "Queens instead of Kings". First, the entire definition of "what is a matriarchy?" is pretty hotly debated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy Was Imperial Russia under Catharine the Great a matriarchy? Or Austria under Maria Theresa? Both women held - insofar as their countries recognized such - absolute power. And in response to Shiningbrow's comment about the Hopi, for example: You do understand that one sentence in wiki isn't authoritative, right? To be clear, wiki doesn't make me one either, but this (for the Hopi) sounds like a matriarchy by ANY definition: Not to mention our own, personal matriarchies:

What if, with the collapse of jrustela, there was a ragtag fleet of ships, merchants, traders, pleasure craft, all fleeing the sudden and total destruction of their home? 50,298 survivors. They were shepherded, led, and protected by the lone remaining jrustelan warship, a mothballed old vessel formerly commanding the Brithos Service Group, aka BSG-1. But there were exactly such Mostali agents aboard, unknown even to each other...They look and feel human. Some are programmed to think they are human....

So ? I mean, I don't disagree at all with the assertion that slavery was basically universal in the ancient world. But again my reply would be...so? Edit: and if we're splitting hairs, he referred to matriarchies in antiquity, not so much slavery.

On interesting dramatic grounds, if for no other reason. It's a fantasy world, one can be creative. I'd dispute the 'no matriarchies ever'. Sure, if all you're looking for is a black/white feminized inversion of the Handmaid's Tale, no, you probably won't find it. Realities of child bearing and sexual dimorphism (which is quite vehemently disputed as even existing in Glorantha in these very boards: ) make that prima facie pretty unlikely. BUT, I'd assert, even in our dimorphic real world there are ample examples of systems (maybe at scales different from 'kingdoms' but instead clans, families, etc) where women make/made most of the important decisions alone or collectively, or exert control over those decisions to a degree that one would be hard-pressed to say isn't functionally matriarchy. Women don't tend to rule by force, but by persuasion, insight, manipulation, and intellect; why would their systems of government copy the relatively clumsy, unsubtle 'do what I want or I hit you on head' male examples? Re slavery: Our society today pretty seriously has a problem with slavery, no? At least to classical models of it; variations where they sew Nike tennis shoes are more tolerated.

Not that would fool any human, certainly. I think one of the compelling parts of Glorantha are the Elder Races being TRULY alien in everything from outlook to physiology. IMO they need to be more mercilessly inimical to humans than presented in most of the game materials to date. I have elves that like plants care nothing for their seeds, reproducing in bulk to outstrip the creatures that eat them, not "protecting" each seed as if individually precious. This makes them frightningly merciless to human children (and likewise, willing to remorselessly sacrifice their own young if it helps the collective) and a wonderful "oh shit this isn't Dungeons and Dragons, is it?" moment for players.

Oh I certainly get that, I just don't see a useful/meaningful reason to pull conceptual rugs out from under players for no compelling reason (IMO) because of unintended consequences. Boiling down to RPG Meta: RPGs are fundamentally consensual stories. When the GM says "you come walking into town on the dusty south road and see a handful of buildings on either side of the lane" already the players are broadly building a visual "set' in which their characters exist. Unless you specify otherwise, they're compelled to make assumptions to fill in the unstated blanks - the sun is in the sky, not sitting on a nearby hilltop; the dusty road is from dirt/gravel and not ground-up--beetle-carapaces, down to details of the scene like water dripping downward & smoke rising through chimneys. I'm not a supergenius; I can't imagine all the possible consequences from changing a fundamental physical constant, and it's entirely possible my players might either a) intuit something clever using a reasonable assumption from the real world and want to apply it in-game, or b.) find some unanticipated loophole resulting from an asserted fantasization of physics, chemistry, whatever that ends up being ridiculously overpowered. Some GMs say that's gamey rules-lawyering by players; I'm the opposite: I'd blame poor rules-writing (and beta testing) that leaves such loopholes unanticipated. (cf Bag of Rats problems https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/124869/what-is-a-bag-of-rats don't come from exploitative rules-lawyers, they're born from lazy rules writers) And I frankly despise telling a player "oh, no, yeah: that seems like it would make sense but you can't do that in this universe." (the negative version of "a wizard did it"). Bluntly, that's just poor worldbuilding. I prefer real-life where possible as it has the lowest number of potential loopholes, and maximum breadth for player creativity without them having to wonder 'oh wait, is that even possible in (X) fantasy universe?' It's just flippin' simpler. It's one reason I'm so ardently in favor of well thought out, logically consistent magic rules. The more arbitrary they are, the less predictable they are OUTSIDE the margins of the rulebook and imo that stifles players that want to be creative. Sorry if I sound ardent but this is pretty core to how I approach GMing a game.

Not a dismissal of the question, a(n apparently-failed) mocking of the common mode of dismissal. I guess an example of Poe's Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

It's the interfaces that are where the interesting shit happens - in chemistry, biology, and even in cultures. There are going to be cultures that are 'men-have-all-the-rights-and-women-have-none' (I was going to say 'hidebound traditionalists' but that would be pejorative and frankly unfair), there are obviously cultures where women have the same unquestioned dominance. There are going to be slaveholding societies and societies that react to slavery with revulsion. There are going to be societies that react against homosexuality with hatred, and others that embrace all sorts of relationship options formally. The seams where these norms intersect (and overlap) seethe with scenario hooks and complications. Take some bog standard, rather dull scenario - some cows were stolen, hunt down the thieves and bring them back. Now 'juice' it with the complication that it's actually a small band of women escaped from servitude trying to survive in hiding in 'grey lands' between clans. Maybe your clan doesn't like slavery, but is honor bound with nearby tribes to return these slaves to their owners. MUCH more interesting, to me. The sort of adventure that might stick in the minds of the players for a while. What I'd like to see is ALL of these cultural choices addressed respectfully and thoroughly and objectively as possible. I *really* don't want to see certain dogmas picked as 'winners' to be celebrated and others as 'losers' to be shamed. Glorantha is a world writ of pure moral relativism in its very bones; it'd be hypocritical to only-sort-of embrace it based on our own cultural blinders.

There's the money quote for the whole thread. And trolling? I might *partly* raise my hand on that except (personally) I believe trolling as a thing has everything to do with intent - being hurtful, deprecatory, etc. and starting fights. I rewrote my comments here a couple of times very specifically to cull out begged questions and assumptions that likely went without saying in 'my' upbringing of the 70s and 80s but are certainly no longer assumable today. As much as I admit I'm a hidebound traditionalist, I see the interesting roleplaying and game-world opportunities of gender malleability and the "flexibility of context" intrinsic to the water rune. OTOH, as Ladygolem adroitly noted, the approach here if anything has been a bit Dumbledore-y. (For those who don't get the reference, it's where JK Rowling said "oh, of course Dumbledore is gay" without once alluding to it in 7 books or 1.08 million words of prose)? If that's where we're going, I'd embrace it more than just having one of the characters wear a fake beard. As motherhood is essential to the nature of the cult, why wouldn't then male god-talkers of Ernalda wear shiny golden faux-breast pectorals as well?

"The world's magical so don't assume your real-world expectations apply here." aka the "A wizard did it" excuse. (stock explanation for anything in Glorantha that doesn't conform to someone's preconceptions)

Then are the gender flexibilities really meaningful ? Or is gender flexibility as asserted in the rules more like "you can say you're a different gender and we'll all play along, but it doesn't matter when it actually matters"? That seems trite at the best, disingenuous at the worst. How is "real" gender even determinable? Is it simple physiognomy, meaning a (magically relatively common) shape change ACTUALLY changes the individuals gender, or is there some secret magical "setting" that knows what gender they really are? What if they've been shifted most of their lives and live entirely as another gender? Are there chromosomes or tests for such in Glorantha?

I'm confused by the various approaches to gender in RQG. On the one hand, the book clearly states that gender is rather fluid, and that Orlanthi (for example) recognize 4 sexes and 6 genders. This doesn' timply that there are social or cultural restrictions not otherwise mentioned ie I expect that a female in a male role is REALLY treated like a male in all respects. But then there are many cults that express gender restrictions (Ernalda, Maran Gor, Babeester Gor, Yelm, etc) - are these then in reality open to any sex, if it expresses itself truly as a different gender? Could an unmarried, male-sexed individual that expressed them selves as female gender then freely join Maran Gor? Doesn't the Ernaldan Priest(ess) requirement of having a healthy baby sort of disable this gender expression flexibility in a sort of binary way? Ie it'd be like a cult requiring having an actual penis.

Certainly this is possible. Canonically I believe such elves are just basically considered crazy (rootless) elves by the others. There's an even more ample trove of screen shots from Guild Wars 2 players, their Sylvari are very much how I imagine Aldryami look: some more plantlike than others of course: here's the page for their art direction https://www.artstation.com/artwork/ngogr LOTS of good stuff there.

Not as much time available to write an overlong essay on a creature this week, sorry. So this week it's a mechanic: CALTROPS. From Wiki: "A caltrop (also known as caltrap, galtrop, cheval trap, galthrap, galtrap, calthrop, jackrock or crow's foot) is an antipersonnel weapon made up of two or more sharp nails or spines arranged in such a manner that one of them always points upward from a stable base (for example, a tetrahedron)." In Glorantha they are known to be deployed by the Blue and Red Dragoons of Hwarin Dalthippa, as well as Hon-Eel's Standfast regiment, but their ability to cheaply defend ground and deter pursuit mean their use is widespread by everything from mercenary companies to adventuring groups to small steadings expecting imminent attack. (IRL: They were used often by the Romans, the Greeks (more to the era of RQG) called them tribalos.) Caltrops as a collective term are an ancient weapon used for two purposes: primarily, to injure an opponent (or their mount) while crossing a specific piece of ground. Success in this role relies primarily on surprise, or the victim's lack of awareness that caltrops are even there. Once this is known, they are still useful in deterring traversal of that ground or, significantly slowing an attacker that nevertheless pushes through them. Even if they aren't actually deployed, any intelligent attacker aware that the defender has used caltrops will likely advance much more cautiously and slowly than otherwise. They can be devastating against mounted troops. Use: deploying caltrops is easy - 10-12 can be tossed down to adequately cover a ~1m diameter circle in 1R. The ground must be at least the hardness of firm sand (caltrops are often used to great effect in shallow fords of rivers without a fast current). Retrieving such deployed caltrops takes maybe 5m for the same area BUT on any but the most obvious of surfaces must make a SEARCH check to recover them. If they've inflicted harm on any opponent, only a d100% of them will be recoverable in any case (the rest scattered/destroyed by the activity). Alternately, these rules can also represent more 'setpiece' similar defenses like 'punji' stakes (small sharpened stakes set firmly upright in the ground) which can be used in much broader conditions like soft ground and grass, but also take a lot longer to set up effectively - assuming the stakes themselves are already prepared, setting them takes a good 5 minutes' work per 1m radius for one person. Caltrops are usually visible to some degree and will automatically be seen by aware and alert victims before they move into danger; even unaware targets should usually get a scan check to notice them just before entering the danger area. Stakes are easier to hide generally, meaning victims must be actively looking for them to get any chance to detect. In either case, quadrupling the placement time and making a successful CONCEAL check will force the victims subsequent SCAN checks to be opposed - that is, they must succeed AND beat the CONCEAL check to spot them in time. Note: this assumes 10 caltrops/stakes per 1m circle, roughly. Less than this means each attack check only has a proportional chance to not even happen: if someone only spreads 6 caltrops, then each attack check has only a 6 in 10 chance of needing to be resolved at all. Resolution: Any victim moving through a caltrop'd area has a chance of being attacked by them. Roll 1d4 vs the number of meters the target is moving per SR (typically 3); if the roll is that number or less, they will be attacked by the caltrops. If the caltrops aren't obvious, THIS ATTACK IS ACTUALLY SECRET: A victim not actually attacked generally doesn't know they're there at all. A victim stopping in a caltrop area (if they're not attacked, or survive the attack) is fine if they just stand there, particularly if they know caltrops are present. They could, for example, cast a spell or probably shoot a missile weapon without consequence. Movement to then leave the area would likely suffer a chance of being attacked again. Thrown missiles (that take a step, for example) may provoke an attack check, GM's discretion. Going from prone to standing in a caltrop area may provoke an attack check at GM's discretion. Modifiers to this attack check: SIZ4- or prone(crawling) : Normally not affected by caltrops at all. SIZ 5-8 creatures: meters/round is effectively -1 SIZ 24+ meters/round effectively +1 Note: falling prone in a caltrop hex is a bad idea. The victim automatically suffers 1d3 caltrop attack per 10 full points of SIZ. (Can hit any location.). If the victim knows caltrops are present and is still otherwise capable, they may dodge each of the caltrops' attacks successively. Note that falling into the caltrops however, physical armor value vs those attacks is fully effective. (Example: a SIZ 6 dog moving 3 through a caltrop zone would effectively check against a 2 (3-1=2) or less to cause an attack.) Attack: Roll a d10 for each of the target's legs: highest roll is the leg attacked. Ties mean multiple attacks. Base Chance of harm is 25%+(target's SIZ*3). It can special, it can crit. It can impale. It cannot ever be parried nor usually dodged (unless the character is falling into them, as above) Damage: 1d4+1d(target's SIZ/3) Physical Leg AP only count 1/2 vs this attack unless falling into the area as noted above. Note that caltrops proper are almost never poisoned (too likely to hurt the deployer); punji stakes however are very often poisoned or smeared with other harmful substances to increase their efficacy. The cascade effect of injury, poison, then falling prone while in the field of danger can make even non-fatal poisons like paralyzation or powerful narcotics extraordinarily dangerous to victims. An intelligent creature moving into a known-caltrop'd/punji'd area may 'clear a path' for others doing nothing else that round. Subsequent movement by the same route through that area by anyone would ignore the caltrop effects. If the caltrops were well-hidden, then anyone following must make a SCAN check to see the safe route. (Example of a bad day: Rurik, hired to clear out some nearby trollkin, decides to sneak into their cave complex during the day when they're probably sleeping. They are indeed sleeping, but the clever leader, a Value Trollkin, set up some caltrops in shadows of the cave entrance - he was afraid the bear that laired here would come back. He only had 7 caltrops though, so the coverage is short. He spent the time placing them, to make them well-hidden with a decent CONCEAL roll. Rurik is moving quietly but also wants to get in the cave quickly, is sneaking at half skill (moving 2m/SR). He is not expecting caltrops, but they (as opposed to stakes) ALWAYS give the victim a chance to spot them ahead of time. GM rolls his scan check to see if he beats the Value Trollkin's earlier conceal roll - failed; he doesn't spot them in time. As he moves through the caltrops, the GM rolls d3 vs his m/SR and rolls a 1 - he is attacked! Because the field is only 7 caltrops, the GM first rolls a d10...3, so the attack DOES happen. A roll of 8, 9, or 10 would have meant he strolled past the caltrops with no effect. Note....as they were hidden, this means he wouldn't have even known they were there! This could have been unpleasant when he tried to exit... Rolling to see which leg is affected, he rolls 2d10....he rolls a tie, meaning both legs are attacked separately. This is not Rurik's day! The caltrops attack at 25%+Ruriks SIZ(14)*3. 25+(14*3)= 67% attack. Orlanth is with him - the attack for his left leg misses! The attack for the right leg specials- oh no! Damage is 1d4+1d(SIZ/3). SIZ is 14/3 = 4.6 = 4, so the damage is 1d4+1d4, or 2d4+2d4 with a special, ouch. Rurik is wearing 6 points of armor and wisely cast protection 3 before he entered. Physical armor only counts as 3 points, but the protection spell is fully effective, giving him 6AP vs the damage. The damage is nasty, 12pts, enough to exceed his AP and unfortunately his leg hp as well, causing him to fall prone. Uh oh! His SIZ of 14 means he takes 14/10 = 1d3 attack to a random location (but against them, his AP would be the full 6+3 so barring a crit, he's probably pretty safe... Assuming he survives that, he is now prone in the field of caltrops. His GM will determine if that made enough noise to wreck his sneaking, and if there is even a single trollkin guard he will probably be in a difficult spot....it's RuneQuest, going alone was pretty dumb anyway.) Cliff's Notes version of the above: Caltrops/Stakes: Attack base 25%+target’s SIZ*3; Damage 1d4+(Target SIZ/3); Movement through: roll d4 for each hex moved through; if it’s less than target's effective move, target's random leg(s) are attacked. Physical AP only count half vs this attack. Fall Prone in: 1 attack per 10 SIZ (FRU) of fallen, AP is full value. Normally 10 caltrops/stakes per hex; if less than, then fractional chance of everything. Edit: corrected some typos addressing movement to suit rqg's approach.