styopa

Once that occurred to me (the time-instead-of-distance thing) I began to realize how much differently medieval people would have conceptualized their sense of place, and how radically the "aerial view" has altered our perceptions as moderns, particularly in the way we see the top-down view of things as authoritative - from blueprints to maps. In fact, for the medieval person, they'd usually never have even conceived of this (except for fantasists, trying to imagine what birds could see). The 'top down' map was pretty limited to places where you could actually get such a view close to a city, like the alps. Otherwise, their 'city diagrams' were simply profiles, and then a sort of mental-topology of places and relationships. (Sorry, you can probably tell one of my degrees was in geography. Maybe this isn't interesting for most.) It really made me start presenting information in games without maps, as much as possible (tactical maps, sure, but I mean the big world maps we all love to draw and look at).

As repellent as the example is, Broo show that miscegenation is possible with ANYTHING, given enough magical oomph behind it. To answer Khedrac's original question, no, I haven't used half elves - I think in any canonical Glorantha (YGMV) they'd be pretty rare. I could certainly even see a deliberate attempt to make them, probably from the elves' side, as a way to better understand or try to infiltrate humanity. Humans (I'd guess) would generally find them repellent, or at least shocking. I say it would be from the elves' side, because (thinking like a vegetable here) they're all about trying to create life here, there, everywhere but (ironically in human terms) they don't really care much about the "sanctity" of pure breeding, so if it was a failed mutation they'd just shrug. IMG elves aren't just people with pointy ears and wood bones, at least I try to portray them as REALLY DIFFERENT. They're practically space aliens from humans' point of view, with their unconcern about individuals and frighteningly long-view collective perspective. Elf Woods are terrifying places, if you're not there with their permission or an elf-friend.

As is yours, no? Elder Secrets had the Mostali sorcery, I believe? Unfortunately, the new rule set will be based exclusively in Dragon Pass, meaning Sorcery will likely be covered only in perfunctory fashion. I believe it's being included at all only because Jeff has mentioned that Lhankor Mhy use sorcery which was a pretty big surprise to me.

Stumbled on this document I put together years ago, that had converted some effects familiar to World of Warcraft players into RQ3 terms. Maybe someone finds them interesting. The Death Knight ones I used for abilities of some of Delecti's Lieutenants, the Druid for a player that wanted to be a healer but not "just another Chalana Arroy". Yes, some of the effects are fiddly and will require things like tokens marking effects - for example a green d20 for plague, a red d20 for tracking bleeding, and a blue d20 for tracking frost effects. For that purpose, I'd typically say that the status effects like that are non-stacking with themselves - for example you either have the frostbite effect or no, not that you could be affected multiple times with frostbite. Depending on your preference, you could say they're exclusionary - you couldn't have both plague and frostbite at the same time. This management burden may constrain the use of some of these. For example I wouldn't (as a DM) want to try to manage more than one NPC with Death Knight abilities at a time. OTOH, if you have a player with lifebloom, let THEM track the stuff, so they work fine for player abilities. They're meant to be reasonably balanced according to RQ3 power levels - typically 1 Spirit mp= 1 disrupt = 1-3 nonignorable damage or = 1 point of immediate healing. Ergo, Lifebloom (as a 1 point spirit spell) heals 3 points which may seem overpowered, but it does it over 6 rounds starting NEXT round. Moonfire (2 point spirit spell) does 1d6 damage and rolls on the missile to-hit location at +10 (so likely head), but you need to roll to-hit, and armor protects. They also work well as magic-item abilities, for example a dagger shaped like an icicle may give the wielder the ability to cause Frostbite for 1mp on contact. Or a magical willow twig, that if broken, casts Nature's Grasp on the user. Anyway, enjoy. If people like these, I could certainly do more. RQ3 DK and Druid.pdf

To kind of go back to the generic/specific topic, I find it curious that Greg's original creative impetus of Glorantha - where it was born - was in the West, with Prince Snodal's stories and the tales of the survivors of Seshnegg. You'd think (at least I would) that these original tentative steps into worldbuilding would leave that area the creative heart of the game? Yet in all of its official rules incarnations, the game itself has more or less ignored the West. RQ2 didn't even have sorcery as a thing, while it was only in (latter, when it came back to Glorantha generally) RQ3 that we started to see our first hints of Malkionism. Is it possible that the first non-Lunar/Orlanthi/Praxian character officially presented wasn't until Arlaten, in Strangers in Prax? http://www.staffordcodex.com/overview

(shrug) Personally, I think republishing in OSR format might be a quick way for Chaosium to make a buck, but the smarter move would be to have them updated, polished to 2016 publishing standards, and queued to release simultaneous with RQ4. IMO nothing is more critical to the release of a new rule set than supplements being widely and immediately available. My fantasy pipe dream would be that concurrent with RQ4's release, we'd have one or even two significant campaign supplements of the caliber of RQ3-heydey products: Sun County, River of Cradles, or at least as substantial as Shadows on the Borderlands. Those were all *magnificent* supplements, and I think much of the material we're talking about could well be compiled into a SotB-style product focused on Dragon Pass (or a part of it) with a relative minimum of effort.

I live and work in Imperial-measures land, and I honestly couldn't care less what measurement system they use. For my players, we simply parse meters as yards and that works. Nobody gives a crap about more precision than that anyway. We try to avoid metric only because it's frightfully anachronistic in conversation but hey if that's your system of choice YGMV. In terms of larger distances, I tend to use neither miles nor km, but time. Even today, in our map and precision-centric society, colloquial conversation tends to be time-based. How far is Chicago? About 8 hours drive. If someone in Pavis asks how far it is to Boldhome, *nobody* would say 280km. The answer would of course be "a hard week's ride for a brave soul, alone; at least a couple of weeks with traders' wagons, assuming you're not stopping with them; or, the rest of your life if you're unwary and the nomads are acting up"

Name a single epic story in which the lead character is actually the army? I'm with David, despite being a simulationist that loves wargames, in my RPGs mass combat is narratively driven, not mechanically so. It provides a backdrop to character action. Their choices may influence it in unexpected ways, but generally it's plotted out as a series of events that I want to happen, "dumping" the PC's out at the end in a given situation. Obviously, the trick is to keep them from knowing that with enough DM sleight-of-hand.

In that sense I'd call D&D a "generic" game too, as really in no place is it particularly tied to a single setting either. Heaven forbid Chaosium see comparable economic success? I know, I know, it's not all about filthy lucre....but it would be nice to see one of these periodic waves of RQphilia actually result in a stable, financially-healthy company from which we could expect a sustained string of books, settings, supplements, and adventures for years and years. Look, I've criticized RQ6 a fair amount - mainly for being too generic. However, I have to admit: had RQ6 launched with their rulebook AND *immediately* a companion book that was the "Glorantha Companion" setting - ie 'here's how fast you get magic points' and 'for culture X, here are the available combat styles' and 'here's the pantheon of divinities with their cults, spells, etc all laid out' most of my criticisms wouldn't have existed. Between generic and setting focused, well...it's not my company, and it's easy to quarterback from the sidelines. But it seems that if you're already serving a niche of the gaming public (and as much as I've loved RQ for 35 years, it's a niche game), it seems odd that one would design a "new version" so tightly tied to a single setting (no matter how great that setting is) that it is more or less unplayable for any other purpose, thus subdividing the numbers again? And then to exclusively select a specific locale of THAT setting, further atomising the list of potential customers? It seems to me a better use of resources to build a COMPREHENSIVE "modern updated RQ2" (note, as Jeff mentioned in the other thread, the new RQ will have runes, rune points, passions, revised spirit combat, revised shamanism, new spirit rules, economics, far more social activity, etc - ALL of which could be absolutely universal in application) that has the neutrality of RQ3, and then (maybe even in the same package to start?) include the "Dragon Pass Campaign Book" which could then be laser-focused on the rich setting of the region. Again, it's easy to quarterback from the sidelines.

So in fact you simply want "Pendragon Glorantha"?

That same interviewer also talked to some other guy: https://juegosydados.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/interview-with-greg-stafford/ And even some other guy: https://juegosydados.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/interview-with-sandy-petersen/ He does pretty decent interviews, although Costikyan I wish he'd touched on his wargames a little more, Star Wars a little less.

Let's not forget that locational hit points (IMO) were originally driven by their LACK in D&D. It's one of the first things new players kind of go "huh" about in that system, that the armor systems (we're talking AD&D here) were so non-granular. You were either wearing chainmail or you weren't - and your AC didn't change if the hood was off, or you'd lost a sleeve, or whatever. It's just so bloody illogical. And don't even get me STARTED about 'vorpal' swords in a game with ostensibly no hit locations. RQ addressed this in the most logical way possible - instead of rationalizing a single "hit" roll to be "the attacker managed to hit AND CAUSE DAMAGE" per D&D, RQ deconstructed it to say "did you hit or not?" "if you hit, where did you hit?" "how much damage did you do?" "in that location, how good is the armor, and how much damage got through?" The only place in my view where RQ didn't really carry this through to a logical conclusion would have been penalties for injury - ie an arm with 33% of hp gone should be less functional and useful than a fully healthy arm. Sure, RQ *does* have a couple tiers of failure - your arm's functionally useless, or it's off - but nothing up to that point. Such detail would almost certainly be considered FAR too simulationist for most people and thus unFun. (I'd disagree, suggesting damage debuffs mean once you're injured, you get less effective becomes a downward efficacy spiral. Realistically, then, combatants would be motivated to be the one that does that 'first blood' damage just like real life, and thus a bias toward selection of longer and longer weapons and missiles. Again, like IRL. YGMV)

Oh dear that's horrible. Glad I saved myself the pain. I think I was still recouperating from Eldarad or Daughters of Darkness around then anyway.

Except that RQ3 was *also* an AH product, yet is termed RQ3 and is being considered canonically in the line of succession that devolves to RQ4. I don't know about Slayers, but I've read the RQ:AiG (what was going to be RQ4) playtest rules, and there were some really good ideas in there.

I don't think anyone's debating that at all. I *believe* that pretty much everyone agrees that the new books will (& should) simply say RuneQuest. The debate is really only about idiom, and what it's going to be 'referred to' in discussions. For example, as you yourself mentioned, you call it RQ2 even though there was no "2" anywhere in the actual name. Why? Because it matters to people to be clear about what they're discussing, even informally. With the plethora of material spanning 35+ years of gaming out there, I'd say it's absolutely imperative to make it as clear and simple for new players what is new material consistent with the new rules, and what will take some massaging to make work. Those of us that have played forever can do it almost effortlessly, so I think it's easy for us to trivialize it, but for a new DM having just bought the new RQ rules, he or she stumbles on a website and sees "ah, look character sheets for "Runequest"! Sweet, I'll download these...wait, wtf is this? Where do the rune values go? Why are there attack AND parry skills for each weapon? Bleargh..." Confusion is the BANE of the new player experience. MOB feels it's going to be what it's going to be. Jeff insists for a plethora of reasons it's RQ4. Some people say it should be RQ2.5 because it's mainly (90%) RQ2. Some people say RQ7 because it's the 7th iteration of the rules overall. I'd say that Chaosium would be well-served to set the tone of the discussion to 'guide' general usage ahead of release, but there seems to be resistance (or skepticism) over calling it 4. So I think we're as clear as we're going to get. Book = Runequest. What it's going to be referred to? Nysalor only knows.

4's been answered either here in chat or in the designer notes, the resistance table is going to be in. I'm not sure about 5; I know Jeff said it's going to be simplified (there won't be separate attack and parry skills, it'll just be a single skill) but I don't think they're using combat styles in the sense that RQ6 did either. In RQ6 you had a "Town Guardsman" combat style that then collectively included certain weapons, maybe a shield, etc, I believe the new RQ will still be weapon-based.

LOL. It's nice to see Jeff bringing subjects of discussion that seem to be of broad concern out from the message boards (which are likely perused by only a fraction of the public) to his design notes which I expect are much more widely circulated. Thanks Jeff! BTW I absolutely love the map of Dragon Pass/Prax. It really hearkens to the old RQ2 back-of-the-book map, but gives it a fresh approach. Re the specificity of rules to setting, I'm meh: sure (changing the setting to a Byzantine Europe one) the divine magic would need reworking in application but not mechanics, while Spirit Magic and Sorcery wouldn't need changing at all (unless they're getting a radical rewrite in the new RQ rules from RQ3). The passions/runes thing may/may not fit in a magical Europe campaign, depending on how it's conceptualized. I'm not sure how it would necessitate a change to combat at all, frankly? I *like* RQs grittiness, which means I like the mechanics, and would seek to use them in WHATEVER setting I want to play in. Glorantha I can take or leave.

There's a Freudian slip, Rick.

Hell, I could pretty easily see an online DB of events, where X event took place in year Y, and is relevant to characters in zones A, B, C, D, and E. Run the 'family background' engine, pick your homeland, and it could then pull up a generated immediate family background (and tally of summarized passions, etc) relevant to your starting zone. You could even say "mom was a lunar, dad was from prax" if you wanted that much player control on the process. Aside from filling the database with events, and thinking up a robust set of variables that could be used to filter (ie 'for THIS event players of THAT species/gender will have specific result Z') it's not even logically very complex.

If I were to start RP gaming discovering I'd just dropped $62 on the "wrong rule version" because in Glorantha 4 comes after 6, I'm not sure my first reaction would be "well, hell, let me spend some more $ buying the right version!"

With: Runequest 2 (which, let's be honest, is pretty much the first actual edition; RQ1 being about as relevant in application as say the old original D&D little brown books are) Runequest 3 RQ: AiG (aka RQ 4, never actually released, and about as relevant to real gameplay as RQ1) Mongoose Runequest (aka MRQ) Mongoose RQ 2 (aka MRQ2) TDM Runequest (aka RQ6) ...all being 'out in the wild' and there being a NECESSITY in normal conversation between people to be clear about what the hell system someone's commenting on, there's GOING to be a nomenclature generally agreed-upon. As much as Chaosium may insist "it's just called RuneQuest", in reality that simply means they defer to the community to let THEM decide what to call the game in vulgar parlance. It may be titled "RuneQuest" like all of its prececessors. That doesn't mean that's what people are going to call it. In fact, I pretty much guarantee people won't call it that.

I think people are getting too worked up over something that's ultimately optional. I too find it straitjacketing people into Dragon Pass, but I've been farting around that place for 30 years, I'm bored of it. BUT I'M NOT A NEW PLAYER. I already have "character concepts" and lore-history all ready-at-hand for myself and my players. I think this is: 1) a great, optional tool for new DM's and players to engage with (far more interesting than simply reading) the last 100+ years of recent history in the region while making characters, as well as giving new players some sort of rudder for how their character acts to prevent the 'paralyzed by too many options' thing that sometimes hits new players, AND 2) a template for the always-contributory RQ/Glorantha community to generate comparable tables for other places (not to say Chaosium couldn't put out more regional sourcebooks as well). Personally, I'd still possibly use it for new players to the game. As long as the quick-gen system allows comparable bonuses/deficits to be gained and quick-gen toons aren't somehow penalized, then I'm all for more textured detail like this.

It's almost like the Traveller character generation system, without the chance of dying.

For me, a realistic system means easier immersion, because players are thinking more about real-life expectations of their choices, not the rules-system-mechanics results of their choices. Pretty much any story can be delivered in any rules schema, that's just a matter of DM creativity and skill. But let's face it, most of us are here because - even as a mighty-thewed hero - getting hit by a sword should be dangerous and something you'd like to avoid. If your players, even for a moment, doubt the inherent risk of combat, then it's not really combat, is it? And deep-down, they won't treat it as such. In D&D, if that guy came out of the shadows with a knife, honestly, most multilevel fighters could pretty much just STAND THERE, finish their beer and let them have 5-6 whacks unopposed before they bother to care. They certainly wouldn't feel threatened.

Hell, it was RUNEquest, and had no Runes. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! Seriously, though, the heroic thing is far better portrayed with Heroquest's more-evocative systems anyway, imo. To try to steer RQ after nearly FORTY YEARS as an identified RPG system brand (with a certain recognized approach to gameplay) into a different course would be catastrophically foolish. Like trying to sell Green Giant Sugary Snax or Ben&Jerry's Filet Mignon. I'm not sure it's resulted in anything but disappointment for any firm that's tried it. I'm not saying that it shouldn't try to offer some ability to game that way for those that want it, but it cannot compromise the core elements that the RQ brand is supposed to have in its toolbox.