styopa

We use the RQ3 rule that if you're prone you're -20% to attacks, and +20% to be attacked. Getting up takes a full round - you can act again on your initiative in the following round. If you are attacked while getting up, you can dodge/parry without penalty *but* if you do, that re-sets you as prone again. Logic? Watch any people in real fights...pretty much nobody tries to get up IN MELEE. They try to skitter away and then get up. We also generally rule that a dodge puts you randomly in one of 6 hexes (self plus 5 adjacent, ignoring the attacker's hex) but I've been sloppy about forcing that. A dodge 1 success level better lets you pick from 2 rolls. A dodge 2 levels better you can pick which of the 5 hexes you end in.

It was a house rule and I'd thought about that but then you have to sort of remember the 'state' of the combatants and we were trying to get to a system where nothing had to really be remembered from one round to the next. Almost NEVER an issue for players. Very much an issue for me as GM trying to keep track of 14 trollkin.

Without getting too far into the detail -weeds, everyone has a DEX SR of their DEX/3 round up. Everyone rolls initiative at the start of each round and adds their DEX modifier. (usually a d10, but in smaller or cluttered environment, this might be a d8 or even a d6 (say trying to fight in a 1m diameter tunnel) making DEX more significant to the result.) That's when they act (we count from the highest number downward to 0). As we count down, each SR anyone can act, they do - they can move 1m per SR, typically. In most cases, initiating an attack or casting a spell ends movement. (Being mounted on a combat-trained mount would be an exception, for example.) If they move adjacent to someone/thing they want to attack, they can do so. If that thing is ready/aware and reasonably facing the incoming person, the longer weapon strikes first. If the weapons are approximately the same size, the significantly larger combatant (ie generally 4 SIZ bigger, but it's a judgement call particularly where natural weapons are involved) would get to strike first. If they're roughly the same siz weapon and reach, then highest dex goes first. It's probably also important to note that one can move into the Zone of Control of an active aware enemy, but this stops movement. Also, starting your move in a ZOC means that you may only move 1 hex that round (ie you can disengage, or shift around your target somewhat, but you can't back up, run around them, and attack from behind in the same round). If someone starts the round adjacent to the front of an enemy, they could act on their SR (ie to move away) but if they are going to strike, they deduct the Weapon speed from their effective SR: Natural weapons 0, short weapons (up to about a gladius) -2, medium weapons (clubs, most swords, etc) -4, long weapons (2h swd, spear) -6, etc to figure out when the attack lands. Yes, it's possible in close melee with an unwieldy weapon, no dex bonus, and a terrible roll, you simply won't get to act that round. Certain particularly slow/unwieldy weapons (flail) are penalized more than their siz would warrant, others are bonused (a quarterstaff might be 6' long, but is treated as a short weapon). Note that we do not give missile weapons special treatment; they attack on their rolled+dex SR and that's it, unless they split attacks like anything else. So to give you a walkthrough: a combatant with a longer weapon that's ready will get to hit first when they close to melee. Then the shorter weapon will strike in that round. The next round (as they start adjacent), they will both get their natural initiative but the longer weapon will have a handicap to their SR if they want to stay in melee. Likely on their SR - whether they go first or not - their smarter move is to back up a hex. This means they forego their attack and are kind of just waiting that round (the next round they could close, of course), but if the shorter weapon person wants to continue fighting, they're going to have to re-close and the long weapon will get first strike again. Needless to say we use hex maps for any substantial combat. Hopefully that gives you a rough picture. Not sure you mean to, but you're actually pointing out the major flaw ("better is lower") in the current count-up SR system here. No, your example isn't possible...unless someone's firing a 1/SR missile weapon. Then yeah, it kinda is? Yes, I'm aware of the "our system is broken so we're going to assert an arbitrary 3SR 'spacer' to nock/fire an arrow" preventing it...but that's an obvious kludge that one might rationalize if one was drawing an arrow out of a quiver but with a sheaf of readied arrows? Nah. Better = lower always gets into complicated mathiness around 0, particularly when its capped at 0, plateauing all results at some arbitrary ceiling.

Our approach deliberately removes the need for any other skill or roll. Closing, fending, etc all just flow naturally from the mechanics of movement and initiative. When 2 opponents close, the one with the longer reach gets to strike first. Thereafter, it's based on who has the higher initiative (with longer/heavier weapons being penalized, everything being equal the shorter weapon person will strike first as long as they're in close). If the person with the longer weapon does get init, they can step back a hex (as long as they have the space to do so) forcing the shorter-weaponed person to close again.

I'd say opposed rolls is a pretty good mechanic, and insofar as the RQ lineage is concerned, I'm pretty sure MRQ introduced it. To say nothing of some clever ideas in RQ6 as well, which is functionally MRQ3. I like a lot of the MRQ source stuff as interesting (particularly considering they filled vast spans that 'today's official sources' haven't covered) and I personally don't give the faintest hoot whether it's canonical or not. If I find material interesting and engaging, I might use it. Why care particularly about the source? The idea that there's even a canon to be violated - and the tone by which apostates are admonished - approaches the worst of the Glorantha Digest days. I REALLY don't see value in Bowdlerizing RQs publishing history. But then, I come from the ancient era where campaigns were expected to be wildly different from each other, there were far fewer resources, and thus may be slightly more inoculated against one-true-worldisms.

One of the first systems against which I took the houserule machete was the SR system. First, it's entirely backwards counting up...having the modifiers structured as-is means it 'caps' at 0....there's NO SR difference between Dex 23 and Dex 100, nor between SIZ 26 and SIZ 300. IMO, that's silly. Second, (and I realize this is entirely personal preference) I don't like the predictability of fixed SR with no variability. Knowing ''oh that trollkin went on SR 11 last round, and my melee SR is 6, so I always have 4 SR of doing whatever I want before he can strike" (or from the other side: I'm always going to strike after him, so the 'wait until last SR for called shot' doesn't impact me at all!') seems entirely too predictable. Finally, statements of intent - while we used it for more than a decade- just slowed everything down, for little benefit. After 5e came out and we played some of that "just do what you want to do at the moment your init comes up" makes the fights go faster, simpler, more intuitively, no need for 'change of statement of intent' cruft, and we don't feel we lost anything. Boiled down to essentials, ours gives players a quickness-based initiative, and when two melee combatants FIRST engage, the one with the longer reach (a simplified combination of SIZ and weapon size) strikes first. That's it. Once two combatants are in melee, it's quickness based in which big-heavy-long weapons are at a disadvantage. However, as our movement is simultaneous, as long as the person with the longer weapon can keep backpedalling they can force the smaller weapon to keep 'closing' and thus suffering striking second..

Agreed. I mean, I can see running a simple combat sans magic for very new players, but unless the setting is like actual magickless medieval Europe, it's not really runequest without magic...

I don't think having to take care of geese is much of a cost for rune lord powers?

All you have to do is assume the first sentence doesn't exist and it's a perfectly fine explanatory post.

I'm pretty sure there's a vast terrain of entertaining play-concepts between "grubby barely-iron-age farmers smelling of cow dung and wielding wicker shields arguing over stead oeconomics" and "Boormanesque permanently-plate-clad paladins murderhobo'ing their way through an improbable maze of rooms each with a random inhabitant and a box of loot".

What? Really? If so, that would sort of a remarkable corner-turn from a Staffordian "rollicking community of fearlessly creative explorers in a shared mythical world" toward something a little more darkly 'dogmatic central committe' thing.

If it's a branding thing about grabbing a unique market niche and calling it your own, I understand the RQG Bronze Age push in that respect. I don't understand why it's so critical that Orlanthi not be viking-like, or that Lunars not be Roman-like, etc. as those shorthands let me convey in well-known and recognized idioms a living world for my players. This lets me spend more time describing the adventure, and less time describing the shape of a house and how much it's NOT like Dark Age European barbarians (that pretty much everyone's assuming anyway). If that's what your players want, though, you be you! Nor will Glorantha for me ever be quite the academic excursus into synthetic primitive achaeocultures that it is for some people, and that's just fine. MGDV. And I hope new GMs understand how malleable this world can be, even withing a more rigidly-defined canon than the chaos of the last 40 years. Make it your own. This is a PnP RPG; there is NO need to hew to what are ultimately fictional standards anyway, if you don't want to. So what if when the published cattle raid adventure from Chaosium comes out, you need to edit a bit, change the name of a tribe from the Colymar to the Jotuns, or whatever? It's still the mechanics of the game and the bones of the world you can work with. Put your OWN personality into it, and you'll find it's far more rewarding than striving to conform to every jot and tittle of canon. Truly.

To answer the OP: actually TEACH as little as possible. - have as MUCH prepared for them as possible; like the pre-gens, have as much on that character sheet in terms of rules as you can. Hell, I'd even have special/critical/fumble % for their main weapons written down. Avoid looking crap up in the book. - YOU have to be crazy-prepared. Avoid looking crap up in the book. Have everything you need at your fingertips (and in your brain) to maximize playing and minimize rules-searching. - let the world and the adventure sell the game. Let playing in the world be interesting, fun and intuitive. Wing it if you have to. Avoid looking crap up in the book. My point, if you haven't already gotten it is that "teaching the game" should be your last motivation. People learn complex things by doing and stay with it because it's fun. Better that they learn almost by accident than in some deliberate pedagogical exercise.

https://www.glorantha.com/docs/heroquest-voices/ They're terrific.

You know sheep don't really stampede like cattle, yes? They're just not big enough, they don't mass tightly when running (they scatter much faster), and (IMO) they're more sure-footed than cattle, so the danger (not to mention the pain) of getting stomped by a 160lb sheep is just so much less than a 1600lb cow. The danger of a 'sheep stampede' is that you get knocked down and then when you're down, you're someone that a ram may feel he can take on. So a "sheep stampede" is basically just a knockdown and then if you're unlucky you'll be fighting an angry ram while you're prone. EDIT: *exactly* like this. LOL

It'd be nice if Rick or someone official could rule on this. I don't know about you guys, but to me fan-talent and willingness to do this sort of stuff quite frequently outstrips the published-caliber content, eventually. https://www.cartographersguild.com/content.php?s=7701ba14c214aa2cbbe068907d1749a1 cf the winner of the 2019 Atlas award; (then again, it's clear that Chaosium are clearly looking in the right place to solicit talent for their products, both from the results and https://www.cartographersguild.com/showthread.php?t=13946&highlight=glorantha) Anyway, to the OP's point I hope that it's possible for people to artistically provide (for example) artistically-produced tactical maps of RQ stuff.

I did see the shows. Again, since I apparently failed to communicate it successfully: I'm certain there are web quasi-celebrities in EU (which are in the same time zone). Or if not, I'm equally certain that there was NO compelling reason for that session to be live, meaning even if they were on the US west coast, EVEN if as youtubers they sleep in until noon, the game could have run at 2pm PST and 11pm CET...which is still a helluva lot more sane than 3am.

You're not paying attention. Why would there be a time zone difference if, as I suggested, they just recorded the session playing during normal hours in their own (EU) timezone? There was no compelling reason iirc that it be done live. That's the only reason you'd need to suffer such a time zone difference.

Off topic: Why make it so brutal on yourselves (I can't imagine GMing at 3am...)? There wasn't any compelling reason this had to be live, was there? (It's not like anyone was really live-answering the comments, IIRC.) I have to imagine there are (relative) legions of english-speaking RPGers within EU zone that would be slavering to either play it at a convenient hour or even make the trek to Berlin to play face to face. Hell, I have to imagine the idea of a face to face game with the devs would practically be something you could auction at a con.

While I get your point, I think the idea of a default hit location wouldn't work in RQ because they are not-gently-graduated in importance....arms/legs (meh), abdomen (nearly critical), chest/head (critical). Why not just instead use an average overall armor, and then players' body hp? Ignore locations and location hp entirely. I think that's how BRP does it by default?

Or, disregard ahistorical precision and say a short sword is "about the length of your forearm" and a broad sword is "about the length of your arm". And yes, for a hacking weapon, the damage it does is very much about the length (length = leverage = speed) and weight at the striking end. EDIT: and no, I don't think a lot of mathematical rigor was considered in the damage values; was never a strong point of RQ2 and that baby came with the bathwater into RQG. I.e. their applications of +1s and +2s was not really thought through. The idea that a dagger does more as minimum damage than a shortsword is logically silly. Or eg a shortsword in RQ2 parried 20AP, more than a hoplite shield? (Thankfully mostly corrected in RQG, so a shortsword blocks the same AP as a medium shield...)

I'd only amend that for a set of rules, I believe it's important to have at least one group of playtesters LOOKING for ways to break them. I'm not saying that they need to be airtight, and likely my POV is much informed by my wargaming history, but it's those people who are going to (hopefully) find exploits, breakpoints, and OP interpretations that likely can be fixed with a relatively simple errata before publishing.

Objectively, I agree with you. %ile systems - even with specials and crits and fumbles - are inherently simpler than table-lookups. That was an astonishing innovation for the time (/thanks Steve Perrin) and one of the (several, IMO) things that make RQ an inherently better game system mechanically. UNfortunately....RQG holds onto way, way too much late-70s paradigm cruft of its own in its overriding effort to stay retro-compatible with minimum conversion*. Look at SR - different tables/breakpoints EACH for SIZ and DEX, Spirit Combat damage, healing rate, damage bonus. HP for location - which in RQ3 had been neatly algorithmic 25% of body hp for arms, 40% for chest, 33% for legs, abd, head - is back to a kludgy, inconsistent, linear table that ends up with a 30' giant being surprisingly fragile (only 2x the hp of a normal human)... *which I fundamentally don't get anyway; if you're going to have to spend 5+ mins for each character/creature adding passions, runes, etc is another minute adjusting HP and SR - especially if the conversion is algorithmic and quick - going to be that onerous?

(shrug) I'm not sure of your point? I mean, it's clear you DON'T think RQ is more complicated and are arguing against the 'common perception' that it is. OK. In fact there are two levels to this discussion and you're switching between them willy-nilly. The two points you're arguing against are: 1) RQ is generally perceived to be more complicated than D&D (which is your purported point) - well this isn't based on facts, is it? This is just perception. The vast, vast bulk of people learned RPGs as D&D so anything not D&D/d20 is "more complicated". FATE seems "more complicated" when it mechanically absolutely isn't. Not to mention each game has a lengthy history, so are we comparing AD&D to RQG? Or 5e to RQ3? Much of that isn't even necessarily a mechanics discussion; in my experience D&D games tend to be often in fairly simplistic worlds full of archetypes and tropes* (cf the whole idea of alignment and absolute morality making everything simple - "oh, you're verifiably evil? then I can kill you without remorse") while Glorantha has always reveled in it's relativism, complexity, rather ...er...'dynamic'... fluctuating canon. Add that to what I've already explained is an inherently more complex combat system, and the perception is easily explained. (While I agree with your caveats about digging out modifiers etc PERCEPTION isn't based on deep understanding. Ask someone the elevator-pitch version of D&D combat and it's 'roll to hit, if you hit, you do damage.'. Ask any RQ devotee to explain melee combat and I guarantee you it's going to take more than 9 words.) *this is a broad brush, of course. Nothing inherently in D&D requires simplistic settings (again, setting aside the rationalized ideas of 'classes' and 'alignments' which are much more flexible concepts in 5e now anyway) and there have been some fabulously interesting and creative ones. 2) RQ is more complicated than D&D: (this is where you're actually arguing) in this point, I'm probably 80% in agreement with you, and not further only because I don't care enough to get down into the weeds of details, I mean, what value is there in that? Are we counting the number of times people have to look shit up in the books? Are we counting the number of dice rolls each combat takes? Why bother?

...and this is perfectly fine if it works for your group. This is, in essence, the D&D method as IIRC there's functionally no difference between an arrow, an axe, or a mace in what it does to the target, they all do 1d8 hp. I know IRL if someone said 'grab a melee weapon from the rack you need to get out there and fight' I'd certainly think pretty hard about which one I picked. Personally, I *want* a character's choice of weapon to be a similarly meaningful, informed tactical choice. Thus that's the direction my houserules have gone (and in fact, simulationist that I am, ideally I'd LIKE to have a system that recognizes more detail in that direction - ie chainmail is nearly worthless against a mace, and almost worthless against arrows - but I've come to recognize that it's RQ-the-adventure-game not RQ-the-combat-simulation and that pragmatically that's just not possible outside of a computer game and still be PLAYABLE).