JonL

As someone whose entry to Glorantha in general was through HQG, I very much concur. HQ relies on having a solid understanding of the fictional elements of the game world universe in order to apply it's very abstract mechanics appropriately, as compared to other games where a lot of information about unreal elements are actually conveyed through mechanical descriptions themselves. There are a lot of things about the setting for which you don't get clear or detailed guidance from the book on what is plausible, or what is typical vs extraordinary capability (the Devotee-level feats representing an implicit ceiling for Initiate-level magic is a noteworthy exception). It's worth mentioning that right alongside all the story pacing verbiage, "credibility" is also specifically identified in the rules as a factor in setting resistance. Unless one's game is Fairy Tale or Silver-Age Comics like in its tone, sometimes things are going to be easy or nigh-impossible because they simply are. Credibility also goes to the heart of why some abilities are just the right thing for a given challenge while others are a stretch. How much you rely on story factors vs how much you rely on credibility is a big part of how you dial your HQ experience between epic & gritty (the other big part being how you portray nature of consequences of defeat, but that's another discussion).

The low landers and their Lunar friends may be content with their "moon shine," but only those who wet their grain with the mountain dew from the slopes of Kiero Fin herself can one brew the true White Lightning.

While agreeing broadly with your point about evocative set dressing, there were clay pot stills in various places in Classical Antiquity, and even today traditional Mezcal production utilizes the hot-coals+stones+wet-leaves+soil-lid slow-cooker pit that is largely unchanged since the Neolithic. In the final stages, vapors condense down air-cooled reed outflows once they bubble up out of the clay tapered-amphora/pot-still from the lower part buried in the slow-cooker pit into the air exposed upper part. In a Gloranthan context, I fully expect that Lodril, Veskarthen, Caladra, et al cults have rites where they get together with the local Grain Goddess cult to bury His Fire & Her Fruits together in a fire pit for a few days of debauchery fueled by the products of their union within the steaming mound (with some saved in clay jugs for special occasions, no doubt). Perhaps Traditionalist holdouts in Tarsh may even make a point of raiding their Lunarized lowland cousins for maize with which to brew the mighty White Lightning. Similarly, beer has been produced in the Fertile Crescent for many millennia. If Esra's cult cannot do the same with Her barley, it would be a cryin shame (even if they store it in jars rather than casks).

I have zero problem with Gloranthan bronze doing a better job at things like barrels than Earthly bronze would, whether because of skilled crafters employing minor magics as part of their trade or because <METAL!>BONES OF DEAD GODS!</METAL!>

I like Elmal for Paladins. Sun-fire for blazing away unholy abominations, Truth for righteousness and loyalty, God of Horses, protector of the people... The Loyal Thanes are an under-appreciated gem.

I am so jealous! Part of the appeal of Glorantha is that the common fantasy tropes aren't so common there, but I take your meaning. If someone wants to play a dedicated "wizard" in a Red Cow campaign, initiating to Lankhor Mhy is the simplest way to go. Make sure that they take the Truth and Law runes, and work together with the player to come up with some Grimoires that suit their vision. More broadly, look at how the vision for a character might connect to one or more cults. For example, someone who wants to play a "ranger" might play a character who follows Odayla.

I expect that the hypothetical story where Gustbran discovers the deep mystery that introducing just the right impurities counter-intuitively makes cast bronze stronger would frame the "what" and "why" process in much that way,. A Brithini smith surely has very detailed knowledge on the runic correspondences and compositions of various minerals. The "how" still involves adding controlled amounts of whatever mineral extract at the right stage of the process, even though the "why" in Glorantha has nothing to do with valence electrons.

I expect a lot of tech is tied up in secret guild/cult techniques that blur the line between magic and craft. Imagine all the little tips and tricks that a Gustbran initiate is taught along the way. Are the secrets of safely gathering arsenic and alloying it with bronze to make stronger armor and blades magic? Well, anyone could theoretically try it, but if you haven't been taught to enact the story of how Gustbran learned to safely do it, there's a decent chance you'll end up poisoning yourself in the process. Is that distinguishable from magic in Glorantha? Not really. Flintnail's cult provides a similar point of reference. It's possible that the uninitiated could successfully utilize an arch or buttress in a construction project, but the experts certainly aren't sharing their methods with outsiders. Is the Lunar Coder making sketches of their worksites in his book while visiting Pavis going to be able to duplicate them back home? Maybe, but I'd bet that the implementation includes something that looks a lot like an experimental HeroQuest to "rediscover" how the Emperor's palace was constructed in God Time.

Either way, the UZ section would have done well to have made their perspective on the relationship and his adoption/transformation clear, and at least touched on the Kingtroll cult and the "He was always one of UZ." concept. And again, the Time section only specifically acknowledging that he was a Troll at the end after almost evasively writing around saying that earlier in the section is a really unclear way to present it. Hopefully the print-run will sell-out really quickly so they can have an opportunity to revise sooner rather than later. (I am sufficiently otherwise delighted by this release and the work on the upcoming RQG release that I will spare everyone my usual axe-grinding about an updated HQG pdf.) More broadly, let me reiterate the suggestion of outside readers who don't know Glorantha at all for projects like this. I recall my initial struggles with framing Sorcery in HQG a few years back (HQG & KoDP being my entry points into all this) with the presumed context in the writing. It still took getting a look at the old RQ & HQ1 material for me to find benchmarks for what low/medium/high-powered effects were supposed to be within the fiction. Despite earnest efforts to explain things on the part of the authors, it's still challenging for people who have been immersed in Glorantha for decades to avoid taking things for granted that a newcomer needs to have more explicitly laid out. It's a difficult thing to recognize when close to a work, and while I'm being (hopefully constructively) critical here, that they pull it off successfully as often as they do is to their immense credit.

When teaching HQ, I try to structure the first session or two in such a way as to introduce the rules concepts as we go. We'll have a couple of Simple Contests right off the bat to get them used to the core mechanic, Masteries, and Augments. Once that's comfortable, there'll be a skirmish that introduces Group Simple Contests. Later, an investigation, political/social challenge or duel get used to introduce Extended Contests. I may or may not include things like Risky Gambits or Assists at that point - that depends on how the players are absorbing things. If the above has gone well, a big fight at the end then provides the chance to demonstrate Group Extended Contests. If absorption has been more of a struggle, I'll do serial/chained Group Simple Contests at the climax instead since that's just applying things they've already learned (or are still working to learn), and save the GEC for another day. The Sartar Players Primer remains decent for this, at least for a Dragon Pass game. I keep several printouts of excepts from TSPP select cultures from HeroQuest Voices in my HQ binder to share at the table. I wish HQV would be updated to reflect the current interpretation of the Malkioni & similar changes. The HQV entries for the central cultures like the Heortlings, Dara Happans, and Praxians are still pretty solid though.

18 settings‽ That's outstanding. I feel like HQ could really benefit from more worked examples for people to see how the different tools in the kit can be applied for various goals. If @Robin "RoM" Mitra and the rest of Humakt eV have any thought of an English-language release of their adventure book, they'd have at least one customer.

I dig the idea of a Risk Lands game. It's an opportunity to play people from a variety of backgrounds working together to survive in the face of the danger next door. I imagine the Lunar Empire offering "Death or Transportation" to minor rebels, outlaws, failed nobles, etc. who are too dangerous to enslave, but not so dangerous as to warrant letting their talents go to waste by feeding them to the Bat or sacrificing them to Yana Aranis. If they manage to survive and tame the frontier a bit, great - the Empire benefits . If they get eaten by monsters, no great loss and if they took a few monsters down with them, great - the Empire benefits. I'd almost compare it to Australia, but wouldn't want to liken Aborigines to Chaos monsters. (I also wouldn't want to insult @MOB by implying that Scorpion Men and Walktapi are anywhere near as dangerous Drop Bears.)

Oh. I wish I'd picked it up sooner then.

The text seems to confusingly dance around the subject of Arkat becoming a Troll in his late campaigns, and not in a fun mystery sort of way. The relevant section in the Uz chapter on page 62 (mostly mirroring this text) mentions Grazalf healing Arkat, but nothing more, and he continues to be referred to with the "Humaktson" agnomen, rather than "Kingtroll." In the "Time" section on p140, the text is coy about it at first: Farther down the page, it pivots to being a bit more explicit: This is an awkward way to present this particular story wrinkle. Nothing about "align himself with them more closely" or "acting trollish" says "underwent a horrifying ritual to bodily become an Uz" to someone who doesn't already know the tale. First, the bit in the Uz section really ought to shine more light on address their particular perspective on and relationship with Arkat, rather than just copying Greg's old Wyrm's Footnotes article essay verbatim. The context of the Sourcebook and it's intended audience are different from those in which that essay was conceived/published back in '79. Second, the telling in the Time section should either leave it coy & mysterious, or just come out and say it from the get-go. The former could especially work if the Uz section makes it explicit. If a major purpose of the Sourcebook is to help newcomers wrap their brains around Glorantha, it's important to not take this stuff for granted. When something is supposed to be in-setting unclear or have multiple perspectives, hang a big sign on that for the reader so they don't get confused and frustrated. If something is supposed to be clearly evident, make it so. In this vein, I suggest getting some feedback from some outside readers who aren't already Glorantha fans, if that hasn't already happened.

The answer to most of those inexplicable civil engineering choices is "corruption and/or nepotism in government contracts." Louisiana is a symphony of graft. Why build something simple and adequate when your cousin's crew can get paid to do it the long way (or, classically speaking, the Long way)?

WRT Prax in particular, I would expect animals that are party to the Covenant in the prey/grazer role to provide more nutrition to Covenant parties in the hunter/herder role than would otherwise be the case, just as the Covenant grazers are better able to be sustained by the limited resources of the chaparral than foreign animals like horses.

I just did a brain-dump on Flaws over in the House-Rules thread. What strikes me as relevant to this case is the idea of engaging in an extremely Extended Contest with one's Flaw. A VtM-style Vampire could have a "Beast Within" Flaw. Whenever the PC struggles with it, keep track of RP for & against. Every time the PC or the Beast hit 5 RP, assess Victory/Defeat. non-Marginal results will impact the severity of the Flaw going forward as the PC evolves a more harmonious relationship with its dark side or falls further into its shadow.

Unrated Flaws Instead of assigning ratings to Flaws, Players simply note them on the character sheet. The GM then chooses the Resistance for any Flaw challenges that present themselves in the game just like any other contest. This adds a bit more flexibility, such that the same Flaw might be a mere inconvenience one situation yet a major challenge in another. The downside of this approach is that it removes the Players' ability to express how big or small a problem they want a Flaw to be over the course of the campaign by tying it to a high or low rated Ability. Flaws Rated with Resistances Instead of having Flaws ratings tied to a character's other abilities, they get rated with a Resistance level (Moderate, Hard, etc.) that describes how hard it is for the character to overcome that particular Flaw. This produces similar results over time to tying them to ability ratings, while simplifying character creation and bookeeping. Flaws Rated with Penalties Essentially a combination of the above two approaches. Characters' Flaws are rated with a penalty describing their severity (-3, -6, -9, -w). The GM sets Resistance for a Flaw challenge based on the situation/narrative/etc. The character then applies the Flaw's penalty to whatever Ability they're using for the contest. It's functionally similar to a Consequence of Defeat, and long-term Consequences like loosing a limb or public disgrace can easily be integrated into the Flaw framework. Dynamic Flaws Building on the above, lingering Benefits of Victory or Consequences of Defeat from Flaw challenges could be applied to the Flaws themselves. This could either be done in a direct fashion, such that Victory in a Flaw challenge makes it easier to overcome the next time while Defeat makes the next flaw challenge harder - or - in an inverse fashion, such that overcoming your Flaw today means that it will be a bigger challenge the next time. The latter approach somewhat parallels the Pass/Fail cycle dynamic. Which approach one chooses would impact the tone of the game through the nature of the Characters' personal struggles. Extended Flaws A long term struggle with addiction, a vendetta, outlawry, poverty, societal acceptence, curses, and so on can be modeled as an extremely Extended Contest with one's Flaw. Keep track or Result Points from any Flaw challenge, and whenever the Player or the Flaw hit 5RP, assess the degree of Victory or Defeat based on the spread. Depending upon that result the nature of the Flaw and its severity (rating, penalty, however you're doing it) will change. A vendetta might escalate to a blood feud or calm to a respectful rivalry. An addict might become more regularly functional or fall off the wagon. A Complete Victory might resolve the Flaw entirely, while a Complete Defeat might add a Mastery to the Flaw's severity or add a new Flaw.

Glad to share. Here is a list method array I put together a couple years ago for playing Monster High (or Everafter High, or Descendants, or...) with my daughters. For a teen-PC game, the characters' role within the school's micro-society replaces the profession that might describe how an adult fits within the broader world. Sadly, yes, Nameless Streets is OOP and the HQ version is unlikely to be republished. You might be able to find a 2nd-hand harcopy, but I'd look on ebay or Noble Knight rather than Amazon, as the latter's price-bots think folks are willing to pay $120+ for a rare item, despite those same half-dozen hard copies being offered for sale for a year or more. Short version on the Flaw variant is that when the GM presents a Flaw challenge, instead of rolling the player can simply choose to Fail the roll. Doing so gains the player an additional Hero Point. It's a nice dynamic that rewards leaning-into the Flaw, without being quite so intrusive into the flow of the game as the similar Compel mechanic in Fate can sometimes be.

On a sadder but hopefully useful criticism note, the mashup game I made the list roster above for ended up being played with Savage Worlds. I had more or less sold the other rotating co-GMs, all lifelong gamers who have played lots of different sorts of games over the years - including one published RPG author - on the of use HQ for the ease of prep and challenge balancing it provides and its qualitatively-conceptualized mechanics making it simple to have a cross-genre mashup party on dimension-hopping adventures right out of the box without worrying about balancing a +3 Mithril battle-axe's, armor-piercing rating vs futuristic power armor in a sensible fashion. They pretty much did a 180 when exposed to the rulebooks. Some quotes: Now the time constraint they're mentioning is a factor, but 3/4 of these guys had played in HQ games I've run once or twice before, all played modern games like Fate or Cortex+ before, and all either played in or run long Pendragon campaigns. They still struggled to absorb the rules from the books. I think showing them the quick-ref sheets actually made things worse, as the ones in circulation cram lots of seldom-used things alongside key elements, don't represent relationships between the tables application clearly, and mostly expect the GM to already know what to look for and just need a refresher. They saw a whole bunch of tables without much in the way of context and started making comments about Rolemaster. We had a great time at our old pals' weekend getaway playing our crazy mashup game in Savage Worlds, but sure enough there were the expected headaches trying to balance all the disparate mechanical bits in a satisfying fashion. My point in all this, and here directing to @Ian Cooper and @Jeff in particular, is that despite being a game that can be taught to utter novices in half and hour, and that can trivially have it's complexity dialed up or down to suit a given game/group's needs, in this instance the presentation sunk it. HQ would greatly benefit from a concise quickstart that clearly guides a new person through the key concepts. Similarly a play-aid that groups key related tables together along with notes on their application would be a great boon to adoption. I've started such a thing here, based on Ian and @Corvantir's work elsewhere on this board. I say all this not to bash the game or any author's writing style, but out of love for the game and a desire for it to be more accessible to new people.

Apart from things that are in-setting limited to adults, I'd make them like any other character. Their "profession" keyword and related abilities may be quite different than what an adult character might have, but are not inherently less efficacious at solving problems for which they are well suited than an adult's abilities are. Where the differences would appear would be in how I set resistance for certain things when relying on credibility rather than story flow. Some things will be easier for a kid, some things will be harder. Using a youth-centric ability to tackle adult problems would be more likely to be a stretch, although there would also be angles where a kid's out-of-context approach to an adult challenge might actually be optimal. The player's selection of abilities & flaws will also guide the extent to which the character's youth should be relevant to the narrative. If the character is set up along the lines of Tom Swift or Tin Tin, the youth angle is seldom a big deal as the character interacts with the world much like the adults do. Contrast those stories with the Harry Potter series, where the constraints of the principals' status as juveniles and inexperience is central to the narrative. I think the Fate-ish Flaws-as-Hero-Point-Generators variant introduced in Nameless Streets is worth considering. Deliberately choosing to fail a Flaw roll in exchange for being extra awesome later on can incentivise the sort of story flow where the adults stymie the character's progress in the middle acts, only for the character to dramatically triumph later on (though perhaps in part by having taken the adults' lessons to heart).

Look also at Marginal Victories as opportunities for that sort of "Succss, but at what cost?" dynamic.

Here's a quick list method approach I threw together for an upcoming cross-setting mashup game. It pre-chooses some things and constrains in places so as to guide a player quickly through the process. How to Make a Character in Under Ten Minutes Write a pithy one-liner description of your species/culture/background. Assign it a rating of 15 Come up with two breakout abilities for details or specialties within it. Rate one at +1 and one at +2. Write a pithy one-liner description of your training/profession/experience. Assign it a rating of 17 Come up with three breakout abilities for details or specialties within it. Rate them at +1. +2, and +3. Describe three more abilities to represent other things not covered by the above, or things that are related but distinct enough to merit a seperate ability. These can represent special abilities or powers, connections, character/personality traits, special gear, followers, etc. - basically anything that might help you solve a problem. Rate two of them at 13, one at 15. Write a pithy one-liner description of a distinguishing characteristic, ability, or trait. Either make it it's own ability rated at 17, or a breakout under any of the above at +4 Do ten of the following, note the ability next to each one you choose. "Raise a stand-alone..." ability cannot be used on the same ability as "Add a new +1 breakout.." or "Raise a keyword..." Option Chosen Ability to which applied Raise a stand-alone ability by 1 Raise a stand-alone ability by 1 Raise a stand-alone ability by 1 Raise a stand-alone ability by 1 Raise a stand-alone ability by 1 Raise a breakout ability by bonus by 1 Raise a breakout ability by bonus by 1 Raise a breakout ability by bonus by 1 Raise a breakout ability by bonus by 1 Raise a breakout ability by bonus by 1 Add a new stand-alone ability rated at 13 Add a new stand-alone ability rated at 13 Add a new stand-alone ability rated at 13 Add a new stand-alone ability rated at 13 Add a new +1 breakout to an existing ability Add a new +1 breakout to an existing ability Add a new +1 breakout to an existing ability Add a new +1 breakout to an existing ability Raise a keyword (ability that has breakouts) by 1 Raise a keyword (ability that has breakouts) by 1 Raise a keyword (ability that has breakouts) by 1 Describe 1-3 Flaws. The first has the same rating as your highest ability/keyword. A second gets the same rating as your second highest ability/keyword. A third gets the same rating as your lowest

That's good to know. Understanding the baseline can let us judge where our games are relative to it. What I like about your approach is that it lets the advancement get ahead of the resistance for a while before correcting. I worry that keeping them in balance all he time would make the players feel like they're treading water.

I imagine making a spreadsheet with all the characters abilities on it at the start of play. If the median rating is close to 14, I might just say "Great -that's our base difficulty" and keep the spreadsheet up to date as advancement takes place. If the initial value is too far off from 14, I would probably keep track of the %-change from baseline and apply that as a coefficient to 14. This is more complicated than just following the session count, but it would reflect the actual pace of your players advancement rather than the designers' educated guess (and once it's built the spreadsheet does all the work). It still doesn't address the case where you have Alice spending all her points in play and Bob spending all his on advancement. In a short run, Alice's approach is actually more impactful, but in a long campaign, Bob's character will gradually become more effectual relative to Alice's. I don't think that the extreme case (which admittedly may never arise for many play groups) can be solved without taking away the resource trade-off between in-play boosts and advancement resource. The now-sadly-out-of-print Nameless Streets presented a few alternate advancement schemes, including RuneQuest/Pendragon-style use-it-to-raise-it approaches, along with a Fate-esque Flaws-as-Hero-Point-Generators option. I really like the approach jajagappa laid out above, and will probably try it out at some point. In the game I'm running for my kids & their friends, they start each session with a minimum of one Hero Point, and can gain more in play through deliberately failing Flaw rolls (as in NS) or through particularly good roleplaying. For advancement, I simply give them the opportunity at the end of each adventure to do one of the following: Raise a keyword rating by 1 Raise two different ability ratings or breakout bonuses by 1 Raise one ability/breakout by 1 and add a new ability at 13 or a new+1 breakout. With more experienced gamers, I might add some more options/permutations to that, but for the kids (ages 6-10) I like to keep it simple.