Mechashef

That example may not be as clear as it seems. I presume you are referring to this bit? Like many other passages it can be interpreted in different ways: The 6 points are spread across multiple damaged hit locations and the player chooses to heal the most badly injured location first It could be a reference to multiple injuries to the same location, hence why it states "worst injury" instead of "most damaged location". I wonder if this wording is an artifact of a draft where Heal Wound had to heal an entire wound or not at all?

Is that how you think it should work, or how you think it does work according to the current RQG rules?

Do Heal Wound (Rune Spell) and Heal (Spirit Spell) allow multiple Hit Locations to be targeted with one casting? Heal Wound (P330) seems to imply it can as the last sentence states: As it states "locations" not "location" it seems that an adventurer could heal a leg and an arm of a friend by touching both locations at the same time. If this is allowable it then leads to at least two interesting tactics: If the caster lies on the recipient they are presumably touching all their hit locations in one casting and can heal all damaged locations. Touch spells don't require skin to skin contact so they can remain clothed. Can the caster touch multiple friends at once? I would guess not as the description for touch spells (P248) states that touch spells "only affect the person or thing which is physically touched by the caster of the spell" . The singular "person or thing" seems to preclude multiple people. Heal (P262) is more debatable and I've always seen it played as just working on one location per casting . It states: It doesn't state that the caster of Heal 3 can't specify the left leg as the designated location to be repaired for the first and second points and the right arm as the designated location for the third point. If the description stated "Each point of Heal repairs 1 hit point in the designated location" then I believe it would be clear that only one location can be healed per casting, but the use of "a" does seem to leave open the possibility of affecting multiple hit locations. Thanks

It is very difficult to write clear rules. It sounds easy but it isn’t. I write and run training courses and things that seem so clear to me are often ambiguous to new people. It can be very challenging to understand how much your prior knowledge affects your understanding of the rules. When you know the intention of the rules (because you created them) it is easy to overlook how they can be read in different ways. The material in RQG about Glorantha is very good (and as I’m not a big fan of Glorantha, take that as a real compliment). Some of the game mechanics are less well written but part of that is the base version was also not written especially clearly. I understand that their play testing included some people who had never played RQ before. I wonder if that included a group completely of new people who read and played it without the assistance of experienced people and the designers?

P55: However, Psullie, I really do like the approach you use and it appears to clear up some of the other questions I have on my list. That does seem to be how it was intended to work (at a guess). This is why I ask these questions. I never thought of interpreting it that way. Thanks.

Thanks MOB. I shall hold off my questions until the next corrections have been released as I'm sure many have already been addressed.

Thanks, That would be my understanding too. I am fully aware that some of the questions I'm asking (and will ask) seem to be noob questions, but I'm also aware that my interpretations of the rules may: Have always been wrong or Are correct for a previous version but not for RQG. I'm trying to reset my mind back as if RQ was new and look at what is actually written, not what my memory is telling me is there. Again, thanks.

P148 states: So damaging a 2 point arm for 5 points brings the arm to -2 HP and subtracts 4HP from the adventurer's total HP. It is implied that if the arm is hit again, more damage can be inflicted on the adventurer's total HP. What is the limit? If the arm is damaged for another 3 points in a subsequent attack does it now go to -5 HP and is another 3 points subtracted from the total HP? It does not stae that the head, chest or abdomen are limited to twice as much damage as their normal HP (however 3 times as much damage results in instant death). Does this mean that those locations can take up to ((3 times the normal HP for the location) minus 1 HP) in a single attack without instant death? So an adventurer with 4HP for their head could take ((4X3) -1) = 11HP of damage to the head without instant death? The example on P48 (2nd column) with Harmast seems to go against this. He has a total of 10 HP and is hit to the head for 9 points of damage. He has 4 HP for his head. He is knocked unconscious but is left with 2 total HP, implying he only took 8 points of damage. This is in keeping with the rule for arms and legs, not for head, chest or abdomen. Thanks

You could indeed be correct as P418 (Making a POW Gain Roll) states: I hope you are correct as I like how it makes 2D6+6 potentially much more powerful than 3D6

Slightly off topic but something that may have escaped some people. The maximum value for both INT and SIZ for humans is 21. This is clearly stated due to the Max Rollable value plus number of Dice used rule. If the maximum value was the alternative (old rule) of Max Rollable Value plus Lowest rollable value then by my calculations it would be possible to have humans up to SIZ 22. Why 22? SIZ is generally not trainable but can be increased as part of the adventurer creation process. So we could: Roll 18 (using 2D6 + 6) Add 2 if the adventurer’s primary Rune is Darkness. Add 2 if the adventurer is a Bison Rider. That totals 22. But using the current rules the human maximum for SIZ is 21 so limits it to 21. Yes, a bit off topic, but I get the impression that some people may have missed that INT and SIZ for humans can exceed 18.

Your approach seems reasonable (and I suspect that is how many people have interpreted it). I suspect you are also right in that by the book 1D6+12 should be a max of 20. But as written, P52 would have that as a max of 31 (assuming it is Pow).

I think (hope) if Pow was meant to be an exception to the other stats it wold have been explicitly mentioned as being an exception in the blanket statements of how the maximum value is calculated. As it is only mentioned in one place (that I have spotted), I'm assuming that is a "typo" (or perhaps a "cut and pasto") but there are probably people here who know better than I do.

It can make quite a difference. Page 52 (and also Page 6 of the Bestiary) makes it clear that the rules also apply to non-humans. Green Elves (for example) have a Pow of 2D6+6. Using the formula of Max rollable plus the number of dice gives 18+3=21. (i.e two rolls of 6, plus 6 and then 3 for the number of dice) Using Max rollable plus Min rollable gives 18+8=26. (i.e two rolls of 6, plus 6 and then two rolls of 1, plus 6)

On Pages 52 and 417 it states that the maximum value for a characteristic (excluding magical enhancements) is the maximum amount rollable on the characteristic dice, plus the number of dice. For humans this equates to 21: (3D6 = 18) + (3 Dice = 3) = 21 or (2D6 + 6 = 18) + (2 Dice + the add of 6 counts as one additional die) = 21 However in the last paragraph in the section describing the characteristic of Power on Page 52, I states: While this difference in terminology does not have an effect for humans, it would for other races. I presume the Max Rollable + Min Rollable is simply a hang over from a previous version of RQ (such as RQ3) and should be ignored? Thanks

I have always written the combine value on the sheet, but when doing Experience Check Rolls, I subtract the Category Bonus and add it to the roll, thus allowing it to benefit that roll. That probably makes me over generous. If using a character sheet that I'm writing on, I only write the values in for the skills that do not have their default (plus category modifier) value to avoid clutter. If using a character sheet that I fill in electronically and print at will I tend to fill in values for all skills the character has. Perhaps clarification on how to fill in these details could go in the upcoming GM book to help new GMs/Players

The Reinforcements Principle: when still learning the game system, stage encounters where the enemies are weaker than you estimate they should be, but where they can bring in reinforcements if more challenge is desired. It is usually easier to add enemies during a battle than to remove them.

I can see both sides. There is a huge variety of playing styles, ranging from what could be described as Roll Playing, where almost every encounter leads to weapons being drawn and a furious bout of combat dice rolling, to true Role Playing where the participants explore societies using a gaming framework that has a combat mechanism (or so their memories tell them). All these are valid. Though it is not always true, there is an age/maturity bias here, and as most of the die hard RQ players rate towards the higher end of both those, it is not surprising that many people on this forum are placed far more towards the Role Playing end of the spectrum. However, responses such as “go and play a different game” really don’t help. CRs will always be very tricky to implement for RQ. If, like me, you are like the hack and slash type of play, then here are some suggestions: As mentioned before, avoid large, strong foes and ones with multiple attacks. Stage encounters where the bad guys are weaker than you estimate the should be, but can bring in reinforcements if you want more challenge for the adventures. It is easier to add enemies during a battle than to remove them (I shall go and add that to the GM advice thread).

By "stacking" I presume it is meant that you can't try and augment ability A with ability B and then while that augment is still in effect, augment ability A with ability C in an attempt to get two lots of bonuses for ability A. But Can I augment ability B with ability C, then use the now higher value for ability B to augment ability A. This is probably a bad example, but I mean something like this: Adventurer Jade and a bandit have been fighting on top of a speeding wagon when it hits an obstacle, throwing them both to the ground. Both have taken some damage from the accident (the bandit is down to one HP in his left leg) and have lost their weapons. Climbing to their feet the two combatants face off and begin to wrestle. Jade's player wants to use Scan to augment their adventurer's grapple skill (the justification is that the Scan skill will allow Jade to spot if the bandit is not moving properly due to injury, such as limping - Search may be an alternative) . However, Jade's Scan skill is not great so the player wants to try and augment Scan with their Fire/Sky Rune (as Scan is a Perception skill) So can Jade augment Scan with the Fire/Sky Rune, then use the now improved Scan to augment Grapple? Is this allowable or is it also considered to be stacking? Thanks

4 F and 11 M. The males generally took a few moment to consider their reply before stating that the images were not OK for work etc. The females answered immediately and with typical responses such as "never" and "absolutely not". 1 F and 4M were gamers. Please note, to clear up any misunderstanding, none of the 15 argued that the book had no right to have such images. Just that they were not suitable for work, reading on the bus etc. Now that is fine, there are many RQGs that fall into that category. On the other hand, the Government Department I work in has a Yammer group devoted to D&D. There is a guy on my floor who often has a couple of D&D manuals on his desk and I have seen him flip through them to answer Yammer questions or when talking to other gamers. Why would we not want similar behaviour for RQG? I've been playing RQ for around 35 years (and many here would have similar and longer spans). RQG is great, but it is still going to be a challenge to move it beyond a niche game. Surely what we want is to give the game every opportunity to be a success, not place extra hurdles in its way. It is terribly difficult to compete against the D&D behemoth. Why handicap ourselves by producing books that are not suitable to be read in some places, when the big player doesn't generally have that problem? Why make the task harder than it needs to be? Do we really want gamers to grab a D&D manual to read on the bus or at lunch instead of grabbing RQG? But I'm not in the gaming industry, so I'll bow to the experts and trust in their knowledge of where the industry is, and where it is moving. Despite what a couple of people seem to think, I really want RQG to succeed. My apologies to anyone I offended.

The Do More With Small Principle: Large, strong creatures with decent weapons, such as Dark Trolls, can be extremely lethal when a Critical is rolled. For adventuring groups that have not yet accumulated potent healing abilities make more use of small foes with high skills as bosses instead of large creatures.

Thanks, I was hoping that was the intent.

Over the past few days, I have discussed this issue with friends who work in various government departments, friends who work in private industry (typically large multinationals) my adult sons who graduated college (last year of high school) a couple of years ago, their friends, and my teenage daughter. Every one of them has without hesitation stated that at least a couple of the images are Not Safe for Work. As some people guessed, I'm a contractor for a Government Department (I'm actually a permanent employee for an American Software Company). There are images in the book that are not appropriate for work for either of those organisations (yes that does include the US company for those who insist that this is just an Australian thing). That is not my opinion. That is not me trolling. That is a fact. Perhaps it would be interesting for people to bring the book into their workplace and ask their manager or HR department to give an opinion (this especially applies to the poster whose son has just moved to Canberra. I wonder what his employer's opinion would be). I have no doubts some organisations would have no issues with the images. But some others will. No-one I showed the images to would be comfortable reading them (either in electronic or paper form) at their desk or while having lunch at the local mall. The thoughts on acceptability at schools did vary, from not acceptable at public high school to probably Ok at public college, to definitely not allowable at private schools. People can argue all day about how that is wrong and if it was them in this position they would stand up for their rights but as a contractor you don't get fired, they just don't renew your contract (the Department doesn't have to give a reason for that), but as it is not your house and family that are at risk, your opinions mean nothing to me. I repeat that I myself do not have a problem with the images. I was actually surprised at how overwhelming the response was (it was particularly strong from the women I consulted). My paycheck doesn't depend on how well the books sell, but if it did, at the very least I would be doing some research into this issue. And as a heads up for those who are not from this country, be very wary about listening to other's opinions on Canberra. Many Australians have an uninformed (or deliberately inaccurate) view of the city. Sure, as it is only about 400,000 people it doesn't have the nightlife to compare with a city of 4 million or more, but it is actually the least conservative Australian city. For example until recently it was the porn capital of the country, the first to legalise brothels and the first to legalise Same Sex Marriage (though that was overturned by the Federal Government because we are a Territory not a State) and iirc the first to decriminalise marijuana. Besides both the Government Department and the Multinational I work for exist in other states (including offices in Sydney and Melbourne) so it is not just a Canberra thing.

Thanks. Yes Page 145 is lovely and clear on that. It is a pity that Pages 229 (Inspiration by Rune) and 236 (Inspiration by Passion) are less clear. Is the intention that for one session each ability can: - Only be used to augment one other ability? - Only be augmented by one other ability? Thanks again

I have some questions about augmenting Abilities: 1) Does successfully using a skill to augment an Ability qualify for an Experience Gain roll for that skill? While the results of an Augment Success, Special or Critical seem clear, the results of a failure seem less clear. 2) Does a fail (or fumble) for an augment attempt using a Rune or Passion result in a penalty for the roll for the Ability that was being augmented? For an augment attempt using a Skill the answer is clearly yes, but the rules don’t seem to state that when a Rune or Passion is used. 3) Am I correct in understanding that an augment attempt using a Passion that fails (but not fumbles) results in a 10% penalty for all subsequent 1D100 rolls for that character until the situation (such as a battle) ends. Thanks

The Sore Thumb Principle: Create and use wandering merchants, itinerant entertainers etc who are exactly what they appear to be. This is so your ones who are really ogre merchants, foreign spies etc, are not really obvious.