Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Garwalf

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • RPG Biography
    Decline to state
  • Current games
    Decline to state
  • Blurb
    You are not cleared for this information, citizen. Please report for termination.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  2. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  3. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it here (or anywhere else) before: The day I saw it, I thought Disney's Brave was a great Orlanthi myth: You have a red-headed, high-spirited female protagonist (clearly Vinga) who makes a terrible mistake and then has to try to set things right. And what's more Orlanthi/Vingan than that?
  4. Of these films, I think I've only seen The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but I like the idea of Glorantha feeling a lot like Westerns. I know that Robin Laws has discussed this on Ken and Robin Talk about Stuff. To paraphrase: RPG adventurers are like the "heroes" of a Western: They are violent and outside the norms of society, but society needs them around to protect against even *worse* threats. Along these lines, can anybody think of good classic Westerns set at a White fort or settlement, and the concern is the conflict with threatening forces outside? Any films like that could have a
  5. Here's a question I have about the pass/fail cycle: If the heroes have been failing a lot, there's a good chance they will have accumulated penalties, but the logic of the pass/fail cycle* suggests that when the heroes have been failing a lot, they should get an easier victory. The two ideas seem to work against each other. I haven't run enough HQ to see how this works out in actual play. Am I overthinking this? *recognizing, yes, that the pass/fail cycle is a tool, not a rule.
  6. Thank you to the OP and to the respondents who I feel have given me "permission" to use something more generous like 4d6 x 7 to generate ability scores. Lately I've liked ability score arrays for the sake of balance, flexibility, and allowing players to start quickly. For reference and comparison: The 5th edition of That Other Game has a standard ability score array of: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 (Total: 72/average: 12). Add another 12 into the mix for your seventh RuneQuest characteristic and you're set--at least for humans. 13th Age in Glorantha recommends an array of: 17, 15, 14
  7. I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but I've bought the dice to support the following solution: I stick out a huge-*ss red d20 on the table to indicate the difficulty level--a nod to the ever-present Red Moon. (And, no, I don't know how I'll indicate masteries yet.) Each player has 2 d20's of their own--one red (for the narrator/opposition) and one of any other color.
  8. With this sale on, I would appreciate some advice: If I want a copy of Borderlands and Griffin Mountain, is it better to get the .pdf of the originals, or the Gloranthan Classics reprints?
  9. I definitely like the idea of having one stretch penalty rule rather than separate rules for stretches and for specific ability bonuses. Thanks to @Corvantir for bringing this up. This was the next thing I was going to mention (honest!) For me the big confusion was that, as written, I understood the specific ability bonuses to work in different ways, depending on the challenge: Against a personalized opponent, specific ability bonuses/penalties depended on the participants in the contest. For example, if the hero were a Lankhor Mhy sage using her "Heortling" keyword to fight, she wou
  10. This makes sense, but it is never how I have read the rules as written. Like @jrutila, I have been confused about the MOP rules as written in HQ2 and HQG. HQG, pp. 81-82 explicitly addresses *players* as the ones subject to MOP's, and then goes on to discuss how having followers may affect those penalties. HQG p. 107 talks about bunching militias and war gangs together into a single resistance. I feel like there's nothing in the rules as currently written to square this circle. (And I just realized that @JonL said this earlier and better than I.) Again, the more explicit you can be,
  11. Overall, I like the direction this is going. I like the idea of obvious hero improvement relative to challenges, and I definitely like any direct advice to GM's, which is what this sounds like. I have one question: The way you have phrased this, it sounds like all hero "improvement" is really accomplished by the GM fiddling with resistance levels, so the players don't make any changes on their character sheets. Is this correct? If so, that may be a bit of a challenge for players coming from other games where they are used to seeing the improvement in their heroes. I'm not saying it's a ba
  12. I like the rules of thumb that you I like this rule of thumb, and I think it would be a good idea to lay it out pretty clearly, preferably supported by examples. Your mention of rituals makes perfect sense to me, as somebody pretty familiar with Glorantha. I think newbie players may need some help understanding the distinction between what their characters can do while on the latest cattle raid and what members of their cult or community can do by acting together. In general, I like the idea of stating pretty explicitly what players can do with magic. I know that it's a poin
  13. I like the way that HQ2 suggested handling animals (and, by implication, NPC's): Set a block aside with a description and notation of "Significant Abilities" and "Exceptional Abilities." A quick summary like that makes it easier for a GM to run the heroes' opponents in a contest, instead of having to plow through paragraphs of exposition to find a couple of "gameable" nuggets of information.
  14. Also, please clarify and emphasize that "success" and "failure" refer to the players' rolls, while "victory" and "defeat" refer to the results of a contest--i.e., that it's entirely possible to "succeed" on an ability check and still meet "defeat" in the contest. The last time I ran a session at a con, I found that players had difficulty grasping the concept that their victory or defeat hinged on more than their own dice roll. No doubt they were coming in thinking of that *other* game using d20's. Incidentally, some of the "clever dice tricks" mentioned in the thread of that same name loo
  15. Given these options, I would prefer to only give out XP for Major+ Victories/Defeats. That reduces the bookkepping and, more importantly, makes those Major+ victories and defeats that much more special. As others have already pointed out, any variant on the XP system presented here will mean *very* slow advancement for groups that don't play very often. What would this mean for adventures (like most of the existing printed HQ material) where the main rewards come in the form of opportunities to add or improve abilities? Like many here, I personally don't like the idea of setting u
  • Create New...