Jon Hunter

13 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Annual. After discussing soldier's salaries with Jeff, I seriously reduced them to the levels shown above. I also found that when I calculated the theoretical 'salary' (in terms of the likely profit from the land and 'tenants' allocated to them) of a weaponthane or housecarl, they earned approximately the same as a Lunar Centurion or Troop-Leader, or a Lunar ‘Double-pay’ soldier, respectively.

The amounts of money adventurers often have is seriously way over the money/goods available to everyone else.

I think there is an issue there.  

I think the figures you gave are probably historically accurate, but don't add up with price lists and cash sloshing round the system especially from RQ2 eras supplements.

Where we would see the price dagger as being a soldiers whole years salary, or a bow as the best part of a commanders yearly salary.

When we start to look at training and spell costs it just gets ridiculous.

I think we either need to look at a complete rehaul of all price lists, monster treasure, spell and training costs published or accept that the Gloranthan monetary system is an not an accurate reflection of bronze age economics.

also i think its a bug that caught not a understanding thats taught

hmmmmm also for solo play i think city based stuff around Pavis works much better than rubble runs, rubble adventures will thrash small parties of non rune level characters.

3 hours ago, g33k said:

Note that smaller ships can have shallow-ish absolute drafts even with deep keels "relative" to the ship...

Maybe a removable keel is possible?

I was thinking of a mid draft boat, something designed to operate on either, but excellent at neither.

Also depends on your river, the thames always took deep water vessels as far as London, though galleys couldn't traverse the delta at the nile without significant help. 

Play a game and then.....

let him read the cults of prax story .......

thats what worked for me.

Cheers, bought

I'm prone to agree with Dave here;

Praxian is so utilitarian a society, and combats vrs chaos (the primal enemy of the culture) so deadly that it doesn't fit.

It could fit with a Balazaring or other less pressed culture quite nicely.

but as said YGMV.

5 hours ago, Mark Mohrfield said:

That contradicts a post in an earlier thread where it was suggested that a shallow draft ship would be able to do both.

What sort of ships would be suitable for the different environments?

Historically some could, viking long ships were able to do both quite well.

I think certain sea going vessels can deal with rivers, but will struggle with small shallow rivers.

What you really don't want to do is take a river going vessel onto the open sea. 

I'm sure there are vessels that can do both, but not optimal for either they will not as safe on the open sea or as manoeuvrable and easy to navigate on rivers.

Variables will be the depth and current of rivers, the natures of the seas is question, seasons, technology, tradition and the effects of magic.

Glorantha is  primarily a game world, maybe one or two players might appreciate the extra bit of detail that a change of boat between the river and sea portion of there voyage, but most won't even notice you worried about it. 

12 minutes ago, kaydet said:

@Jon Hunter Obviously you have to do what works for you and your group. Try it and see what happens! I'm just a bit skeptical. It seems to me that I'd prefer to wait fifteen minutes between actions, and be involved the whole game session, rather than a brief intense burst of activity followed by a drawn out period of waiting while everyone else finishes their combats.

If length of combat is a concern, it's usually the number of dice rolls that are to blame. 

Maybe try something like this:

• Come up with a rough table for your combat based on the NPCs, in this case A and B. A has a 70% Attack and Parry, and B has an 80% Attack and Parry. Thus, A has a 14% chance of striking B and B failing to parry; B has a 24% chance.
• For each pair like this roll one d100: 01-14 means that A struck B, and 77-100 means the reverse. Use the expectation value for weapons damage, and check that against armor, subtracting final damage done from total hit points rather than locations. Or maybe just rule that one hit is enough to put a combatant out of the fight.

Obviously this is just an off the cuff idea that I would only use for NPCs, but I think it might work with a little refinement. You could probably work in probabilities for Specials, Criticals, and Fumbles if you really wanted to, but I haven't bothered to do so here because it just complicates what's supposed to be a simple tool. I admit that using this method means that you do lose a lot of detail, but you probably don't need that much for NPCs. Save the full combat rules for those involving your PCs -- they should be in the spotlight anyway.

 

That's a usuable system, but i just tend to roll dice ignore them and make up what makes the best story for npc on npc diceroles.

57 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I'm not sure how this differs from the normal RQ combat, except in that you've created many different combats out of what was once one unified whole.

Seems like this approach would add confusion while also robbing characters of the ability to influence the larger fight once their section of the combat is finished.

Its not a rules change its juts organising it for speed and flow.

If you don't find large RQ2  combats clunk and difficult to manage you are fine, if you do it is a possible solution.

I have been a programmer by trade, if something gets big and unweidly, chop it up into small bits.

I have in my time found a complex RQ combats take an entire evenings gaming, or sat for 15 minutes between actions.

An idea that came to mind when replying to thread on the Facebook page, this is a reffing technique I use in my WOD games, to simplify and speed combats in a clunky and occasionally difficult combat system.  Which i think most of us will agree that RQ combat can be slow as well.  I think it will work well as a reffing style/technique for RQ combat.

I find round by round combats with multiple opponent using multiple tactics on each side can get bogged down as you are trying to work through multiple actions.  Sometimes a good few minutes can work through between players individual actions;  a rhythm of combat isn't created and a consistency of action can be lost.

My suggestion is to formalise something i have been using informally. In creating combat sequences, which are groups of rounds in which actions take place. Splitting the larger combat down into a number of micro combats or duels. Broad actions are declared for the sequence, Then Playing through each micro combat quickly through all turns of the sequence.  Summarizing the combat and allowing  players to  declaring broad actions for the next sequence were people can change targets, or make major changes in tactics after every sequence.

Reasons for this are

• I think this actually replicates the rhythm of combat where people make decisions, make a number of actions based on the decision, pause, reaxmine decisions, act again
• It splits combat down into manageable chunks, making the whole process faster
• Each micro conflict generates its own rhythm, which can be fast and has a feel of parry, riposte, act and counter act, without waiting for everyone else action and that feel being lost
• Different characters can be paired off against relevant and challenging opponents
• Supporting characters have interesting decisions on which micro combats to support
• It stops powerful combat characters hogging all of the game time and resolving everything 
• I think thought its complex to talk through and write down in practice it will speed things up and add simplicity
• It can be used to add drama - ( ie just survive to the end of the sequence when the help can arrive )

OK so a detailed break down; 

• The ref determines the length of a combat sequence based on how long is reasonable for a micro conflict to resolve.  This would usually be 3 to 6 combat rounds. The more even opponents are the longer it should be.
• Players declare broad actions for the sequences, 'i'm  engaging the main dark troll warrior', "i standing shielded behind our main warrior to cast defensive spells and heals', 'im shooting the troll priest who isn't engaged in combat', 'i'm engaging the flanking trollkin warriors', 'i'm waiting to support where i'm needed.'
• The ref then splits the combat down into the largest number of micro combats that make sense. 
  • `Players will be in only 1 micro combat or waiting to support.
  • Compressed melees or shield walls where multiple targets are viable probably need to 1 micro combat
  • Ranged attackers usually will be able to engage other ranged attackers and supporting players but not into melees
• Resolve range and magical actions first, Any supporting players make a decision on the order the melee micro combats will be resolved, based on which micro combats they are paying most attention to.
• Melee Micro combats are resolved in order, through the whole turn sequence, supporting players can join a  micro combat at any time, but once they are committed to one they are committed to it for the whole combat sequence.
• At the end of the combat sequence the ref recaps the whole scene, making sense of carnage which has just happened, representing a natural break in combat
• The players then decide actions for the next sequence

Some thoughts in applying this technique.

• Apply liberal common sense
• Always allow for coup the gras moves on downed players by NPC's to be responded to by either breaking the rules , or making the coup the gras part of another combat sequence.

Has any body tried similar and what do you think?

55 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:

In Glorantha, humans are composed of Runes. The Orlanthi believe that  people have five souls, one for each element; eight Temperaments, one for each Power; and Seven Attributes. The Lunars believe that ordinary humans have six souls, with their Way permitting the acquiring a seventh soul; the mystical self.

These are all Rune related, and to remove Runes from a Gloranthan human would be like removing all the atoms from a terrestrial human.

So in Glorantha, Runes define a person's humanity, not distort it.

 

What i'm driving at here is in the story's of the great heros of Glorantha such as Arkat is that the power corrupts. 

Heros loose empathy and loyalty to there people and tend to become avatars of a higher purpose.

You could argue about words such as 'definition' or 'distortion', but in the stories of Glorantha how I read them, I see a trend of hero's creating doom for themsleves and there people as they are driven by higher forces.

3 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Context is everything:

Light Orlanthi tend to herd or hunt more than farm, and so will tend to use hunting weapons over expensive ones.

I'd agree thus I was surprised to see see sword as secondary and spear as tertiary, as spears are hunting weapons and sword are expensive ones.

Quote

Sword Orlanthi herd, farm, and hunt, and fight incessantly. The wealthiest will own swords.

Agreed on the points again, but we seem to disagree on the outcome. Depends what you defined as primary and secondary. There will be more spears than swords but swords will be the weapon of choice of professional warriors.

Also depends how you define light Orlanthi and Sword Orlanthi, i assume light orlanthi were skirmishes and sword orlanthi were thanes, is there another definition?

10 minutes ago, soltakss said:

They are if they agree with your point and are not if they disagree with your point. 

Some information in old WFs are just plain wrong, some things have changed over the years, but most of it is still valid.

lol ....

The view stated is counter intuitive to all the real world information i get,

Skirmishes tended to be poorer warriors without the quality kit, heavier infantry tends to be more professional warriors with better kit.

Thus swords being better kit are more likely to be used by sword thanes  than skirmishes. Glorantha may vary for various reasons , but its counter intuitive compared to RW history.

12 hours ago, davecake said:

Jon, I don't think we actually disagree on much. Absolutely the surrounding culture makes a huge difference. Being heavily aligned with a Rune that your culture values usually is socially valued and understood and a functional role - while being heavily aligned with a Rune your culture rejects may be more difficult. Though in both cases it's not as simple as that - it's really more about fitting into an understood social role via cult or similar, and most Gloranthan societies still have some understood social roles for those devoted to a Rune out of the mainstream. But being a devotee, or otherwise strongly devoted to a Rune, whether it is socially accepted or not, is still always psychologically distorting. A fanatic or an obsessive is still weird, even if you also support the thing they are fanatic about. 

 

The Elder races are a bit different - and not all in the same way. I do think 95% or so of elves would qualify as devoted to the Plant Rune - but the ones that are not, the Rootless Elves, still have a social role, still are accepted within society. 

And as for the Man Rune - well, those who are devoted to the Man Rune are going to see it as normal and grounding to be obsessed with your community (which is what Man Rune cults are - eg family (Ancestor Worship) or city. Others are going to see that it as just another thing to be obsessed about. To an Orlanthi, a Man Rune devotee is going to be weird for not caring enough about the weather, which determines the crops, that feeds us all! To a Yelmic noble, a Man Rune devotee is weird for caring more about public opinion and other mundanities than about divine justice, and thus fails to understand the true foundations of community. It's all relative. 

 

I think we disagree on a little, and its hopefully its not an argument but a exercise in persuasion, or an exploration of ideas via debate.

I think the runes have an effect culturally, phsycological & physically/mystically.

I think we are complete agreement about the social and physiological elements and their effect.

However I believe all races have innate ties to certain runes which are physical and mystical in nature. An Orlanthi who has no ancestors who has ever used the man rune, is still defined by it, because his nature is that of a man. The same a troll darkness and a Aldryami plant. This isn't about cultural or religious preferences its about nature.

I think you are viewing things through the lense of religious affiliation and use of runes only. care to comment ?

19 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

This is derived from the canonical information in Wyrms Footnotes #15 in an article by Greg Stafford.

and Greg never got anything wrong or changed his mind on anything?

I'm not sure if all the old Wyrms Footnotes are still canon as such?  I wait to be corrected on that one.

On 29/07/2017 at 7:38 PM, M Helsdon said:

It might be worth considering the use of weapons by different Gloranthan cultures, where some aren't connected with the Runes of the relevant religion... 'Favored Weapon' does not indicate these are the only weapons used by that group, just the most likely. So many groups use spears or swords, even if their religion isn't a Sky or Air cult (though of course there may be a mythological rationale that the god stole it from another). There's some Runic correspondence, but it is far from absolute.

Favored Weapons

Group	Primary	Secondary	Tertiary
Black Horse Troop
Ridderan	Kontos	Sword	Dagger
Grazelanders
Golden Bow	Composite Bow	Kontos	Broadsword
Grazelander	Kontos	Composite Bow	Broadsword
Hsunchen
Basmoli	Bow	Spear	Dagger
Telmori	Javelin	Spear	Short Sword
Orlanthi
Dark Orlanthi	Club or Mace	Sling	Javelin
Earth Tarsh	Spear	Axe	Bow
Light Orlanthi	Bow	Sword	Spear
Old Hendriki	Spear	Sword	Javelin or Sling
Sword Orlanthi	Spear	Sword	Javelin
Tarshite	Spear	Short Sword	Bow
Yelmalion	Bow	Long Spear	Javelin
Praxians
Bison	Lance	Sword	Javelin
Bolo-Lizard	Bolas	Spear	Dagger
High Llama	Lance	Javelin	Broadsword
Impala	Composite bow	Darts	Short sword
Ostrich	Boomerang	Javelin/ Spear	Short sword
Pol-Joni	Lance	Sword	Bow
Rhino	Lance	Axe	Mace
Sable	Any	Any	Any
Unicorn	Composite bow	Sword	Lance
Zebra	Composite bow	Lance	Sword
Sun Dome Temple
Militia	Spear	Bow	Short sword
Templar	Sarissa	Bow	Short sword

Not sure if you were looking for feedback/polite disagreement; but a couple of points.

1) Light Orlanthi would probably use a spear more commonly than a sword due to cost and expense of a sword.

2) Sword Orlanthi probably would use the sword before spear due to the prestige of the expensive sword that they have, and as its a warriors weapon rather than a common weapon.

On 18/08/2017 at 5:08 AM, davecake said:

Chaos clashes with human nature, because Chaos clashes with nature. That is intrinsic to Chaos. Undeath is inimical to human nature, because human nature is to be either alive or dead.

But Death and Disorder do not clash with human nature at all. They are part of it. We all die, we can all kill. There are always some who bridle against the status quo a little and want to change things. All of the power runes are intrinsic parts of the mortal experience. All of the Element runes (except maybe Moon) are intrinsic and essential parts of the world. 

But any Rune, whether it is part of human nature or not, once you start to draw on it for magical power (especially via theist methods, which require direct identification with the power of the rune) will create a feedback effect, where it begins to influence you. Whether from magic or not (and I think it is very unusual, though not impossible, to become that focussed on a single rune for non-magical reasons), if you are extremely strong in one rune you start to become unbalanced, focussed on some parts of the life out of proportion to others. Sometimes this is functional, sometimes it is not, but always it is a departure from psychological normality. 

I don't think the Man rune is special in this regard. A person who is very focussed on the Man rune is focussed on the doings of humanity a great deal, perhaps more than is normal (or even healthy). They immerse themselves in personal experience, in the details of others - but they lose focus on the natural world around them, and on bigger, more abstract issues. Focussed on their community and family and all its small dramas, at its most dysfunctional a gossip unable to see the broader issues beyond those internal to the local community. Subtler, but still a case of distortion of individual psychology. The classic Man rune cults are ancestor worship (concerned with ones family) or City cults (concerned with that local community), both focussed on the microcosm. 

Our Gloranthas may vary in this regard...

I see races and maybe be even peoples having runic associations, to align onself with rune associated with you race or culture will be easier to cope with than a rune not associated or contrary to your culture or race.

ie a troll aligned to fire rune will have a harder time than a troll aligned to a darkness rune, a mostali associated with movement with be seen as being different difficult and even broken.

If races and cultures have innate runic associations ( and I think this has been established in Glorantha ) a characters would not be as adversely effected by his association with that rune, I also think its is not ridiculous to think that a grounding in the innate which helps define a person nature means that other runes would not have as greater distorting effect. 

Martin far to much for me to go back on piece by piece, but can i comment on this.

Quote

 

Many of the weapons were there to be used by bigger, stronger races, whilst crossbows date way back to the 6th century BC in China, and the 5th century BC in Greece. There were Bronze Age rapiers - or at least they are called than because of their long thin blades. Chainmail goes way back - it is said to have been invented by the continental Celts, and there are Etruscan examples dating to the 4th century BC.

Guilds have been common throughout history, with equivalents in Rome, and similar organizations in ancient Greece and Babylonia.

Townsmen - urbanization goes way back.

Artwork - down to the artists not having a feel for the game setting, perhaps.

 

My irk is that there is this desire to preserve the RQ2 rules as being correct and almost perfect, rather than light years ahead of its time, but still somewhat primitive and incomplete in separating RQ2 from the generic fantasy mush/collage which was being widely published at the time.

In my theology I encounter people who  are absolutely desperate to believe the kind James Bible is world for word infallible in english, even as a conservative (in theological terms) scholar i know its not even a remotely plausible position. But i see people trying to retro fit very bizarre arguments and explanations in to Justify this position.

I kind of see parts of the community trying to do that with RQ2, trying to make it more than it was.

It was great, it is how I fell in love with Glorantha, but I see it as young and a little naive, it was at times incomplete and imprecise. It set a stunning trajectory, but didn't always fulfil it.

Therefore to justify every element and say its was consistent and correct just isn't needed. 

• The weapons were a list which just hadn't been completely thought through and contained stuff that shouldn't have been common. The crossbows described included abralests not 5th century BC Chinese variants. Polearms were designed to take on platemail which doesn't exists in the world, Chainmail is iron age/late antiquity but popular and common in the dark ages on-wards (send art work to Jeff with chainmail on it and see how bronze age he thinks it is ), and if you think that the writers at the time meant that rapiers were the of the ancient Greek variety I think you are engaging in an act of revisionism that would make a Christian fundementalist blush.
• What we know of roman and earlier guild structures is very very thin, remember RQ2 guilds included the 'thieves guild', the foresters and horse masters guild, and all were presented as secular organisations at that point.  The roman religious guild thing is a good retrofit, but that is what it is its a retrofit to explain an inconsistency.
• Agreed about that but, townsmen without explanation gives a middles ages feel, i think it could have meant that but was never explained in that way.
• The artwork was a mixed bag some was ancient world and some was more generic fantasy (thinking inside of pavis books especially)

However the individual answers are not the point i'm trying to make. The point i'm trying to make is that RQ2 was almost 40 years ago now, just cause it was awesome for then doesn't mean we have to pretend it was things it wasn't.  It was flawed it was imprecise and inconsistent. It set a bronze age trajectory and agenda, but to my eyes didn't fulfil it consistently, but that's OK because its only a game.

OK you stand a chance of letting loose a hobby horse here

First whats good about the bronze age/ancient world setting is it makes the world immediately different from the Generic Fantasy medievil / Tolkienesh mishmash that D&D popularised.  That difference gives it an immediate sense of 'other' and distinction.  It also draws the eye to world and not the system, and i've always thought RQ's strength was Glorantha. 

On the hobby horse front, I struggle with respecting the current party line of 'RQ2 was completely bronze age' and RQ3/Hero Wars undermined that by bringing Celtic/Saxon/Viking influences in to define the Orlanthi, and that recent changes are purely a revision to RQ2 standards, if i'm being polite id call it spin, being direct i'd call it horse shit.

 RQ2 had a good few elements within the rules that were clearly hadn't made the break fully away from a generic fantasy/medi evil setting - 

• Weapons & Armour Lists - Great Swords, Pole Axes, Crossbows as described, Rapiers as described, Chainmail,  all mainly medievil weapons
• Guilds - a Medievil Social structure.
• Class of Townsmen - could be argued either way but had a very medievil feel in its presentation.
• Artwork for people within the Pavis/Big Rubble books often had a medievil even Renaissance feel.

Did it matter? Not really, RQ2 was far better than anything else I saw or gamed with at the time in terms of culture, world and definition. Its only matters if you start to claim that RQ2 was the halcyon days on undlituted Bronze age Glorantha, and anything we've changed recently is a return to RQ2 .

In the RQ3 Renaissance( particularly strangers in Prax, Dorastor and King of Satar), Kind of Dragon Pass and HW, the definition of the Orlanthi with strong Celtic/Saxon/Viking influences added massively to both definition of Glorantha, its sense of otherness, and defined the Orlanthi in a way that brought strong distinction between them and the surrounding cultures. even though they were more iron/dark age than bronze age influences.

The recent aversion to this description and a move to a more Mediterranean pure bronze age theme for the Orlanthi,to my mind removes much of richness from Glorantha, reduces usable Orlanthi materials, makes the Gloranthan cultures significanlty less distinct from each other.

It also makes the games much less accessible, if you say the Orlanthi are similar to the Hallstatt people and the Lunars as Similar to Assyrian empire, most people will not have a clue what you mean. To my mind is self indulgent of the design team.

I would consider myself as a moderately well educated man, with a passing interest in British and European history, I had never heard of the Halstatt people before debates on here. The Assyrians I knew more about because id studied the Old testament, but I think  am in a minority position here. Real world parallels need to be rooted in real world cultures which a target market know something about and can identify with or else they are meaningless.

Pondering ..... i do like to ponder led me to another thought.

Though there is canon and structure to Glorantha there is also room in Glorantha for a lot of your own weirdness without upsetting the mix.

I think runes will touch different people in different ways, and its a role playing opportunity where players can express these differently.

These are the broad principles I think should apply

• Most runes distort a persons character away from there humanity
• The man rune is the obvious exception
• The greater the runic power the greater the distortion of a characters humanity
• This effect will be obvious with some and subtle with others but it will be there
• Different runes will have more obvious effect as they obviously clash with the human nature - chaos, death, disorder, undeath, 
• Other runes which are more in keeping with the human nature will have more subtle effects, but as characters becomes more powerful in a rune they become less human and more an avatar of an rune. examples - life, harmony, movement, truth
• As a character becomes more powerful in a rune, the rune tries to asserts as much control of the individual as the individual does over the rune
• Balancing these runes with a strong association with the man rune limits these effects

When I put together WOD:Glorantha I allowed the buying of rune related flaws, and merits which including derangement every time a rune was increased in power, so as characters advance in there Runes, they gain a unique collection flaws, quirks and derangements and advantages that reflect their runic associations.

oh juts these guys ...........  

•   https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/aegean-states/products/persian-immortals-regiment
•   https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/aegean-states/products/persians-archers
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1144-persian-slingers-i-4?variant=4539266371
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1145-persian-peasants-4?variant=4539267331
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1195-scythian-infantry-4?variant=4539290435
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1211-persian-guard-i-4?variant=4539294979
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1221-persian-elite-infantry-ii-4?variant=4539298307
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1222-persian-peasants-with-spears-4?variant=4539298627
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1263-persian-slingers-ii-4?variant=4539309059
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1271-persian-cavalry-ii-3?variant=4539317123
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1282-persian-infantry-i-4?variant=4539320195
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1419-persian-peasants-ii?variant=4539351363
•   https://eoeorbisuk.com/collections/ancient/products/ia1143-persian-elite-infantry-i-4?variant=4539266179
 

Persians, so many good Persian miniatures out there, distinct look and feel and there shields have such a hint of moon about there shape?

Do they  pass as Carmanian?

On 31/07/2017 at 0:35 PM, KeithN said:

Does anyone else use Plastic soldier review http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/Review.aspx?id=918, as a resource for this sort of thing? 

 

I think most people prefer the 25 - 28mm size.... so may i politley suggest

http://28mmreview.blogspot.co.uk/p/dir.html

If martin doesn't think its gazumping his idea I may dig into this a little more.