Jon Hunter

OK i'm going somewhere with this ....

• We have Balazar who was at the tale end of the anti EWF rebels, invading/liberating the votanki
• We have an Empire which was widley removed from history as much as possible throughout southern Peloria.
• We have the great dragon project that would see the EWF taking an active interest in this area which would have been part of the wings
• We also have a number of ruins and strange magical effects which kick off in Balazar and Elder wilds ( Griffin Mountain Special Encounters) which don't have explanation or reason.

It would seem there is room for a 100 or so years of interesting EWF background happening in Balazar which has been forgotten, removed from the histories or even rewritten. ie Did Balazar really create those 2 Citadels in 8 years before he got killed with the true Golden Horde?  Why did the Balazarings take to him so quickly? Balazar the liberator rings true there.

I know i'm pushing towards the edge of canon and maybe beyond, but it seems there is room for another layer in the history there.

helpful ....

OK some questions on people opinions of the person of Balazar and the time in the land now called  Balazar just before he showed up.

Id be interested to know people opinions;

• Was Balazaar a Sairdite, Dara Happan or a Pelorian?
• In his reign was Balazaar more advanced or similar to now?
• Had the EWF previously had an civilising effects on Votankiland before Balazar arrived?
• Did the EWF build anything in Votankiland, which has now been destroyed?
• Were there dragonewts in Balazaar in the EWF/ pre dragonkill war period?
• Who built highbridge and when? ( at least first age, maybe earlier)?

 slightly silly addition

Name:  Carmathaen Fighting Trousers

Description:  Brightly patterned and coloured baggy silk trousers

Cults:  Any

Knowledge:  Carmarthen Nobility

History:  During the early part of the 2nd age it was the style for Carmarthaen noblemen to fight duels armed with large two handed blades, but without armour. These duels were usually fought bare chested with baggy ornate pantaloons covering the lower half of the body.

Baiting the opposition and a battle of words became a formal part of the duel, and over time the words became more important and the fighting less so. Eventually duellists who were able to humiliate and better their opponents in the battle of words could sometimes embarrass their opponent into submission before a blow is struck.

Procedure:  These trousers have been used in dozens if not hundreds of duels over the years and start to carry a sense ( and the stains ) of those who have gone before of both the victors and the fallen.

Powers:  If the wearer of the fighting trousers has a round to start to insult , denigrate or ridicule his opponent, he can take an roll on orate, fast talk or intimidate his opponent.

If successful his opponent suffers from the effects of a demoralise spell, and also not attack this round.  The wearer can follow up a second round making the same test and if successful doubles the effect of the demoralise and giving the opportunity for a third test. If this is successful the opponent is so humiliated and demoralised that they concede the fight and retreat.

If both combatants are wearing Carmarthen fighting trousers one success will cancel out another and the contest is won when one 'fighter'  gains an advantage of three clear successes, or both fail one round and combat can commence.

The effect will work in all single combats where the wearer gets a full round to converse before combat begins not just formal duels, however it has no effect in group engagements, battles or ambushes.

The Fighting trousers will not work if worn with armor or other form of magical or non magical protection.

Value:  These items are sought after as collector's items by nobles throughout the empire, and value depends upon the reputation of the fighter they belonged to. They can sell from 2,000L up to 15,000L for a pair from a famous.

There are rumours of a more powerful pair made from the fabled material known as tweed, but this is considered ridiculous by most knowledgeable scholars.

Inspired by Professor Elemental

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iRTB-FTMdk

WOD Divine Intervention rules added;

http://www.backtobalazar.com/wodglorantha-divine-intervention-rules/

also dropped in a new NPC

http://www.backtobalazar.com/npc-lunar-priest/

5 hours ago, Darius West said:

This is a well developed site with plenty to pick over. It is interesting that you opted for a White Wolf system game over the more traditional systems.  How has that worked out?

On the most part really well, its what the gaming group had always used, and meant I only had to introduce Glorantha and not the system.  If id know the amount of work needed at that starts maybe id of taken a different approach.

Whats has absolutely worked is the use of runes to boost and manipulate magic, it is something i would miss if I went to HQ or Runequest. However lots of work needed to make cults and runemagic really work.

OK after too long another addition to the site, its the WOD:Glorantha base rune magic mechanic, a lot of influence from what has been discussed regarding the new RQ rune magic rules, which are major positive innovations imho. So much kudos to Jeff there. 

http://www.backtobalazar.com/wod-glorantha-rune-magic/

Hopefully not the same wait till next time.

Just to muck the book up

Name:             Snow Tigers Fang

Description:   Smilodons Fangs, carved into ornate razor sharp blades, decorated with leather bindings, furs and clan markings.
Cults:              Shamans of the Snow Tiger Clan Of Balazar
Knowledge:   Clan Secret
History:          The  Clan totem of the snow tigers has been leading the shamans of the clan is the ritual for many generations and a good number of fangs are now in the possession of the clan, most seasoned hunters in clan possess one and they are gifted to leaders of allied clans and one has been gifted to King Yalaring of Trilus.
Procedure:     The totem spirit will lead a clan shaman to a dying Smildon, where the shaman is expected to perform a peaceful cut on the creature, giving it the same respect in death which it has given to its prey. Most parts of the Cats spirit then return to the cycle, but a fragments remain within the long fangs of the cat.
Powers:          The fang acts a weapon which will do 1d8 +1 damage, and also contains a Ironhand 3 matrix which is powered by the spirit fragment and can be used three times per week, the spell can only be cast on the fang itself.

Value:             These are treasure items of the clan and are not for sale, in fact the clan would take very poorly to gifted item being traded on the open market. However one as traded in Holays Cross as few years ago and fetched just under 2000 Lunars

I'm unsure from that if he is self obsessed power hungry mercenary or a devoted lunar cultist, that an interesting tension to play out, and something for the players to explore over time.

• Is he double dealing the empire?
• Who is his real master?
• What is his perosonal Agenda?

Also add a little but more substance what seems top be a mercenary character by adding 2 or 3 redeeming features.

• does he love his family?
• does he have a ward?
• who does he care about?
• what good things does he do to justify himself?
• who has he helped and why?
• pets?

The who is his political foe

• What do they think of him?
• Why do they oppose him?
• How far can they go?
• Do they need evidence of dulplicity?
• Do they see the characetsr as potential information sources?

'Colour' questions?

• likes and dislikes?
• mannerisms?
• habbits
• addictions?
• magical/spiritual/religious quirks

9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yup, but even LARPs have rules/guidelines that govern how things play out. Inexperienced fencers don't just take down master swordsmen because the told the GM that's what they were doing.

 

And I don't really see how any of this relates to check boxes or Improvement points. 

the discussion moved on, but it the deviation started when someone asked what do you do when someone roleplays there way through a potential skill check.

People were horrified that people could actually role-play in a roleplaying game.

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think you're missing my point. A GM has to try and be fair to the players. And if he lets some players who are good at talking roleplay through social encounters then he should do the same for other players who are good in other skills. Role rolplaying a fight is a lot more than just saying your going to try to ambush and flank an opponent. Do you just let you players say, "I'm going to con him out of his last coin." and let it go at that? 

 

Basically, it all boils down to being conflict. The player characters want things to go one way, and the NPC bad guys want it to go another. All the dice do is to help fairly arbitrate the outcome-so we don't end up with the "I'll killed you first!" arguments we had when we were kids. 

I'm not missing your point i'm disagreeing with it.

For me roleplaying is about being in character and in the character interactions. Fair application of rules is well and good, but if it destroys the object of the evening and its unnecessary, i'm willing to put it to oneside.

The object of my gaming session is 'roleplaying' so if a fair administration of the rules system means we have to stop roleplaying and roll dice. In my session i will prioritise roleplaying over fair rules administration.

It seems to strange to me that anyway would think that weird within a roleplayjng game, but if another way suits you and your players go fill you boots.

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, what I'm saying is that you have to be fair and give a level playing field to all the PCs. If you let one player talk his way out of problems, with no regard to his character's social abilties, then why can't you let someone talk his way through a swordfight, by roleplaying how the character wields his blade? 

Firstly no one has to do anything, these are games they are played to our preferences and wrong and right don't come into it.

That's all we are doing discussing different styles and preferences, if you want to do it your ways that fine, i wont come round to your house watch and criticise.

I do give tactically advantages to players to tactically describe what they are doing, a player who says 'i attack the monster' is making on set of challenges. One who bothers to say 'i wait for the dragon snail to attack the party , then step out from  cover and attack from the flank', is making different roles for different effects.

 

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Have you ever considered playing Amber?

Basically the reason why there are skills, stats and game mechanics are to help the GM arbitrate various form of conflict in a RPG in a fair manner. Most RPGs don't role-play combat, vehicle operation, medicine, or language skills. If you just let players role-play social skills then it gives an unfair advantage to fast talking players, since they can save their improvement points, training and practice for the areas of the game that they can't just roleplay.

 Secondly, it limits the character to the interaction skills of the player. For example, when playing the James Bond RPG it's a common tactic for the PC to seduce some of the opposition, so that they can get information, win over allies, and so forth. Now, I haven't met anyone who can seduce someone as well or as easily as Bond can. For good reason, too, he's a fictional character. But if we want to game in that genre, then we need a way for the players to do so- and just roleplaying won't really cut it. 

I'm using the old white wolf storyteller system at the moment and happy with it;

Straw man argument, i've always said revert to the skills when its sensible to do so. Many things cant be  played easily, that what skills are therefor. I'm just saying rolling should not replace roleplaying when possible. So combat magic et all, is what the skill systems there fore.

If there is a mechanic which also players to roll for social interactions they should be allowed to use it, but they should be not forced to use it, and cut out in character dialogue if possible. There is always a compromise of using rolls with significant bonuses to those who bother to role play there social interactions

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

No, it's a bit more complicated. If you let the player role-play everything you nerf the value of skills, and limit the character's abilities to those of the player.  It also means that inexperienced characters end up knowing more and doing better because they are run by experienced players. I think that for it to work out fairly, a GM has to do a bit of both. 

In short what you saying you cant let the role playing get in the way of the roll playing.

That seems completely oximoronic to me in a roleplaying game.

Is the aim of the evening to role play or to run a rules system fairly?

because it seems to me that you are saying roleplaying isn't the aim of the gaming evenings? 

6 minutes ago, rust said:

I do not see a contradiction there, in my view it is to have fun by following the rules. 

Often rules get in the way of having fun, often rules are an arse.

In a roleplaying game a rule that says stop role playing, and start roll playing is wrong and should be ignored.

1 minute ago, g33k said:

To have fun, of course!

But IME most players are there to have fun by playing the game... and that includes a reasonably-close adherence to the rules (RAW +/- HR's), for most of them.  Players who "let [their] character use abilities or skills [they] did not design into [their] character" more-often (IME) break other players' fun, than any other player activity that I see at the table (saving only player-expectation mismatch, e.g. the "real RP'er" at the table of "munchkins" or the lone "munchkin" at a table of "real RP'ers").

 

Two things here

• Its a difference in what the game is, i'm a roleplayer, so I want to have as much of the game as possible with players in character and solving problems and issues in character. if we step out of character and deal with rules and challenges that fine its part of the game, but the rules based solutions are there to support when we cant roleplay our way through it (ie combat etc).    Now if you approach it from simulations or wargamers ( lets not use loaded language ) viewpoint adherence to the rules becomes primary and the roleplaying becomes secondary. That is fine and well, but its not how I try to run my games. 

• It also comes down to trusting you players.  As a ref my mind is busy, i.m trying to deal with all my players, the setting. the NPC's., this encounter, setting up the next encounter. The player is focus on his/her character, their capabilities,  subtleties and  is usually in the zone with the character. The player is much lore likely to make the right call for that character than I am.
• An example in my recent campaign I have the only other experienced Gloranthan kept going on in game about how Balazar was stacked full of dinosaurs and the players were going to get eaten if they went there, this was annoying me and I almost slapped him down in front of everyone. It was only afterward that I realised his character had botched lore role and he was carrying that through into the session. It became an in game theme and added to the in game atmosphere for the next couple of sessions. if id of made my ref knows best call we would have missed that input.

1 minute ago, rust said:

Yes, but a player who lets his character use abilities or skills he did not design into this character also breaks or misuses the rules, and I think it is one of the tasks of the referee to prevent or stop this. 

Whats the purpose of a gaming evening, to follow the rules or have fun?

A pet hate of mine is refs and systems who/which try to play your character for you.

The ref can define the whole world bar five or six individuals. He should be trusting his players to work with and define there characters in that world.

If a players isn't do it they way you think it should be done, just roll with it, its the one thing they control in the game world, and they may be doing ti ore subtlety than the a ref can think about.

I think its rude and arrogant to ask for or 5 people round for the evening to watch you play your game.  I know i've taken the argument to a much further extreme than you were suggesting, but that is the kind of reffing you get if you go too far down that line.

Most things are a matter of balance and id always re on the side of two much player interaction and creativity than ref /system over reach.

3 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

[devils advocate] But doesn't the actual rules system matter? I mean, if the game is utilizing something to represent the smarts of a character, shouldn't that matter? Most games model physical characteristics of a character, and those matter, right? 

Now the GM can make exceptions, and they should clearly state the reasons for an exceptions. They also need to remember the exceptions so that if a similar situation comes up later with another player, so that player doesn't feel left out. But you don't simply ignore the basic modeling/rules of a game, unless the GM has stated ahead of time that they are house ruling X, or they pause to discuss the situation and imposing a new house rule with players. [/devils advocate]

SDLeary

Rules are there to generate stimulate, facilitate and create fun, when rules stop doing that they are broken or being misused.

So if we get to the point where we stop to step out of character to role some dice instead, we've screwed things up.

Now a good player limits what his character does and gets in the idiom, but that should player call not a ref one/

46 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Even if the player were better at handling the situation than his character? If so, does the player really need the skill anymore? If the character has low social skills the player shouldn't get a free pass just because he happens to be a charmer in real life

 

 

Depends of your a wargamer or a roleplayer really?

if you take all social interaction down to a role of a dice were pretty much doing complex simulations and wargaming.

It does sound like the fun police invading the game table, "Now stop enjoying yourself, you haven't made an enjoy yourself gaming roll."

What next? refs saying "You cant use that idea, because I don't think you character is bight enough to think it."

Whats the aim of your evenings gaming?

• A perfect rule simulation of events that could never take place?
• or bunch of friends getting together playing a game/telling a story and having a set of rules to add structure to the event? 

They sound quite english

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

 

As far as POW gain through disruption goes, I blame the game designers. They made POW so crucial to the the magicians and then give only one way to improve it, and it is basically an "optional" process to engage in spirit combat. If you took the fights out of the adventures, and made all the opposition reasonable and willing to negotiate with the PCs, you find the warrior PCs becoming more belligerent so that they can get weapon skill checks. The other abilities don't require a successful roll on the resistance table to improve. I think it would be much better if the POW vs POW bit were dropped and POW improvement rolls triggered with a special success on a casting. 

I had not articulated it before, but you've just highlight a downside of checkbox system, is that it does not reward non skills based solutions.

So actually role played solutions to problems or issues tend to result in much less experience that combat based solutions. Therefore clever characters who roleplay are not given the same advantages by the system, as players who wallop there way though every encounter.

1 minute ago, jajagappa said:

It's a nice set, though personally I enjoy adding in the random factor and how it creates events you weren't expecting.

Random fits with RQ ( I love the idea i'm less sure about mechanic), but doesn't fit the storyteller system.

One of the things that runs through the storyteller mechanic is playing the character you want to play. 

Random dice roles to determine passion and beliefs can really screw a characters concept at the last stage.

However we do need to tie a character to both the Glorantha history and their culture. 

New family history events mechanic for WOD:Glorantha,with 

http://www.backtobalazar.com/significant-family-events/

Its different than the system coming out for CRQ4 for the following reasons;

• It's player choice driven not dice driven
• It allows a look at less epic events which are significant to chacarters
• It allows for much more variation
• It allows players to build significant clan history
• It keeps the player at the center of character creation Ideas and concept

Also related is character connections which is used to tie a gaming group together

http://www.backtobalazar.com/character-connections/

When committed people talk about politics you see them react emotionally, not listen and argue against point they have rehearsed in there head not the points people make.

I did think id see this kind of reaction to RQ skills check systems and experience systems

Its shows passion and commitment, but its probably over egged.

Whats next formal duelling over it?

For this situation im looking for the vanilla orlnathi, humans worship of Xiola Umbar isn't that vanilla.