AndreasDavour

On 4/24/2024 at 11:07 PM, mfbrandi said:

Possibly — only possibly — there is a bit of a vicious circle. One story (dismal): Chaosium thinks the people aren’t interested, so it is not interested, the PDF doesn’t come out when expected, and shiny new QW — as opposed to HQG — gets pulled as a JC target; the people think Chaosium isn’t interested, so in the unlikely event they were thinking of publishing for QW on the JC, they abandon the idea;

This is of course a factor.

I know I wouldn't commit to publishing something for QW if I didn't know there would be a QW rules set published soon.

On 4/2/2024 at 2:27 PM, Saki said:

I'd allow the PC to redirect their action, but I'd probably give them a Dex rank penalty of 5 to represent needing to make a split second change to their plan

This

On 9/8/2023 at 4:28 AM, ZedAlpha said:

I think if/when this game gets off the ground I'll blog about it.

Cool! I'd love to hear about it.

When it comes to weapons and armour I'd suggest you keep them narrative only, unless they have a significant story impact. Then you can use the fractal to stat them out. I've found people often try to model things in Fate, which is not how Fate is intended to work. Fate models narratives, not stuff.

That's also a reason I would suggest you stay away from the runes. Making rules front and center feels like dressing RQ up in a new coat of paint, and not playing Fate. YMMV.

On 1/15/2017 at 8:17 AM, JonL said:

They use their flying buffalo to handle the troll tunnels.

I know this is years later, but I wanted to let you know someone got the joke, and liked it a lot! That was great!!

You might want to re-consider HQ/QW if you are thinking of Fate. They are not that different conceptually. But, let's talk Fate.

So, I think you probably don't want to add too much extra game mechnics. If you are thinking about using stunts for magic, for example, you have to consider if the standard three stunts are enough for you. Either you step up the abstraction ladder and maybe use the runes instead, or you use whatever mechanics you already have, like Aspects. I'd suggest the latter. Let me talk through how I would do it.

I'd probably say you should all have a High Concept and a Trouble as per Fate Core, and then I'd say that if not part of your High Concept, you have a mandated Cult and a mandated Culture Aspects. You probably then will use your Cult Aspect and a skill to do common magic for a lay member, and a initiate or a devotee spend some of their Stunts (if their High Concept allow it) on specific magic effects. You can then narratively decide how powerful magical effects a lay member or initiate can do by just boosting (common understanding of the term, not the Fate game mechanic) your skills with the Cult Aspect. Maybe limit an initiate to one magic stunt, or do it all according to they story.

When a devotee Create an Advantage and they act out their cults belief and mythic stories as to hero form, you have an excellent opportunity for a Scene Aspect.

I think Fate Core could work well in Glorantha that way. Oh, yeah, you might want to rename some of the skills...

...and also...

we are all Arkat!

To add something to the conversation, I think you should not focus too much on illumination and chaos. I've always seen illumination as the sudden realization, a satori moment, that anything is possible. Arkat knew that he could do anything, if he could just twist and turn his perspective just right.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

1630, Lords of Terror.

Note that this is the third time he kills (a) Ralzakark.

Thanks. I'm always amazed about these small nuggets of information, that people seem to remember. I've read that book and clearly did not remember that part.

16 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

OK, but he joined Ralzakark's Chaos army. (Then later he killed Ralzakark in a suicidal act.)

What? He did, when?

I might as well add that I'm also interested in the questions Khaghan raise, if anyone knows anything more.

19 hours ago, Erol of Backford said:

If you buy your PDF copy it'll help push it to POD...

If it was a couple of quid, yes. I'm sure it's worth what's is priced at, but I don't have that money to spend twice.

Yeah, that time scale is great news!

3 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

[Now, if you will excuse me, there’s an abyss needs staring into.]

🤣

I've read/played it the same that it's a "summed result is: +1 to the players" which mean they win the prize.

Last time I looked, Chill 1st ed used percentile skills, so not much conversion needed. But, I seem to remember that you used the stats for most things, and the skills where few and mostly for your specials. It was decades ago since I played it.

While I don't want to annoy Harald, and I know there's less chance of a POD unless there are pdf sales before, I will add my voice to those who are waiting for a print version. I looks really interesting, but I really can't use game books in pdf.

Thanks @mfbrandi for attempting to parse it. You present a better view of the thrust of my posts than me, apparently. In my view of Glorantha, it does not necessarily match up to RQ rules, no.

On 7/11/2023 at 6:22 PM, Stan Shinn said:

3 PCs are having a group contest. The rolls come out as:

• PC #1 gets zero successes and the opposition has zero successes (but the PC has the higher roll)
• PC #2 gets zero successes and the opposition has zero successes (but the PC has the higher roll)
• PC #3 has the opposition getting 1 success versus PC #3's zero successes (but the PC has the higher roll)

As I have not written the rules, I'm of course just inventing whole cloth...

But, you could parse that as:

PC#1 has the higher roll -> wins the tie break, one success

PC#2 has the higher roll -> wins the tie break, one success

PC#3 loose hir roll -> one success for the opposition

In total 2 successes for the PCs and one for the opposition, so the PCs win.

That's how I resolved that when it happened, almost like that, at my table.

Could the rules be much clearer? Yes. Could they use some streamlining? Yes.

Ian Cooper would be the one to resolve this as per the rules intention, but he's only around here once in a blue moon.

20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the idea was what Greg had in mind when he wrote Pendragon, and which got changed due to advice from  to Ken St. Andre into the roll high but not over you skill (or "blackjack method") game mechanic, which does basically the same thing, that got used in the game, and which seems to have evolved into the very similar game mechanic d used in HeroWars/HeroQuest/Questworlds.

The blackjack rolls came from Ken St. Andre? Interesting! I had not heard that before.

I think my original point seems to be totally lost, but a well written post there Ludo!

Maybe there's a language barrier involved here. Let me try again. Do people talk in game term in your Glorantha? For me that is to cram a big world into a very small RQ box. But YGWW.

If you have newbies to the system, I think it could be a workable solution to get people started with the system. Run it like that for a session or two, and then redo the characters with the opportunity to create keywords whole cloth.

The play style shouldn't have to be dependent on how the abilities are presented. Using a traditional presentation and then using them in a different way can be an excellent way to introduce a new way of playing.

But, yes it's very true that HQ/QW does not suit the tactical thinking, at all.

Someone in the world casting Xenoheal 4 I would classify as "sometimes people talk about Glorantha as if the RQ rules describe how the world works". It has the potential to be absurd. But YGMW, of course,

Didn't I post in this thread already? I must have been dreaming. Anyway.

If it's a rules question, it's of course of use in your game. But, I find sometimes people talk about Glorantha as if the RQ rules describe how the world works. I think it can led to some weird results. I mean, do people in your Glorantha really talk about "bladesharp" and so on?

Remember, play with HeroQuests and some of these "problems" are no longer problems. Just leaving it out there.