Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. 8 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

    One True RuneQuest With No Ambiguity, but that's not the Chaosium way, deliberately.

    Yeah, I’m pretty flexible with the rules in game. But there’s a bit of a disconnect when you have a crunchy set of rules to learn with goal posts being moved from product to product. Nice to have a clear base line from which you can deviate if you want to, it also makes it easier for new players to assimilate the rules.

    I expect this won’t be the case with the starter, and I agree the quickstart was before the final core rules were settled on. But just flagging up as it’s something I noticed from the QS. 

    Definitely a case for abbreviation in the starter rules though, not arguing that.

  2. I really enjoyed the Quick Start adventure and format, but a few small things like the summary of parry vs attacks were slightly different to what ended up in the core. Whilst I understand the need to abbreviate rules, I don’t think this particular variation in the QuIckStart helped new players. In this instance, the core is no more complicated, and probably easier with the chart/table.

    Will the starter set use the same basis as the core rules here?


  3. 1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

    Get a few hints of these additional adventurers.

    Dazarim Crescentblade - Yelmalion.  Interesting that his ransom says "None".

    Mago the Fierce - from the high Death, Beast, Air, and Darkness runes, I'm guessing a Storm Bull (possibly worshiping Zorak Zoran as well).

    Someone with very high Death Rune and high Stasis Rune (decent Water Rune, no Darkness). 

    Va... Wol... - possibly a Wolf Pirate? 

    Makari... -

    And someone who looks something like an assassin.

    Can we have a baboon please? 

    • Thanks 1
  4. This is working well on so many levels. Well done.

    looking forward to seeing the fleshed out Jonstown. Great images - Guessing that the city references we see depicted in a few of the pictures, and on the back cover is Jonstown? 

    Excellent choice of cover artist. I really like how you’re mixing up different artistic approaches. That broken painterly/impressionist approach really gets the imagination going - lovely. Artists that capture light like that really make Glorantha shine (so to speak). More of that please. 
    All brilliant though. Lifts my heart seeing Glorantha conceptualised and brought to life like this. Really want a Krasrshtkid encounter now.

    Edit: As pointed out on Twitter, great reinterpretation of the luise Perrin cover 

    • Like 2
  5. 11 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    My understanding is that Passions start at zero. The thing about starting new Passions at 60% is mainly for the Family History and (more generally speaking) for character creation: you have Love (Family) or Loyalty (Tribe) at 60% because you literally spent most of your life loving or being part of this or that group. And you get Hate (Lunar Empire) at 60% when your grandpa got killed by their sorcerers because you literally heard that story (along with witnessing all the casual bigotry your family exhibits as a result) most of your life too. So I wouldn't expect a 2 weeks adventure to similarly propel you to an equally strong Passion.

    RQG p236/237 mentions that a new Passion's starting value should be discussed between the GM and player. The 60% in a recommendation (not a rule), and personally I would only use that value for special occasions such as taking on a new title or post, pleading allegiance to a new leader, being adopted in a clan or joining a community (such as a warband), etc.


    Depends how you play it I guess (YRQWV and all that) but that's not my interpretation.

    1. I see Passion rolls as an "actionable" thing. That is: you roll to see if you are motivated by your Loyalty, or if you can invoke your Loyalty. If you succeed the roll, it happens. If you fail, it doesn't happen -- which is different from the opposite happening!
      1. For instance, if you roll to repair a broken sword and you succeed, you fixed the weapon. If you fail, you didn't make it worse... you just didn't fix it, or not well, or it took way longer. It gets worse only on a Fumble -- a Fumble is generally the only type of roll result where something opposite to the player's wishes happen. That's important to keep in mind.
      2. So rolling for a Passion determines whether you succeed in the reason you rolled for, simple as that. A failed motivation roll just means that Leika's interests don't matter to you (not that you will suddenly actively act against Leika!), and a failed invocation roll means Leika won't lift much of a finger to help you (not that she will actively send thanes to get in your way!)
    2. So basically, a 10% Loyalty doesn't mean (to me) that you're Loyal 10% of the time and disloyal 90% of the time... it just means you're loyal 10% of the time, and 90% of the time it doesn't matter, and your actions are guided by other factors.
      1. Think about the alternative: would you, as a ruler, surround yourself with thanes with Loyalty (to you) at 80%, knowing they they will be disloyal to you 20% of the time? Probably not! 🙂
      2. Even worse, consider a Hate Passion. If the "default" of everything was 50/50, does it mean everybody is being biased/bigoted/racist/sexist/etc against everybody else half the time?! That would suck big time. Although it would give the GM a lot of fun (roll 50% and roleplay that NPC being an asshole to the players!)
        1. I don't even want to think about what it means that, as a result, the opposite Passion (Love, Loyalty, etc.) would also start at 50%! Combined with the interpretation of failed rolls meaning acting against these Passions! Argh! Eternal internal turmoil! 😉

    As such, to answer the original questions, IMHO:

    1. If you didn't have that Loyalty Passion before, you now have it at 30%. Getting it at 80% or 90% all of sudden sounds completely wrong to me, especially since Passions at 80% or more get into "mandatory rolls" territory (RQG p237).
    2. It is indeed a two-way street. You roll under Loyalty (personage) to help (if you want or if the situation warrants it) with decisions impacting that person, but you also roll under it when appealing to that person for help, discounts, loans, etc. (RQG p234/235).


    Yes lordAbdul on the money here. This is how I see it. Passions take you above and beyond what you’d normally be capable of doing - Not necessarily whether you will or will not be loyal. More a case of whether you’ll be loyal with real passion, and fire in your belly!...or feel hesitant, & slightly unsure due to your personal doubts, other commitments etc (represented by failure -10%). Passions are emotive and can distort working either way.
    But failure on a passion roll doesn’t mean you’re going to become the opposite of loyal and turn into an enemy.

    As lordAbdul said fumbles are the ones to watch out for, but even then it could be emotionally crippling, but not necessarily twist you into an enemy of your clan etc.

    • Like 1
  6. On 3/22/2021 at 7:08 PM, lordabdul said:

    Yeah that's what I was thinking when I was checking the first half of the book. It would have been simpler to state special attack abilities in each creature. It doesn't seem to me like it would add much text to the book because the number of entries that fall under the general rule p8 seem pretty small.


    Yep agree 100% 

    On a side note, I like how they’ve left a couple free strike ranks after the Crimson Bat has finished its attacks, gives a chance to teach that Mofo a lesson! 🤣

    • Haha 1
  7. 36 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:


    We will sell the PDFs at $14.99 when we start selling the printed set for $29.99. Same day.


    That’s a great entry price. Really looking forward to this. Sincerely hope it grows the game, I’m sure it will.

    I like the design ethos of keeping as close to the core rules as possible, rather then an overly abbreviated version of the rules. Really hoping for a clean, clarified and accessible starter set that opens up RuneQuest to a new audience. I’m guessing that will be forefront in the design of the new starter? There’s been such a wealth of feedback here since the original release of RQG, guessing that’s helped steer the designers in presenting this boxed set a new? 

    • Like 1
  8. 16 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    Yeah the giant's special attack is really a special move -- and it's a single attack anyway so I don't know if it qualifies as an RQ3 holdout.

    The Huan-To (and the couple other monsters I've found with this "3 SR apart" special rule) is kinda weird... If I understand this correctly, Biting by itself would be done on SR7 (as per the table), Biting after a sword attack would also be SR7 (sword's SR4 + 3), and Biting after a claw attack would be SR10 (claw's SR7 + 3) ?  Another instance of "RQG has many special cases and special rules".

    Have to give the designers the benefit of the doubt here. There are elements like the 3sr intervals that have crossed over from RQ3, but I’ve yet to find any example where RQ3 rule cross over is problematic. There’s no overt reference to parry restriction that could feel left over from RQ3. The borrowing of the 3sr  must be intentional in RQG. Maybe alarm bells were ringing because of previous rules clash’s from older editions in the core book? 

    There are a few what I’d consider to be missing combat notes ( not too many) which I’ll add to the Q&A thread. Scotty rightly pointed out that I would be breaching copyright with my other thread on missing combat notes, and perhaps they may clash with the designers intensions.

    That said presentation of the rules could be a bit clearer - for example why not have notes about simultaneous attacks included in the individual creatures combat notes? There’s a relatively small number of creatures that that rule refers to. It’d save a lot of confusion, and referencing back and forth. The less rules I need to remember the better. Have it all by the creature for easy reference.

    Also the general rule about 2-weapon attacks that is the fallback rule in the book, should be emphasised better at the front of the book. It’s there but tagged on to the end of another rule. I’d make it more obvious, give it its own bullet point.


  9. 12 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    Yes it might be late 🙂 As per my original comment: the "multiple attacks happen simultaneously" is only, I think, for creatures that are already specified as having multiple attacks per round. So the way I understand it:

    1. No combat notes: the creature follows the usual rules.
    2. Combat note about having multiple attacks per round: these multiple attacks are simultaneous (the "if so..." of the rule p8).
    3. Combat note about having multiple attacks per round but with a specific rule for how to play those attacks: just follow the combat note (the "unless specified otherwise" of the rule p8).

    I’m going to bed 🤪

    • Haha 1
  10. 24 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    The Huan-To (and the couple other monsters I've found with this "3 SR apart" special rule) is kinda weird... If I understand this correctly, Biting by itself would be done on SR7 (as per the table), Biting after a sword attack would also be SR7 (sword's SR4 + 3), and Biting after a claw attack would be SR10 (claw's SR7 + 3) ?

    Yes it curiously seems to also fit with the RQ3 10 melee round

    • Like 1
  11. 5 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    I don't know what the problem is with the Minotaur? It can attack with a melee weapon (Great Axe) or with a natural weapon (Head Butt). Again, that's similar to baboons with their spear and bite, or humans with their sword and kick. I think you just go with the normal rules there, no?

    I might well be befuddled as it’s late now, but I was thinking if there is no mention in the notes as to how to use the second attack, that they should therefore follow the rule on p8 and happen simultaneously? 

  12. I’m also noticing a lot copy over from RQ3 in the RQG bestiary which reference parry, or the loss of parry due to making two attacks. Those bits aren’t relevant to how parry works in RQG now. Sure you can make exceptions, like the giant sweeping attack, but some of those like the Huan to are obviously referencing RQ3 rules, and are not relevant to RQG. 

    Also the reference to attacks being 3sr apart was a RQ3 convention. Doesn’t break the game, but I wonder if it was intentional using that, instead of the RQG approach for the second attack? 

  13. 9 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

    look at the Minotaur, it has 2 attacks, and no mention of exceptions, so are we to presume they happen simultaneously?   I still feel that as general rule it doesn’t sit well at all. Why is it there? 

    I’ve found the combat notes from RQ3, which shares the same 2 attacks as the Minotaur in RQG:

    ”A Minotaur can use either a head butt or a hand-held weapon in a given round. It could use both only as per normal two-weapon use, thereby depriving itself of the ability to parry that round” - RQ3 

    The note about the parry is really only relevant to how RQ3 worked. If you made two attacks you lost the ability to parry in that game, that’s not applicable in RQG.

    But what’s described there is not simultaneous attacks, yet we have that general rule on p8. It’s too problematic IMO and doesn’t make sense. I couldn’t imagine a Minotaur simultaneously attacking with a hand held weapon and head butt on the same SR. Perhaps my first hunch was right, and it’s meant to refer to attacks that are listed as already sharing the same SR? 

    • Like 1
  14. 3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    On the other hand, I don't know why some creature entries like the Wyrm feel the need to specify that "it can attack once per round".

    That ones comes straight out of RQ3. RQ3. It’s mentioned in case you presume you can use both of its listed attacks in a melee round. I believe the general rule in RQG (RQ2, & RQ3) is that you can make two attacks, if you have two weapons or forms of attacks, and enough SR’s available. 

    3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    Many creatures can attack more than once in a round: if so, unless specified otherwise, the creature uses both attacks at once, instead of working under the guidelines for two-weapon combat shown in the Combat chapter of the RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha rulebook

    Hmm...that’s really odd. I completely miss interpreted that - I was looking for a solution to explain how to adjudicate attacks that share the same SR. To my mind, whilst searching for a solution, it was specifying attacks which are listed sharing the same SR, as those are the ones that to me need some guidance. For example some will occur simultaneously, whilst some will be a choice to choose between. But you’re right too point it out, it doesn’t say that at all - Very odd - note to self, stay away from RuneQuest rule books late at night!🤪

    Regardless of my misinterpretation, there seem to be some creatures like the Maidstone Archer that have 2 forms of attack available, and no combat note guidance, so are we to presume that they attack simultaneously with their two swords? If so which SR do they use? Right hand sr 1, or left hand sr 6? Maybe this is another case of missing combat notes and their two attacks are supposed to happen on the respective SR’s? There was nothing in RQ3 (their first appearance I think) about simultaneous attacks.
    look at the Minotaur, it has 2 attacks, and no mention of exceptions, so are we to presume they happen simultaneously?   I still feel that as general rule it doesn’t sit well at all. Why is it there? 

    3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    The "unless specified otherwise" refers to things like Sea Trolls, Huan To, and Jack'O Bears: they don't do simultaneous attacks as per the general rule, they specifically use 3SR intervals for at least some of their attacks.

    That’s interesting - they’ve carried over the 3sr interval from RQ3, where by that was when you could make a second attack with a second weapon if you had one. In RQ2/RQG the method is to add the sr of the second attack to the first. I wonder whether that was deliberate or simply copied over and slipped through the editing process? 

    • Haha 1
  15. 12 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    Personally I wouldn't, by default, allow attacking twice per round with both hands, for the same reason I wouldn't allow humans to roll for punch twice per round because they have two arms. You need a >100% skill in unarmed combat and then you can split the attack.

    Yes agree. That’s a very good way to rationalise things like claw attacks in RQ. 100% with you there - Unless the special combat notes say other wise that will be my guidance in future. 

    The more I’ve thought about it the more problematic the ruling on p8 of the Gloranthan Bestiary is under “weapons”. Even with guidance of the individual creature combat notes (some of which are problematically missing), it still plays funny with the baboon. I’m pretty sure the baboon was never intended to have simultaneous bite and claw attacks as a “standard” mode of attack? At least in past editions that was not the case, and i see no reason in RQG to adjust that assumption. 
    Certainly a Gm can rule other wise in accordance with the narrative, but as standard mode I would think not. The base line needs to be clear and the rule on p8 of the bestiary muddies the water. 

    @Scotty @Jason D I would advise removing that rule completely, and instead rely on the individual combat notes to explain simultaneous attacks. Take the Hydra for example, lots of heads, but a total blank with guidance on how to use them. Not everyone is coming to this game with the knowledge and experience of the game writers. Some people may not have even heard of a hydra before. It would make more sense to have included the original Hydra combat notes rather then relying on a general rule that doesn’t fit with all of the creatures in the bestiary.

    • Like 4
  16. 12 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    Oh good investigating! So the average Baboon has SR (1+2+2)=5 (instead of 6) with a short spear? And unarmed attacks are (1+2+4)=7 (instead of 8 ) ?

    Sorry missed the “?” there.

    Yes, that’s it. 

    Your average Baboon wielding a 1-handed short spear should be calculated from the following:

    • Dex SR 1
    • Size SR 2
    • 1-handed short spear SR2 
    • Claw/Bite SR4 (see unarmed attacks) 

    So short-handed spear attacks on SR 5. Claw/bite on SR 7.

    That means in practice, short-handed Spear attack on SR7, followed by Claw/bite on SR12. 


    • Like 1
  17. Yes as mentioned SR’s in RQG are just a way to sort the order of actions, not a literal measurement of time.

    It may help to consider the different system in RQ3:

    In contrast RQ3 turned them into a more specific measurement of time, mostly because they introduced movement into and throughout the melee round engagement. RQG like RQ2 doesn’t do that. Movement is only calculated in RQG as a means to find out at what point you arrive at the fight, after which the melee round is a more abstract engagement, and there’s no further need to calculate movement by SR. 
    RQ3 continued to measure movement by SR throughout the melee engagement, therefore SR’s became a continual measure of time and distance. This is not what RQG does, SR’s are just to sort the order of the abstracted combat round, no need to measure time and distance. It’s simply sorting the initiative order. 

  18. 3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    I didn't understand this statement about "no parry or dodge" since, AFAICT, you always get parry and dodge (at -20% cumulative) in RQG? I don't know RQ3 but it looks like it might have been Scotty still playing with these old rules:

    Yes. This confused me as well. That’s definitely out of the RQ3 rules, not RQG. Scotty made a comment elsewhere about giving the baboon a 2-handed spear so as to allow them a parry as well. Was scratching my head a bit & wondering what I was missing, but you’re right that’s 100% RQ3 rules. 

    Grateful for him pointing out the SR mistake of the baboon, hadn’t thought to check out the claw SR as well, now they play how they were supposed to. But yes, I wouldn’t allow 2 claw attacks. Spear followed by claw/bite, yes definitely as per the combat notes. Claw and bite probably not, unless “victim” is surprised.


    • Like 1
  19. 19 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

    Heh heh yes! I think it was a combination of things that led us on a merry dance - the error with the baboon sr calculations, the dragon not having accompanying combat notes, and the interaction of those things with the rule under “weapons” on p8 of the bestiary.

    Baboons were in a fluster! 🤪

    Yes I can see now flicking through the RQG bestiary, the main design issue with the RQG  Bestiary is that it’s missing quite a few of the combat notes for creatures, that were originally included with creatures in previous editions (mostly the RQ3 ones)

    For example the Lesser Hydra is missing it’s combat notes, as is the Dream Dragon. I haven’t checked the whole book but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a few more missing. I feel that’s a shame as those kind of notes are really helpful for new comers to RuneQuest. We shouldn’t presume that new gamers know how a lesser hydra attacks with its many heads. Not everyone knows the story of the hydra, or has the previous knowledge of past RuneQuest editions. 

    Sometimes a prompt like the combat notes is the spur newcomers need to grasp the concept of the creature, particularly with a crunchy game like RuneQuest. Be good if Chaosium could print future editions with all the combat notes included, particularly with the spirit of opening up the game to new comers (think starter set). Feel the absence of some combat notes in the bestiary are a presumption which isn’t helpful to newcomers. 

    I may have to start a separate thread to note which creatures are missing combat notes, which could serve the basis of an errata. 

    • Like 3
  • Create New...