kaydet

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

And the GM doesn't need the NPC game stats for that to happen. It's like pulling out Superman's stat sheet when a mugger jumps Clark Kent.

You're making the assumption that your players can never attain a level of power or effectiveness that will allow them to rival powerful NPCs. That's a mistake as far as I'm concerned, since you're curtailing your players because of narrative fiat. I agree that it should be difficult and rare for PCs to become akin to such lofty figures as Hofstaring Treeleaper and Kallyr Starbrow, but why should it be impossible? And furthermore, why should it be impossible that they come up with an effective plan to neutralize them even if they are not their equals?

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Because either outcome is desirable, nor should they be encouraged. Both outcomes will effectively end the campaign, and neither option really need game stats.

(I'm assuming that you meant "neither outcome)

Your game is your game, so if the narrative-focused, tight storyline is what you and your players enjoy then more power to you. I believe that it is much more fulfilling to allow players a freer hand to interact with the world, grow, and leave their own mark.

41 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

To be honest you probably don't really need those stats, not really want them for play (wanting them to look at is another thing). The reason being that since those NPCs are so powerful, and have such a major effect on the events that take place you don't want to put your PCs in situations where they could come into direct conflict with them. Either the NPCs will be so powerful as to wipe out the player characters, or the Pcs take down a major player and significantly alter the timeline.

If the players are foolish enough to attack such powerful characters then they should bear the consequences of their actions.

They will either die heroically facing terrible odds; or they will triumph, defeat a great adversary, and make a lasting mark on the world of Glorantha. Why would you deny them either opportunity?

Then I guess I'm honestly confused as to what the issue is.

When you get a chance, though, let us know how your idea works out. It's always good to have another tool in the kit box.

@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.

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.

10 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

I don't buy a couple of things that that implies:  first, that there aren't or have never been any new births in the Dragon's Eye, and second, that every Dragonewt who falls short of spiritual balance is a coward, cheat, or thief.

I mean, sure, there have been new "births", but these would be reincarnations of existing individuals. New eggs, and therefore new individuals would presumably require the mating of True Dragons, something which would likely not go unnoticed.

And perhaps I should have said "those full of sin" or some such. Of course there are more flaws among the dragonewts than cowardice, thievery, and cheating; I was just trying to get the general point across.

There's also the Petersen interpretation of Dragonewts: the ones still around are the cowards, cheats, and thieves; the good ones became dragons and are no longer in the Middle World.

6 hours ago, Martin said:

so...no direct  indication the dragonewts were at whitewall then but i gyuess we can speculate that fazzur used them there or at least wanted to?

Yeah, I just remembered wrong and failed to fact-check myself. Thanks to @metcalph for setting me straight.

@Runeblogger The Lunar Empire has a pretty well-documented history of using Dragonewt mercenaries. I remember reading of their presence at the siege of Boldhome and Whitewall, but I'm sure that there are other instances. The question that intrigues me is instead what the Lunars offered that the Dragonewts could possibly want. Perhaps, as you suggest, there is something in the cradle that they've been promised? That seems a little materialistic for the Dragonewts, though.

The purple blood is also established in the lore: see the story of Minaryth Purple. I'm honestly not sure if there's a "why" other than the circular answer of "that's the color of dragonewt blood".

3 hours ago, David Scott said:

I'd want to avoid slavish npc generation and just give ranges.

Yeah, definitely. I don't think there's any need to go into extreme detail -- particularly regarding skills and characteristics. But I do think that some notes about what we might call the "meta-magic" could be useful.

@styopa I'd be pretty surprised if there's not a fairly significant spread of NPCs in the GM's book, but I think it would be great for Chaosium to add a sub-forum to discuss PC/NPC creation. I've never used it, but I believe this site has a fairly robust system for uploading files into a personal library that can then be shared freely.

I think that a chapter on practical use of magic in the game would be very helpful both to players and to GMs.

I don't mean so much the use of individual spells; those are pretty obvious, and the cult write-ups provide an excellent framework for allocating spells. But when you start to incorporate all the systems of magic, companion spirits, enchantments of permanent or lengthy duration, and the acquisition/increase of magical power and ability over the long term, it seems as if the possibilities become complex and varied enough that I think it might be worth an in-depth discussion in the GM Book. Some questions that might be worth answering:

How/when will a community donate magical power to a hero?

What kind of enchantments will a hero bear? Will he store magical energy within himself or within items? Why?

What kind and how many spirit guardians will accompany a hero? How will he utilize them to defend himself?

I know that many or all of these questions can rightly be answered with "it depends", but for the novice GM new to Glorantha, I think providing a decent guide would be very helpful. Players have the advantage of learning how to use magic by experience as they gain experience with their characters, but GMs need to be able to replicate more tactically and magically advanced NPCs from the get-go.

@soltakss

I'm a bit confused. Yu-Kargzant is worshiped by the Pure Horse People / Grazelanders, right? Who worships Yelm the Rider -- the Pentans?

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

In RuneQuest, the Yelm of the Pure Horse People is given the Runes of Fire, Life, and Death. Both are correct. If that troubles you, welcome to the God Learners' burden.

If this is the case, why not name the cult Yu-Kargzant rather than Yelm? I don't mean to be critical, but I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind it, as it seems that by similar logic we could say that the "Yelm" of the Orlanthi has the Runes of Fire and Truth.

An interesting mechanic I've seen before is to allow certain weapons to parry and attack in one round while restricting others' ability to do the same.

Is the eclipse the sign of the kazkurtum?

If so, @Yelm's Light, watch out!

Aren't the coins being produced by Campaign Coins? And it's a kickstarter, so if there's not enough interest the product won't be produced.

Seems pretty low-risk and low-effort for Chaosium.

@jajagappa Okay, that's super cool. I wish that was more widely represented and explained.

5 hours ago, styopa said:

Inconsistencies do hurt the Guide's claim to infallible authority in all things Gloranthan, but it's probably humanly impossible to make sure everything is exactly consistent in a work of that size and a setting that (we hope) will continue to grow and thrive.

Sure. But we I think we can reasonably expect the runes of the main gods to be listed accurately.

9 hours ago, David Scott said:

As for the difference, my current mind set is that the Guide shows us the quintessential runes defining the God within that Pantheon - source of Fire, stasis - hard to change culture all about order, Mastery as he's the ruler. RQG is from the rpg aspect - fire the same, but life and death provide opposite poles for a character to struggle with.

This seems silly to me. Why should a god's aspect differ based on what game is representing him?

9 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Except that Yelm mastered the powers of Life and Death and he reveals this each day by rising from/overcoming Death and then bringing Life again to the world.  He also is the Emperor, hence maintains order (e.g. Stasis), but from Jeff's note it sounds like the emphasis in RQG is again on the Life/Death/Fire powers.

How and where does Yelm ever show mastery of Death? That state was inflicted on him by his enemy, and then he was convinced to return to the world by the intervention of that very same enemy. Anyway, the point I was making was that the embodiment of duality has been the description of the Red Goddess, not the Sun -- that's why it's weird for him to have Life and Death.

I will probably spend a silly amount of money on these.

If this is correct and not a typo, it's also weird for Yelm to have Life and Death -- as combining two opposing runes has heretofore been the ambit of the Red Goddess alone.

The description does say that the cult is for Yu-Kargzant, rather than Yelm as worshipped in Dara Happa, but that makes me wonder why the cult wasn't just listed as Yu-Kargzant.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

I shouldn't like too much of the line to be "antiqued" like they were 3000-year-old archeological finds.

Presumably, in the world of Glorantha, most of the coins are newer than that!

I'm think it's more the in-universe limitations on manufacture than it is deliberate antiquation.

It looks to me like that Lunar coin has been nicked to proof the silver.

20 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Air, for me, is orange. As someone who is colour blind, people with god tans look orange to me, so this makes sense in my head.

Should not Air be a mixture of Earth and Fire?

@Psullie That's good to hear. I guess my issues with the damage values are more about the principle of the thing and internal consistency. But if it works in practice then I suppose I shouldn't be too concerned.

37 minutes ago, g33k said:

If you score a solid hit (i.e. roll at/near max damage) with a tool specialty-made for killing people... I'd expect the person to be at least disabled (unless wearing armor).

Any *OTHER* result is... well, another genre.  Maybe "cinematic" or "pulp" or something like that.  But it's something less gritty and visceral ... and less-realistic.

Yes, it's true that RQ has more "limb comes off" result than is realistic, but the overall rate of combatants being disabled-or-killed turns out to be startlingly well-matched to our best understanding from archeology and history, and from historical-reenactment combats.

That's my point: should the game define "max damage" (as you put it) as a critical hit, or as just a regular hit? How you are calibrating your results makes a big difference. I've never disagreed with the idea that a "solid" hit should take someone out of the fight -- see my posts above; I just think that a solid, instantly fight-ending hit should be a special or a critical. Otherwise, what's the point of even having them in the game?

And, respectfully, I'd be interested to see the data backing up your statements about Runequest casualty rates matching historical records.

43 minutes ago, g33k said:

Just ask Nearly Headless Nick.  In combat, you don't need the head flying off cleanly; a mostly-severed neck is still "decapitated" enough to end THAT fight...  

Bone-saws are for when you're trying to be precise and careful and do little to no ancillary damage.  If I'm hacking away at you with my sword, I just want you down-and-out, and I don't much care if the cut is clean, or if it's a inches -- or even feet! -- away from where I had hoped to hit; primary damage or ancillary, it's all damage that helps me put you down... ideally before you can score any telling blows against me!

I'm very well aware of both of those things. My point was that dismembering a human body is not as clean and not as easy as I think the movies make it seem -- not that it cannot be accomplished, nor that heavy damage to the body is immaterial.

What would it be, then? Red, blue, black, white?