kaydet

@David Scott So you're saying that the Moon should have an effect on your appearance, analogous to Water, Earth, etc. as noted above?

51 minutes ago, Baragei said:

Then I am sorry to say that RQ, along with most of the BRP-family, will disappoint. The entire schtick is that a single good hit will drop you, and even a glancing blow is potentially worrisome.

My issue is not with the principle of that single deadly strike; I just think that that single strike should require a Critical or Special, rather than any regular hit.

42 minutes ago, Jusmak said:

I personally like, that a single strike with axe, sword, a real weapon  decapitates, as it is in real life. Combat situation is not necessarily heroic act, but surviving. By challenging somebody to duel leads to death most certainly. Sharp sword cuts arm off quite easily, that just is so. If hope not, use armor.

Is that true, though? I mean even with heavy, specialized two-handed swords and perfect conditions, execution by beheading was problematic. And why the need for bone saws to conduct an amputation if it is so easy to sever a limb?

@David Scott Then is the Moon strong enough in them to affect their physicality? Or is it more of a spiritual rather than a physical influence?

3 hours ago, styopa said:

This is a purposeful disincentive to get players to avoid combat to a degree that could be described as realistic: combat is pretty random, thus combat is unpredictably lethal even for heroes (& the characters in the QS are pretty wimp-brigadey 'heroes').

I'm very much in favor of lethal combat, but I think one has to draw a line between combat that is lethal and dangerous, and combat that is lethal to the degree that it is unsatisfying for the players. I know I wouldn't want to play a character who drops (or dies!) after a single hit from his opponent.

@Baragei I'm sure you're right that aping RQ2 was a design goal. But RQ2 is an old game. I know that we can't abandon the roots, but it seems like the new Runequest should be a synthesis of what is good of the old and what innovations have been made in the last forty years of RPG development. I hope that these design decisions are being made critically, based on what makes the best game rather than a hidebound determination to stick with RQ2's methods.

@Brian McReynolds I was just linking to Greg's article, not actually asking "Who Are the Blue Peoples?"

For those who've played the quickstart, how do you find the ratio of weapon damage to typical HP? I'm hoping to run it this weekend, and looking through the sample characters, I have a couple of concerns.

On average, it seems that any successful hit from any weapon is either going to bring down a character or end their ability to fight -- without consideration of special or critical results. I know that Runequest is supposed to be a dangerous system, but that seems a little excessive, and not particularly heroic. Obviously armor and healing, as well as offensive and defensive magic, all have their part to play, but I feel like those should act as augments that require judicious tactical employment rather than blanket use.

My gut feeling for how the hit layout might work is as below (obviously to vary by weapon):

Regular: dangerous but survivable -- good armor proof against such blows

Special: possible fight ender -- definite without armor

Critical: immediate fight ender

Fight Enders:

•  Full damage to weapon arm (3 pts -- weapon dropped, cannot parry unless w/offhand), chest (5 pts -- incapacitated), head (5 pts -- unconscious) or either leg (4 pts - character becomes prone)
• Double or triple damage to any location (either incapacitated, unconscious, or dead)

 Battle Axe / Small Axe (1d8 + 2 + 1d4): 9 points of damage*

Broadsword / Kopis (1d8 + 1 + 1d4): 8 points of damage

Composite Bow (1d8 + 1): 5.5 points of damage

Dagger (1d4 + 2 + 1d4): 7 points of damage

Dagger-Axe (3d6 + 1d4): 13 points of damage

Javelin (1d10 + 2): 7.5 points of damage

Shield, Medium (1d6 + 1d4): 6 points of damage (!)

Short Spear (1d6 + 1 + 1d4): 7 points of damage

Sling (1d8): 5.5 points of damage

*All damages shown as averages

Some of the damage values seem to make little sense, too. Why does a medium shield do roughly the same damage as a short spear?

A month or two ago there was a discussion about the cover of the Glorantha Quickstart and its depiction of the Orlanthi heroes. At the risk of bringing up a touchy subject, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the rational origins of different skin tones in Glorantha -- which, like many other things, seem to derive from their runic makeup. Since creatures of the Man rune (in this case, humans) are composed of mixtures of all runes (with the exception of Moon (?)) it seems to me that an individual's skin color is a direct result of the predominant mixture of one or several runes. This theory is borne out by the discussion on blue peoples (see below) from the Glorantha website:

Quote

 [Of Waertagi:] They come in two colors, green or blue, depending upon the measure of the earth and water in their bodies.

I suggest the scheme below, but it is entirely conjectural. Are there other runes beyond the five elements which might play a role? If so, what are they and what would their effects be? We know that there are also red, yellow, purple, and orange peoples, but what are their origins?

Darkness -- black

Water -- blue

Earth -- green

Fire -- white

Air -- white/green?

Who Are the Blue Peoples?

2 hours ago, g33k said:

was I really the first one into this thread looking for a HeroQuest of Fazzur's ?

I definitely associate Fazzur with military affairs and practicality over magical adventurism, so that my default reading was "headquarters" instead of "heroquest".

But yes, an interesting Freudian insight into free association, no?

I absolutely agree with @Jon Hunter

Describing Glorantha as a Bronze Age world is a useful shorthand evoking pluralistic pantheons, politically and culturally diverse factions, and an age of heroes whose allegiances are personal and specific rather than to "The State". It distances Glorantha from a "Dark Age" / medieval milieu with the trappings of feudalism and a monolithic church.

I would respectfully suggest that to argue about whether Glorantha is "truly" a Bronze Age setting is to engage in a kind of pedantry which does us nothing but discredit. I can't tell you how many times I have tried to introduce people to Glorantha, only to be told "Yeah, I've heard of that. It seemed like a cool setting, but I couldn't stand the people who play it."

This is a real hot button topic! I don't cede the argument, but, since it seems rather unproductive for a thread about errata and editing, I will quit the floor.

@simonh et al, re: "The Year Discussion"

It just makes more sense to me that way. 2006 + six years equals 2012, not 2011. I'd note also that The Coming Storm lists the campaign length of 1618 to 1625 as being seven years long.

22 hours ago, Hyperlexic said:

This is brilliant and spot on. How would you describe the Lunar Empire?

Sadly, I don't have anything quite as glib to describe the Lunars.

Maybe something about imperialist hippies turning the world into Tang?

What a great triptych. Particularly enjoyed the image of Argrath-as-Orlanth the Restorer. Brilliantly executed.

I also really enjoyed the beautiful images of the Dara Happan (?) troops and their captain in the middle band of page 100. Nice to see such crisp depictions of the opposition.

I think a large part of the appeal of Glorantha is that it is a world that is ancient not just in its window dressing, but in its attitudes and philosophies. The people in it are not modern day individuals with modern views and concerns dressed up in chainmail and studded leather armor.

There's weirdness, too. Like the time a huge empire was founded on a pyramid scheme in order to turn part of the world into a giant dragon, or when comparative anthropologists almost destroyed the cosmos, or when the United Nations decided to create a god and was torn apart by the civil war which followed.

There's ancient magical artifacts, wars of gods and men and heroes, dragons, demons, dinosaurs, magic, sorcery, beautiful priestesses and cruel necromancers. Everything has a history and a place in the world, and a reason for existing.

@g33k I know. They're just thoughts.

After reading through the Quickstart and participating in some discussion here on the forums, I thought of some things that I'd like to see in the new edition of Runequest. 

• If it is or should be possible to do in Glorantha, it should be possible to do in the rules (though perhaps not necessarily in the core set).
  • I think one of the most interesting things about Glorantha is the way in which heroes build themselves. There is a magical ecology that is exploited by those clever enough and fortunate enough to penetrate its mysteries. I'd like to so mechanics allowing a player to do the same with his or her character -- though they do not have to see behind the curtain as the GM does. It would be a great and amazing game where a player built his character into a great Hero using his own skill and intuition.
• The rules and mechanics of the game should reinforce the mechanics of the universe
  • e.g., if a character can heroform a god or ancestor in Glorantha, there should be rules to do so, and the rules should replicate the same process that would be expected of that hero in Glorantha. If a character would have to undergo a certain process in Glorantha, such as a ritual or sacrifice, then the rules should require that same process.
• Maps should be poetic rather than prescriptive
  • I loved the map in the Quickstart, and I hope that this same style of poetic map is carried through. It is so much more evocative than the crisp and clear maps used in other sourcebooks so far. There's a time and a place for solid and precise imagery, but I think for the most part the poetic maps are more effective and more evocative for a world like Glorantha.
• Editing needs to be tight -- no misused runes, repeated passages, or careless copy-paste errors
  • I think the Quickstart was better than some other products I've seen, but it was still marred by some repetition and some incorrect runes. These are errors that should have been caught even by a quick read-through of an editor, let alone the double-checking that the writer should be doing. On the whole, though, I was pretty impressed with the book. I believe that as an item that will (hopefully) introduce a whole new generation of gamers into Glorantha, special care will be taken to ensure that the quality of the book is commensurate with the quality of its subject matter.
• No nostalgia for its own sake
  • The resistance table in particular comes to mind. I am not a game designer, but the inclusion of this table smacks of nostalgia. While the idea of sacred cows might be appealing for a game set in Glorantha, I confess that I am somewhat worried that some parts of the game are being carried forward even though a better alternative might be available; if it has a reason to be in the game, then let it be so, but this is and should be a modern game with modern ideas and methods.
• Better to have only a little high quality art than lots of mediocre material.
  • There's good and bad Gloranthan art. The most common problems I've seen are images blown up to the point where they appear pixelated, and the (re)use of images that are starting to show their age. I'd rather have only a few high quality pieces than old art scattered everywhere.

Page 34

The image caption should read Bergilmer rather than Gochbadun, right?

Page 38

The prophecy mentions nine orange and one pale blue star accompanying the green star in Orlanth's Ring, but everywhere else in the book -- even after the three new stars are added -- the "ten virtuous stars" are shown or described as all being orange.

Page 115

Is there a more detailed exegesis of Minaryth's belts? I know there are explanations of the overall meaning of the belts, but I wish that there was something to detail the actual meaning of the individual runes and details on the belts themselves. I may have missed it, though.

Page 118

Under "Preparing for the Heroquest Challenge" the Darkness rune is used where the Water rune should be.

On 7/25/2017 at 11:47 PM, BigJackBrass said:

1618 to 1625 inclusive is eight years.

I've never heard or seen anyone use dates as inclusive. I would always say that 2006-2012 was six years, not seven.

@Runeblogger If I recall correctly, there's been a fair amount of discussion about just that prospect. I think the word from Chaosium was that it was possible, but not a certainty by any means.

@g33k While I agree that things should not be needlessly complex, Runequest is not the game to turn to for simplicity.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It might. It would be a pretty huge change in the magic system that's been with the game since the beginning. Part of the appeal of the Battle MAgic system was that is was very simle and playable. Changing it to some sort of dialog with a NPC spirit that the GM has to keep track of would add some complexity to it. And, frankly, I'm not sure if it would make all that much of a difference in the long run. Eventually I'd think it just boil down to the PCs telling the GM they'd like a Bladesharp now, or some such. 

See my thoughts above where I stated that the spells as such would essentially be done away with. Or, as @Psullie states, battle magic would simply be an exertion of the character's force of will, presence, POW, whatever, rather than a loosely defined "spirit".

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

They are judged on more than just their trueness to Middle Earth. The are factors of fun and playability to consider as well.

As far as "trueness to Middle Earth" actually goes, it's not all that cut and dried. There is a lot of gray areas where we don't know exactly how things "really" work in Middle Earth where various game designers try to fill things in as best they can. For example, are there only five Istari? Is Glorfindel really the same Glorfindel who died fighting a Balrog in an earlier age? We don't know for certain. Tolkien did change his mind on some things, and didn't explain or reveal other things.

There are nits here, and we are picking them. I never stated that their trueness was the only factor of judgment, only that they were judged on it. There are plenty of other factors we could name, too, like balance, mechanical simplicity, art direction, layout, readability... and on and on. I think any reasonable person would understand my point: that trueness to the setting is an important part of a roleplaying game. And those examples you list (and others of a similar bent) have no effect on the feel of the world; they are essentially trivia. What I am referring to by "trueness", and what I tried to convey with my two examples, is that the "feel" of the world should be supported and preserved. I think everyone would agree that a game which allows all characters to throw fireballs around, or to slay dragons with casual ease, is not true to Middle Earth. Such things tell us much more about the world than pedantic trivialities.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But all "skill-based simulationist systems" aren't the same. RQ and GURPS play very differently. Bladesharp 4 in GURPS is far more powerful than it is in RQ. It can turn a knife or dagger into a real threat in GURPS. GURP's parry mechanics also make a big difference, as does the way GURPS handes hit points and damage. Hits that would probably leave somebody dead in RQ are often quite survivable in GURPS.

I never said they were the same, either. But they operate on the same assumption: they attempt to model "reality" with a rational system of rules that support the growth and creation of characters in a manner similar to what we experience in everyday life.

And obviously you would have to adjust your game mechanics to fit the way the world works. That's been my whole point this entire conversation. A GURPS Glorantha is not going to be the same as Runequest Glorantha, but they should both attempt to model one world through their two sets of rules.

14 hours ago, Psullie said:

I absolutely agree that a game system should reflect the world it models, but on a much more meta level than +1 v's +5. CoC's Sanity, Pentagon's Passions, are core to the world in which we play. Remove this and we're playing generic 

Absolutely. The interaction with spirits and the relationship formed should be mechanically explicit. Making it so firm a part of the game would reinforce the mechanics of the world itself.

@jajagappa I like that explanation. Makes sense and sounds Gloranthan.

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Consider the other viewpoint, though. It they changed the game radically then it wouldn't be RuneQuest anymore, and a lot of people would feel cheated. RQ IV: Slayers and MRQ are good examples. Both made some major changes to the game mechanics that didn't fit with RQ. In the case of MRQ, they made some changes to runes and cult affinities that practically blew their Glorantha stuff out of the water before it began. 

 

For example, in MRQ Storms are chaotic, so Storm Gods have an affinity with the Chaos rune. That seems fine for a generic D&D style of game, but doesn't make any sort of sense in Glorantha. Orlanth with a Chaos Rune affinity is just wrong.

I don't disagree, but I do not think that re-rendering spirit magic to be reflective of the "reality" of their origin would make RQG "not Runequest".

13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Becuase two different games, especially when thier approach and game mechanics are so different will never work out quite the same. Best case scenario would be that we'd end up with a RQ that was mechanically closer to HQ or vice versa. 

I've never said that they would be the same; I understand how mechanics affect a game.

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But the "lens" we look through will distort our view of the world. Take a look at the several Lord of the Rings RPGs, Star Wars RPGs, Star Trek RPGs, the various incarnations of "RuneQuest", and so on. While all the LOTR games are set in the same world (Middle Earth), they each are different and do things differently in game mechanics terms. The same with all the Star Wars, Star Trek, and RQ games. It's unavoidable since they are not all the same game.

But those games are all using different mechanics to portray a single world. The One Ring RPG and MERP are both very different systems, but they are judged on their trueness to Middle Earth. For instance, if The One Ring RPG has players running about slaying dragons left and right, or MERP gives characters the ability to use magic easily a la D&D wizards, then those parts of the system are and can only be wrong and inaccurate because they obviously do not fit with the narrative mechanics of the world.

20 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

And if you used GURPS you'd get a very different game world and feel than if you used RQ. Even though you were trying to model the same game world, the GURPS mechanics would influence the final result. 

I don't really agree with this statement. While the resolution mechanic (3d6 vs. d100) might be different, they should attempt to model the same reality. For instance, the Bladesharp spell in GURPS might give a +1 to hit and +1 to dam instead of +5% and +1 dam, but they are both skill-based simulationist systems.

11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But I suspect that it would be considered too radial a departure from the existing rules. 

I agree, sadly. I think Chaosium has a unique opportunity to make Runequest into something that really replicates Glorantha in a concrete way; it would be a real shame for them to neglect that opportunity for the sake of nostalgia.

9 hours ago, styopa said:

Honestly, and I don't mean this in any disrespect, it sounds like you'd rather play Heroquest.

It just more narrative-driven, frankly.  RQ has always been about the mechanics.

I don't take offense at this, but it's a statement I don't quite understand: why should Runequest's mechanics be any less "accurate" to Glorantha? Why would you not make the effort to describe the same world and the same relationships within it using Runequest's paradigm instead of Heroquest's?

I've played Heroquest, so I know what it's like, and it's too light for my tastes. I think it's a great narrative game, but I like things to be more concrete. I want to have the gritty combat, and the skill-based characters; I want to have that grounded reality mixed with magic and religion.

3 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

There aren't any.  Different games depict slightly different versions of the world.

I find this unappealing to the extreme. The world should be the same, even if the lens through which we view it is different (i.e., Heroquest -- narrative fantasy; Runequest -- sword and sandal; 13th Age in Glorantha -- heroic fantasy).

3 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

That being the case, if I were you I'd say spirit magic spells live in charms and come with a taboo.  (I've been wondering whether they would do that in RQ.  Maybe they still will, but it sounds like probably not.)

RQ still says you learn and accumulate spirit magic, though, and doesn't seem to expect you to swap out charms a lot.  You'd have to fuss around further if you wanted that flavor as well.

I may do this, but honestly I'd just use GURPS if I have to do a whole lot of tweaking, so I'll probably just end up playing Runequest no matter what.

3 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

Can't help you there.

Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't ask for your help? I'm genuinely not sure of the point of this statement.

7 hours ago, styopa said:

...sloppy copy'n'paste.

Something which has sadly marred several of the last Glorantha releases. Hopefully Chaosium's editors will be more sharp-eyed during the final stages...

I love Artesia, but to be honest I'd probably just use GURPS or the Artesia RPG itself. The new Runequest is going to be so bound up in Glorantha that I think it might be difficult to extricate it effectively.

@Atgxtg I'm not so much concerned about the rules of past Runequest editions as I am in translating how Glorantha functions (which I believe to be two different things, however I understand that that may not be a universally made distinction). Learning a spell from a spirit doesn't make much sense to me, and it doesn't really match how I feel spirits and humans would interact.

My instinct would be to do away with the spirit magic spells entirely, and replace them with various classes of spirit that would perform analogous functions. Perhaps an ancestor spirit might have the ability to guide its owner's blade in combat, providing a boost to the character's skill. Or a raven spirit might scout the surrounding area and stand sentry.

It might look something like this: