Jason D

1 hour ago, Westy said:

Hi 

Just wanted to say thanks for releasing this.

I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I was surprised to see a couple of the NPC's cults.

  Orvald the ostler is an Ernaldan initiate. He's not mentioned to be a Nandani.  Is he a member of some other Ernaldan sub-cult for men?

He's just an initiate of Ernalda. She is the goddess of women, but many worship her. Orvald is likely not going anywhere higher than being an initiate, but initiate membership (core book, page 293) does not require that the worshiper be female. 

1 hour ago, Westy said:

 Darvyn Blackfeather is a Eurmal initiate.   I guess I've never thought of Eurmali as community leaders. Surely got to be a lack of trust in such a leader?

He's a member of the Fright subcult, and if you read his backstory, then  Cornflower's, he doesn't come across as a particularly white hat kind of guy. 

On 6/30/2019 at 7:09 PM, klecser said:

Examples of ways to increase POW include: casting offensive magic that causes a POW vs POW resistance check (because it procs a POW improvement roll?), meditating to a God in the right season, and...other ways that I'm blanking on.

Yep. 

You can improve POW through the following: 

1. A successful Worship roll made on the High Holy Day of the cult or during Sacred Time lets you attempt a POW gain roll. 
2. Winning a POW vs. POW struggle during adventuring lets you attempt a POW gain roll (if the resistance roll chance was below 95%). 
3. Spending 500 L and training for a full week at your temple lets you attempt a POW gain roll. 
4. Accepting a geas from either Humakt (page 296, result 3) or Yelmalio (page 309, result 7). 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

My initial impression of RQ:G was it was amazing in the care with the rules, but I've slowly come to revise that. Not in general - the rules are of high quality - but in how some parts of the rules are messes where it seems cut and paste jobs and previous rules versions haven't been properly cleaned out, leading to poor results. The Two weapon fighting rule is one obvious example (where the clarification was a total rewrite that changed the printed rules 180 degrees), the parrying penalty rules another, and I'm seriously confused about the phalanx rules. But perhaps the most egregious are the Attack/Parry outcomes.

Let's start by just looking at the rules text (pp. 198, 200) and not the summary table (p. 199). That one is a lot better, and we'll get back to it.

Where does excess damage go 

• Successful parry vs. successful attack: to random location
• Special parry vs special attack: to adjacent location
• Critical parry vs. critical attack: to random location

It should probably be all random. Adjacent might be a carryover from shield parrying. I'll take a look and see if the matrix/table needs to be corrected. 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Parrying a critical hit

For whatever reason, weapon damage to parrying weapon is doubled even after the weapon already does max special damage. This seems completely excessive - either do maximum special damage (the sensible solution), or double damage, not both!

Again, this might be a carryover. These charts had a lot of editing and back-and-forth and could have used more. 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Weapons incapable of damage on critical hits (only)

However, unlike all other attacks, long-hafted and impaling weapons do no damage to parrying weapon on specifically and exclusively critical hits. This is weird in two ways: first that a long-hafted weapon does damage to opponents weapon, except on critical hits when it doesn't. Second, that it seems utterly unreasonable that a weapon like a halberd or a long-axe are unusually bad at damaging, say, an opponent's shield. 

That's a legacy rule. Ignore it as you see fit. I intend to remove it from any future editions. 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Critical hits automatically hit

But even this table has issues. For instance, Critical Attack vs Fumbled Parry states "Attacker automatically hits, does maximum special damage." What does this even mean, given that the table entry only comes up once you've scored a critical hit and thus obviously have hit already? If you critically hit, you automatically hit? Uh, thanks I guess?

You may not believe this, but our playtest GMs asked us to be quite explicit about whether an attack hits or not for every entry. It's the most basic question... "Did the attack hit?" and for various reasons people thought it wasn't always evident, even when the results discussed damage.  

We are discussing the content of Rune Fixes 2. 

Thanks for all of the enthusiasm. Currently, though, we've got no plans to update the pregens officially. 

By all means, though, make any variants you see fit. Your Glorantha may vary! 

It was meant for the GM Screen Pack as a special handout, but for some reason between the multiple editors, two layout people, and production handoffs it got overlooked.

It will go into the pack for future printings and I'm seeing if Rick can add it to the .pdf version for everyone who's bought that. 

I'm adding it to the downloads of this site, and here it is:

 RQ Rune Fixes - 3rd July.pdf

The effects of damage per location are based on total hit points delivered to the hit location.

For example, with a 6-pt limb, it doesn't matter if it's one blow doing 18 points or 18 1-point injuries, it is destroyed. 

I'll try to pop in to the official answers thread.

It's just a question of prioritizing new material moving forward into production or long periods of careful research and deliberation for questions. 

On 2/17/2019 at 10:29 PM, Psullie said:

There is much more to running a RQ game then how well your character can fight.

This cannot be emphasized enough. 

If you want to play a combatant, then Vishi Dunn, an assistant shaman, is a poor choice.

His preferred ranged combat tactic is to point at something and say "Cousin Monkey, go kill that."

His best combat option is to entangle a foe with his pole lasso and have Cousin Monkey take that foe out with his spear. 

15 hours ago, soltakss said:

Personally, I think that this thread has exploded out of all usefulness for Jason to look at. Sure, it's an interesting thread with many rules discussions, but I doubt whether Jason can wade through all 12 pages and be able to give a constructive and useful answer. It would be better posting a series of focused questions in the Jason Q&A Thread.

Thank you for noticing. 

58 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

And Babeester Gor?

Same drawbacks, with a different set of limitations: 

• Restricted to axes 
• Gender-restricted membership 
• No God-talkers or Rune Priests

On 1/21/2019 at 8:24 AM, Tywyll said:

So, it seems to me that Sword Trance is a broken spell. Nothing prevents a character from dropping 2 POW at creation and then spending all their MP on a Season Long Sword Trance for like +120% (on average). With the cancelling rules, that character is unstoppable in melee. They can't be parried by the majority of the world, their crits and specials are silly high, etc.

Now, you might say, but then they won't have other runespells to fall back on!!! Sure, but that's the problem with any extended spells. Also, as the rules aren't clear (as far as I can tell) on regaining rune points from an extension, arguably they can wait till a minor holy day and get some/all of their RP back. Even if they can't, RQ characters have lived for years without divine spells so it's not a huge deal. They still have their battle magic to fall back on, as well as their allies Divine Magic in a pinch. 

This seems super game-breaking. Is there something in RAW to help mitigate this?

Hi! I haven't been around much as I've been slammed catching up from a month where I was much less on-the-grid than I'd have liked. 

Technically, Sword Trance could be extended to a season through Extension, so long as the adventurer doesn't: 

1. Get knocked unconscious 
2. Sleep 
3. Have it Dispelled (a common Rune spell) 

It is a powerful spell, to be certain. In return, Humakti must: 

1. Use swords primarily
2. Take on annoying and potentially debilitating geasa 
3. Give up resurrection, divine or otherwise 

These all (in our opinion) are significant issues, and reasonable tradeoffs for such a powerful spell. 

I can answer some of these questions, but honestly I'd rather wait until we have more to show. 

But first, please take the arguments about the genesis of various other games to another thread, or vanish them altogether. 

18 hours ago, Sigtrygg said:

 

Will it be science fiction, science fantasy or a combination?

Closest to hard science fiction. More Brin than Burroughs. 

18 hours ago, Sigtrygg said:

Near future, far future, alternative history?

Somewhere between the first two, depending on what your definitions are. Not the third. 

18 hours ago, Sigtrygg said:

Will there be interstellar travel and if so how?

Yes, to be explained later. 

18 hours ago, Sigtrygg said:

Will it be influenced by previous Chaosium science fiction games - Future World, Ringworld, Hawkmoon?

Ringworld, given it's leaning more towards hard sci-fi than anything else. 

18 hours ago, Sigtrygg said:

Is there a particular book, TV series or movie that will influence the game?

This will be mentioned when the game is discussed further. 

We're not being coy here. Right now the author is still finishing up two big projects for us and is developing the "setting bible". Until that's locked down there's no point in discussing anything about it, as that might change. 

Stay on target. 

Just some clarity here: 

• Chris' project will be an original setting. 
• It will use BRP/RQ rules (we're letting him go a la carte with them and pick what rules options work best). Compatibility with RQ/Call of Cthulhu is not a requirement, and makes little sense given the nature of the setting he's doing. 
• It's still in gestation phase, as Chris is busy with the new edition of Harlem Unbound and finishing another project for us I'm not sure has been announced. 
• We are not announcing anything official until we have a team in place, a full product outline, and some concept art to show. 

As soon as there's more solid stuff behind the scenes, we'll start posting info. 

I can tell you it'll be neither Star Wars nor Star Trek in theme and tone. 

Just a note that I am paying attention to these comments, but I've been buried under travel and a sudden high prio project that means the GM Sourcebook is the #3 item on my schedule at the moment. 

Thanks, all!

Printers hate it when we switch out too many pages, and it creates the margin of error, so we've at this point triaged edits into "edits we absolutely have to make" and "glitches we can cover in an errata sheet." 

Anything coming in beyond this is grist for an errata page, but the print edit window is officially closed.  

Thanks, all!

Printers hate it when we switch out too many pages, and it creates the margin of error, so we've at this point triaged edits into "edits we absolutely have to make" and "glitches we can cover in an errata sheet." 

Anything coming in beyond this is grist for an errata page, but the print edit window is officially closed.  

Thanks, all!

Printers hate it when we switch out too many pages, and it creates the margin of error, so we've at this point triaged edits into "edits we absolutely have to make" and "glitches we can cover in an errata sheet." 

Anything coming in beyond this is grist for an errata page, but the print edit window is officially closed.  

15 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

It's the Magic Points that is wrong, should be 3-14 (average of 1D6 is 3-4)

The average of 1D6 is 3.5, rounded up to 4. 

On 10/11/2018 at 9:58 PM, jongjom said:

Page 73 An average male dark troll stands 195–200 centimeters tall

The Guide (page 95): "An average male stands 6’6” tall [198cm]" 

Page 73 The average female is somewhat larger, standing 200–205 centimeters tall

The Guide (page 95): "Females are somewhat larger, an average female standing 6’8” tall [203cm]"

- Trolls are meant to be big

I might be missing something here. 

195+200=395, averaged is 197.5, which rounds up to 198. 

200+205=405, averaged is 202.5, which rounds up to 203. 

Are you objecting to the rounding up of fractions? Or picking an average value within the range? 

Just a note... I added a "Second Printing, Version 1.02" to the core book's credits page, but unbeknownst to me, to fix a hyperlink error that was affecting many sections in the book, only pages after the table of contents were swapped in. The new file is the updated one, but the version number didn't make it in. We'll get it into the next update. 

1 hour ago, Zozotroll said:

I hope to learn something, not make more waves.

We are happy to answer questions, but don't take a lack of an answer as disinterest! 

1 hour ago, Zozotroll said:

I understand the Halbard i a midevil weapon, so it doesnt belong in Glorantha.  But what about the pole axe?  And by pole axe I dont mean the middle ages polearm, but very long axes, such as the dane axe.  Admitted it is a bit later than bronze, but is in the early iron age. 

See page 208 for the stats of a great axe, and page 210 for its description. Based on the description one think of it as a labyrs, a sagaris, or something like the Dane axe. 

1 hour ago, Zozotroll said:

Or the bastard sword? 

The bastard sword is pretty much a 15th-16th century weapon, which feels somewhat out of place in Glorantha. It may be introduced in a later sourcebook as a regional weapon, or it might show up in the Gamemaster Sourcebook in an expanded equipment table. 

Several errors have been fixed in the updated .pdf (available soon) and will be present in future print runs. 

I'm paying attention to issues where there might be rules discrepancies, errors, or things that could use more clarity. 

It would be awesome to see these questions isolated from the background noise in this thread. I'm going to start a new thread for just that purpose. 

2 hours ago, Stephen said:

No such animal.  The designers of RQG have stubbornly refused to include any balanced encounter guidelines, an omission which I think will drive the final nail into the RQ coffin.  I just don't think the  designers understand (or more likely don't care) how absolutely crucial it is to have such a tool if you want to appeal to today's gamer.  I see RQG as a game about nostalgia, hopes, and dreams, but without the hero needed to save it from final judgement by today's gamers.  But in the meantime, until that final judgement day (which may arrive soon in the form of low sales of the hardback), me and the other grognards here will have some fun at least fiddling with the game (since I can't, much to my dismay, find any gamers under 40 willing to actually play it, and the only ones that will play it are RQ veterans who favor/are nostalgic for/ are stuck in the edition they played back in the day).

The Gamemaster Sourcebook, which is my highest prio right now, has a whole chapter on Encounters, specifically on scaling them to suit the needs of the scene and to provide the right degree of challenge for the adventurers. 

But if you'd like to claim that we're "stubbornly refusing" to provide such info, or that sales are poor, you can be wrong on both counts.