Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by creativehum

  1. Hello @Ian Cooper, I listened to your interview on the Grognard Files yesterday. Thanks, I really enjoyed it! One thing caught my attention: You mentioned that when your group first played Traveller (your first RPG!) you had a great time rolling up characters... and then didn't quite know what you were supposed to do with the game. But then, after playing games like Call of Cthulhu and others, you were able to go back and play it successfully. Could you list some of the qualities, tools, techniques that you brought to Classic Traveller that let you play it on your second go-around? I'd really like to hear about this! Thanks!
  2. Agreed. I never suggested anything otherwise. You are phrasing this as if you are correcting something... but that is strange, since I never typed anything contrary to this point of view. Again... I have no idea why you typed this in the context of some sort of reply to what I wrote. I never said anything about contradicting the facts given in the setting in any of my posts. I have no idea what you are talking about. Not once did I talk about anything to do with some sort of nonsensical shifting of Staristcs through wishful thinking, let alone I have no idea why you think I'd blithely consider shifting Statistics because a PC moved to a new Homeland. As always when we interact there comes a time when I can only you assume you are skimming over my words, deciding what I wrote independent of anything I actually wrote, and correcting me on point s I never typed. That time has arrived in this thread.
  3. Yes. That's why we use them. I would never suggest otherewise and did not suggest otherwise. Speaking of tables... in BoKL this is how Sarun is listed on p. 22 Sarum (City) [Salisbury], Cymric/British Chr. Not a big deal. But it is why I used it in my example. This is great stuff. And the kind of thing I am talking about. The BoKL can get us started. And then we run with it as story and circumstances grow.
  4. Right. A lot of this is "soft" when it comes to rules and can only be determined by playing it out at the table, with everyone creating the effects and fallout of cultures meeting like this in each specific instance. Again, a few dozen pages of tables can only do so much. At some point we are on our own at a table to say, "Okay... this is what this means, this is how this is going to play out."
  5. I have never thought it was exceptional, and never said otherwise. Your example is a completely normal situation and the kind of thing BoKL was designed to handle. if you go back to my posts you will see I am referring to Morien's example of a Roman COUPLE moving to Salisbury as being exceptional. Yes, it could happen. But how often is a game of KAP going to be driving down that road? The moment you start with that as a premise you are probably choosing to set up some extraordinary circumstances with some specific cultural conflicts in mind. No book of tables will help you with all that. You'll need to sort out how you want cultural tensions to get set up for that specific situation.
  6. You and Morien are reading that box on p. 50 as declaring that the "Culture" of child is determined by that 50-50 roll. And that is fine. Not only am I not concerned with how you run your game, I couldn't stop you if I did care. But that is not what the text says in that box. The text says only that the 50-50 roll determines which Cultural Characteristics the child inherits. Not determines Culture as a whole... only the Statics Modifier. In the same box the text states: "Passions will be from the p lace he grows up in." According to the rules at hand, then, his Passions are determined by the Culture around him, not his father. Thus, that 50-50 roll does not not determine culture. This is, as far as I can tell, Morien's point. The definition of "Culture" begins to fray in certain circumstances. For some reason this isn't a problem for me: I define "Culture" as culture (not genetics) and declare the quality of a Knight's Passions as Culture. I'm not saying I'm RIGHT about this. Simply stating that's how I see it, simply and plainly, without any consternation at all. Of course, if you want the father to determine Passions despite the boxed text on p. 50 go for it. Again, different people will see these matters differently. You and Morien focus Culture on inherited physical qualities. And that is great if it works for you. I simply don't see it that way. As far as Traits go, my Pictish Knight might retain his Heathen ways, but realize his son might do better if raised in his wife's faith. This is all story/campaign stuff that has to be found at table. But being open to it being flexible is vital for unexpected stories and turns through generations to occur. As for the Pict Half-Breed -- I love what you have brought up: that other people would consider him Pictish even if he had all the same Passions thy did. This is great grist for the story-mill. The fact that he is raised in Cymric Culture, sees himself as Cymric, and wants to be accepted as Cymric while others deny him this could be a great source for him pushing himself really hard in his Passions to outdo others to prove himself -- which can only lead to more trouble and danger. This would be great stuff. As for this: Because Morien has made it clear that he wants his Players to have choices beyond those laid out in the book. And I'm not going to be some guy to tell him he's wrong to do that. I mean, what would that gain me? If he is comfortable with it, and sees the logic of it in this specific instance in the setting that this knight is different from others, what could it matter? I myself would probably be as stringent as you. But we are not all people, and all people enjoy and need different things. And so I bothered to make that specific point in that post so Morien knew I had appreciated his concerns on being flexible. Not because I would do it that way -- but because I can understand why he would.
  7. Mystery solved! I knew there was a hitch in our conversation that I couldn't see. And this comes to (I believe) one of those places where we see things differently. For me the Statistic Modifiers from Culture are a side-issue that I don't think much about. (And that's my fault. In the conversation above, for a hot minute I honestly forgot about the influence of culture on Statistics.) For me, the focus of Culture are Traits and Passions, as driven by Homeland, and then the Cultures within that homeland. That's the stuff I'm interested in and excites me. But you are right... Statistic Modifier's will be passed down from either Mother or Father. For me, no matter what the Statistical Modifier from a parent, however, a character's Passions are what identify him with a Culture. His culture informs what what he cares about, what he would die for. If I have a Pictish Champion who joins Arthur's court, marries a Salisbury woman, and sends his son to Sarum to train to be a page,, I don't care if he inherited his father's –3 SIZ, +3 DEX,–3 APP Statistic Modifiers, I am happily writing "Cymric" in the Culture box. By the time he has worked his way up to being a knight he is Cymric by my lights. But, again, that is my focus. I don't presume it will be the focus of everyone. As for religion, a child is given the religion, the sidebar on p. 50 of BoKL says the child will have "the Traits will be for whatever religion he is raised into..." So that is up to the Player to sort out, as he also controls the parents. Of course, there are all sorts of permutations and campaign specific situations in which the rules in BoKL might break down. For example, a Roman couple moves to Salisbury and the Player declares he will raise his Knight's children in the traditions of Roman Culture for the matter of Passions. Okay.. if everyone at the table is game for it, it happens. After all, the book is only an aid and structure for introducing PC Knights from different homelands.Once we get to specific desires of particular Players, or details of story and the campaign, the structure of BoKL can be ignored to make sure people get what they want. If Roman couples moving to Salisbury happens regularly in a campaign, the book might not prove as much support for other campaigns. But for me, as a tool to aid play, BoKL will work great. There are plenty of edge cases and beyond edge cases that will most likely never appear in a game of mine (a Roman couple moving to Salisbury might happen, but probably not!).
  8. First, thank you for the reply. I understand your points now. I believe I see several matters differently than you do. And our views might never meet. But I do understand your point of view. I do want to address one thing. You wrote: This seems to suggest that the core rules don't do exactly this (that is, use to Culture of a character to determine both a character's Statistic Modifiers and the character's Passions.) Your posts seems to suggest that the core rules tie culture to the Statistic Modifier, and it is only BoKL that additionally ties Culture to Passions. But this is not the case. On page 94 of KAP 5.2 we find this: Culture in the core rules has always been determined both Statistic Modifiers and Passions. It has been this way in every edition of King Arthur Pendragon. The sidebar in BoKL is there for those cases when the Statistic Modifiers are up in the air because of parents from two different cultures. But the Passions are established by the Culture around the child as determined by the child's homeland and are never in doubt. (And 50% of the time in most these cases (for example, a Cyrmric Knight marries a Saxon woman and sires a child in Salisbury) the Statistic Modifier and the Passions of the child will match up to the same culture so this whole issue becomes moot.) But Homeland, and thus Culture, have always determined Passions. The sidebar on p. 50 is there to be pulled out as needed to determine Statistic Modifiers in special cases. It should not be seen as establishing the baseline for determining Culture through the parents' heritage. At least that is how I see it. And that might be very different than how you see it!
  9. May I ask what system you are using for the parts that are not Runes and Passions? Are you, for example, adding the Runes and Passions on top of RQ2, or some other system? I'll state again that I'm new to RQ. I ran some H sessions in Glorantha a while back hat went well, but for Players unfamiliar with Glorantha, the looseness of HQ offers no handholds or boundaries to get a good understanding of Glorantha. Thus, the appeal of a version of RQ.
  10. Hey guys, i just read a book that pointed out King Arthur never existed and there was no tournament jousting in 5th century Britain. i'm re-working the game now to take all that stuff out. I'll post my notes as soon as I'm done.
  11. I found your post very confusing... but as long as you're satisfied... great. In the post of yours I responded to you said you found it odd that a Roman Knight raised in Salisbury could have Roman Passions. I said that wouldn't be the case, he would have Cymric Passions... because if you grow in Salisbury, per the tables in the book, you would grow up in a Cymric culture and have Cymric Passions. The rules you just referenced back this up. Are we disagreeing, or agreeing? Are you repeating what I said in the previous post? I honestly can't tell. Finally, King Arthur Pendragon is not history, nor is its primary source, Le Morte D'Arthur. The reason there is an Roman emperor is because that's what the story says.
  12. Again... the issue is not simplicity or complexity. The text of Runequest Glorantha is sloppy. The issue is clarity. Certain people at Chaosium can continue dismissing the people pointing this out. But that doesn't change Atgxtg's correct observation that this forum is filled with people and posts trying to make sense of the game's text.
  13. For what it is worth, I think it is Cultures that should determine Traits and Passions. But, again, in BoKL Homelands determine the Cultures that are available. So it is connected.
  14. There seems to be some confusion here. I have been, consistently, one of the book's biggest critics. From the get go. I've been accused of being too harsh by some of the people here because I consistently point out the problems in the text. After my frustrations reached a boiling point with the replies from Jeff Richard ("Do whatever, youe want with the rules, they're your rules..." "There is nothing confusing about the text..." "The only people complaining are Grognards...") I picked up a copy of Kill Team. I was simply so frustrated with how Chaosium was responding to Criticism I wanted a game that simply worked. I am not a fan of the game. I am, however, a fan of the possibility of the game. This might make me a fool... but it is why I am on the fence about it. (This is I believe the second time you have suggested I am some sort of staunch defender of the game. I am not.) To sooth your concerns on this matter: I haven't run it yet because: I simply don't have the time right now to wade through an RPG to figure out how to make it work. The game has a lot of interlocking pieces. My players will all be new to it. I'll be on my own trying to answer confusion about how all those pieces fit together. I want as much of the game clear in my own head before I do that. If I'm going to send time on a game, I want that time to be about making stuff up... not scrying the author's intent. My Monday Night Gaming group is stuffed with games. I am currently running a Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign. But we switch off GMing, with all sorts of games being run on a regular basis. I already have other games that I don't have to figure out that I want to share with my players. Among them is King Arthur Pendragon. (I said somewhere online that since Runequest Glorantha is such a heavy load for me to figure out, I'd rather run KAP. And I've been prepping notes for that.) But there are another dozen RPGs I'd also like to run for the gang... all of which simply work out of the box. So -- even though I really, really want to run a game in Glorantha -- running Runequest Glorantha has not been a priority. Setting up a game in Glorantha is something I really want to do. But figuring out which rules to use has become part of the process. Simply haven't figured that out yet.
  15. The text uses the terms "stack" and "boost." Usually "stack" refers to increasing the effectiveness of the spell, and "boost" to increasing the spell's effectiveness in matters of counter-magic. If the terms had been used consistently (and even better, all terms defined on a specific page for easy reference) that would have been great. But... [emphasis added] My first readings of the text really did send me down a spiral of confusion as I tried to make sense of several points. This was one of them.
  16. A glance through the tables in BoKL suggests that Homeland determines Cultures are available for a knight from that Homeland. In the case of Salisbury, the only Culture available is Cymric. Thus... ... is not a Roman knight. He was born and raised in Salisbury. He is Cymric... and can only be Cymric. (If I've read the tables incorrectly, I apologize.)
  17. It took me a while, and a several conversations on this board, to realize that "stacking" Magic Points is not about increasing effectiveness of a spell, but part of the back and forth battle of counter magic -- which is cool!
  18. But for some of us, this has little appeal as a plan. First, I have no experience playing or running earlier editions of RQ. So I'd be starting from scratch as much as I'm starting from scratch with RQG. This matters because there is a lot to love in RQG. The Traits, Passions, seasonal phases, and all the deep integration of Glorantha into the game and mechanics. I love all this stuff. I really have no desire to cut and paste various editions of RQ to try to make my own version. I have plenty of other games where I don't have to do this. Now, I think (but am not certain) you still have not read or even skimmed RQG. Not that you have any obligation to purchase it. But to keep dismissing it without having seen what someone like me find appealing about it keeps confounding me. If I do settle down to run it I will have to make some decisions about how to interpret and handle certain rules. I shouldn't have to do this (it should be an option, not a requirement), but there it is. But I do think there is enough in RQG that might make it worth the effort.
  19. I am saying: 1. The Spell is called "Bladesharp" and my guess is, based only on the name and how the spell is described, it is a spell that makes a bladed weapon more effective at cutting an opponent's armor and doing damage. 2.The second Spell of the paragraph, which allows a blade to do damage to magical creatures otherwise unharmed by normal weapons, suggests again that the spell is about making weapons bettering at effectively sticking and doing damage. 3. The text describing the spell bothers to use the phrase "chance to hit" is increased by 5% rather than "skill is increased" which is often the case in Spells. (Sword Trance, for example.) The later would increase the odds of hitting and parrying. I assume a different phrasing was used to make a distinction. 4. Within the tradition of the RPG hobby, and in any RPG I have ever read, "to hit" always refers to the active action or making a roll to strike at an opponent in some way, and is nevertheless about defending or parrying (and those rolls are usually referred to as "defending" or "parrying" in the rules). 5. i just did a search of the phrase "to hit" in the PDF of the RQG core rule and every case I read (a quick scan, I admit) referred to the action of the PC striking at an opponent or the Player making an attack roll. Never, that I could find, did the phrase refer to the action of defending or parrying. 6. I have seen several times someone on the board say something like, "We could read this phrase in the rules book like this..." and the rest of the thread build on that rather idiosyncratic reading of a phrasing or word... only to have someone from Chaosium say, "No, that's not what we meant." I understand the impulse! The text of RQG often does not define words or phrases clearly, and for some reason does not use the same word or phrase when speaking of identical mechanical effects within the game. So we are often left to figure out what the meaning is this time. And that can become a habit. But in this case, with the points made above, I feel confident that in this case "chance to hit" refers specifically to the attack roll to hit a target and do damage in the order of operations of combat -- and not in reference to hitting an opponent's weapon when parrying. All in all I a very confident of this particular reading in this case.
  20. Now that this has been pointed out to me, I don't find it confusing. Looking at it now, it seems clear that one uses the value of the characters weapon Ability (skill plus category modifier) when attempting to parry, or driving down an opponent's attack if you have over 100% if he attacks you. But "increases the chance to hit by +5%" (per the Bladesharp spell) doesn't increase ability, simply increases the odds you you'll land a cut that does damage. Thus, you are not better at parrying. But Sword Trance is about manifesting Humakt's gift in the flesh and the world. You skill goes up because you are handing the instrument of death so well. Thus, you hit better and you defend better. But I'm glad I'm following this thread. Because I'm not sure if I would have noticed the distinction for several sessions of play! (It is, as often is the case in the RQG text, somewhat buried, and requiring interpolation of two or more passages to sort out.)
  21. I've been reading this thread with growing confusion, not because anyone here is saying anything that is wrong for them -- but I couldn't be sure if the game was "broken" in some concrete way objectively. Now, I've only played any version of RQ once -- when I ran the RQG Quickstart for some friends. Had a good time, but we clearly never got into the intricacies of the game, and how all the rules interact with each other over time. And clearly I have no perspective of RQ from one edition to the next. But reading this thread, I was also thinking along the lines of the passage I quoted from Zozotroll above. Sure, there's a dude who has Initiated himself to the CULT OF DEATH -- and so he is a nightmare in a fight. The question isn't "Can he kill a lot of people?" (He can. He is an Initiate of the CULT OF DEATH). The question is "What is going to do with this?" Because if he pisses off certain people with power and resources they are going to use their power and resources to come after him.That isn't a punishment against the Player. It is a response to a choice the player made for his PC. (An informed choice, if I'm running the game, so the Player knows he risks consequences.) I wouldn't be out to "get" the PC. I would have no idea how things would fall out. But it would be the story we are building. RQG is built, as far as I can tell, for the PCs to be the Baddasses of the Land. Legends will be written about them. They should be performing acts and deeds that are extraordinary and that get talked about and building up reputation. Perhaps even from the start of their careers. But this also means they are trouble magnets. And trouble magnets are awesome for story driven RPG play. This might not be everyone's cup of tea. (In fact, let's be up front -- a lot of people don't want this!) But it does seem to be part and parcel of the rules as they stand. I know in years past I would have been loathe to hand the PCs powers like the one described in this thread. But I'll tell you, I've been running another game of late (a D&D retro-clone called LotFP) and the PCs have accumulated a few magic items and spells from certain modules that I thought, "This is going to break the game." And I thought, "Well, let's go with it and see what happens." And you know what? It's been great. My PCs have gotten themselves into as much trouble as they've gotten out of; they've done astounding things that have created memorable moments they loved; and it has allowed the campaign to grow in strange and astounding ways that I never could have anticipated. Reading this thread has been great. It has taught me a lot about the effects of the system and how the "pieces" of the game interact with each other. I'm better prepared for some extraordinary and outlandish results. But I'm not sure I can define such results as "broken." They are, by definition, exceptional, and my reading of RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha seems to suggest the exceptional is what the game is built to engender in play.
  22. And yet my disbelief compelled me to ask anyway.
  23. Wait. I have to ask. Does the screen actually keep the axis of the Dodge and Parry charts flipped as in the RQG, so that the attack runs down the vertical edge on the Parry table, while the attack runs along the horizontal edge on the Dodge table? Because... why would anyone set the tables up that way?
  24. Well... Well done again, folks!
  • Create New...