creativehum

Falling down a rabbit hole of all things Greg Stafford this past week, I came across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hKrVRTOYpY&t=2049s Does anyone know if a transcript exists anywhere? (Not that there should be... but I'm curious.) In particular, I was taken by Greg and Jeff's point that mythology basically dies when written down and codified, and that true mythology lives in loose, contradictory tales of the same characters, stories, and situations. (Suggesting that: Your Glorantha May Vary < Your Glorantha Will Vary < Your Glorantha Should Vary.) [Edited to Add: It wasn't like Greg hasn't been begging people to understand this various ways for years]

Does anyone have a list of the difference in text and rules between the three editions of Pendragon 5th (5, 5.1, 5.2). For the purposes of this question, we're leaving aside art and layout. Also, the answer, "There really aren't that many differences," isn't one that interest me. What I want to know is what are the differences. For example, in 5.0 the rule that Knights gain annual Glory at a rate of all Traits and Passions at a value of 16+ was dropped. Edition 5.1 reinstated that rule. Things like that. Thanks!

Great. However I don't have the adventure book and can only do my best with the text I have. And JonBoss has pulled quotes from RQG that suggest that at least ambiguity exits about the intention of these rules. Clearly one can pick and choose which sentences and ideas one want to make real. We're talking about magic in a fictional game world for an RPG, of course. "Your RPG Will Vary" is the default assumption of any sane person. I still would like to know what the results Team: Chaosium intended with the various rules and texts they've published.

Sure. Absolutely. Without doubt. Goes without saying. We all know this. This is a fact. It's true. Still, the people who wrote the book meant something when they wrote the book. I'd like to know what they meant, even if it a baseline for me to make my own decisions. I think its hardly weird to be curious what the intention of the rules are.

These are all good points. But they are (maybe) contradicted by something Jeff has been saying again and again, and I've only caught up within recently: The rules are for creating for Player Characters... and the Player Characters are exceptional. Thus, no one should extrapolate general principles from the rules. Now, maybe this isn't the case. Maybe these rules do apply to all Orlanthi in Dragon Pass. But the truth is we don't know. Becaue the text does not come right out and say "These mechanics for character only apply to the Player Characters. The mechanics for creating other people in Dragon Pass are different." But we d have Jeff suggesting that this might be the case in different threads. And we do have BassJon bringing up important quotes from the text (passages I have read and think, "this is really important, before I run across a thread like this and get all caught up in everyone having lots of rune pints and spells... which might not be the case at all). I'd say it's kind of up in the air at this point whether the mechanics for character creation are general principles are specific to PCs.

I don't have the the GM Pack yet, as I'm holding out hope that certain concepts get ironed out before investing more money into Glorantha products. But man, if this above is correct (and I have no reason to think it isn't)... I really don't understand what is going on with what anyone is defining as "initiating" or "Initiate."

I wasn't involved in any Glorantha based discussion groups 25 years ago, so I might be missing a load of context. So please understand, I'm not challenging anything you've written above. I'm just trying to understand it. Can the post above be summarized as: NPCs that are not Initiates are not useful to the PCs. NPCs that are not Initiates are not useful for the GM as NPCs. Further, could you define "useful" here? That is: NPCs that are opposition should be powerful enough to provide a threat... and if everyone is not an Initiate this threat is not possible. Everyone in the PC's family should be strong enough to back up the PCs when they head off to face off against antagonists that are Initiates. Again, I'm not here counter these points (if these are, indeed, the points being made). The fact is I like Initiates being comparatively rare. And I see plenty of usefulness for NPCs that are not initiates. I'm not here argue these points, however. I'll wander off and do my own thing. But I want to understand what the post above is getting at. Am I close?

I know at least the first two pages of this thread touch on this topic. (Though they might not be the posts you were looking for.)

I, too, recommend the Quickstart. At least for the people I ran it for it (none of whom had every played RQ and only three out of five had encountered Glorantha in a short burst of playing HQ), it went great.

Hey everyone, Over at the RuneQuest Core Rules Questions thread, Jason just answer this question: Question: Answer:

Which is why I'm very happy Jason opened that thread. Many of those points in that thread had been scattered across many other threads for weeks now. I know this thread has been frustrating for some people. But for now I consider it a good thing, because it got the new thread started.

Rick, I can't claim I know exactly what you meant by your statement, but given your phrasing I feel truly compelled to reply in case the word "changes" is really the word you meant to use. If I am mistunderstsnding your point I apologize ahead of time. Most of the comments here are not about the changes are (I'm assuming you mean changes from previous editions?) Some of the people commenting (including myself) are encountering RQ for the first time. We have no reference to earlier editions so anything that is changed is not what is at stake. What we are talking about (even the people who have played RQ before) is how the rule book, as it stands on its own, works or does not work as a clear manual for explaining the rules of play. I have spent time flipping back and forth through the PDF trying to find a consistent reading on various rules on: a) how you hit things b) how you parry things c) how you damage things you've hit that has nothing to do with changes. That is me trying to figure out this particular text. Further, again, this has nothing to do with typos, errors, or errata. All three of those things depend on a baseline of assumed, correct play the the text contradicts. What these comment are about is ambiguity or lack of clarity. For a lot of us we can't say "Oh, here is an error in the rules." Because we don't know what the rule is supposed to be. We're looking at text that sometimes (not all the time, sometimes) is contradictory, ambiguous or unclear. I've started and participated in several threads over the last few months looking for clarification not because I know something is "wrong" but because I can't make out what is supposed to be right. This distinction is vital.

If they end up being ironed out that would be great. I know the concern for some of us has been stating our confusion about rules and asking questions -- and being told, "Really, there's nothing wrong."

I want to be clear: As far as I can tell the people posting here that are saying there is confusion in the rules are not talking about typos. We are talking about the text as a technical manual to clearly explain concepts and procedures. While typos can certainly muck this up, the real issue is this: Was the text given to about a dozen people who had never played RQ before to rune for their friends who had never player RQ before? Searching out typos will always help on this front, but that's not what this particular exercise would be about. It would be about people having to encounter and apply rules from first encounter onward and see if they could make sense of them and apply the em consistently and clearly at the table. I'm not saying such an exercise is easy to arrange. I'm not even saying it wasn't done. I am saying when I read through almost any section involving any aspect of combat (from melee to spell casting to everything in-between) the rules read as if this exercise wasn't done. As was noted above writing RPG rules is hard. (I've done it. It's hard.) Passing on concepts to a reader so they are clear is not an easy thing to do. Which is why the rules need to be passed off to blind pass players to see if the text did its job. I began months ago posting specific questions. The response from certain people at Chaosium has been ranged from helpful to dismissive. I'm here adding to the chorus of, "Something is clunky in the writing," because my efforts to get official answers to ambiguous text on several matters have gone unanswered, and I see other people confused about other matters, also not getting answers. I think gaming consumers are really forgiving on this front... if the the company at hand actually engages rather than dismisses.

Here's a thread I started asking "How Many Attacks Per Round." (I realized later I should have been asking, "How Many Attacks and Spells per Round?") Given that there are several kinds of attacks possible, and given the phrasing and word choices in the text, the answer to these questions are ambiguous. No one from Chaoisum entered the thread. But the consensus from experienced RQ players who did try to help was, "If we go back to the RQ2 rules, we might be able to assume..." Which is kind of nuts that that was the best answer I got if there are in fact no problems with the RQG explanation of rules. Here is a thread started by another player about confusion about dealing damage and hit location: Again, no one from the Chaosium staff replied. Again, experienced RQ players arrived to help... and no simple explanation was available. Those are a couple of examples in the past weeks. There are many threads of this sort going back to the release of the PDF -- people very excited about the game, arriving here to find clarification about a rule, no one from Chaosium answering, and more experienced RQ players trying to sort the matter out, with the thread fading off with no resolution.

I'm not a Glorantha grognard. I really am excited about sharing Glorantha with my players. I ran the Quickstart for some friends at a convention. Everyone loved all the setting material and the integration of the game mechanics with the setting. One of the players runs a twitch site for RPGs. She asked me if I'd run more RQG. She loved it that much. But there are a lot of contradictions within the text. There is a lot of lack of clarity within the rules. This is not a matter of complexity. I can switch gears on complexity or simplicity in RPGs easily. It is a matter of clarity. There are passages within the text that are not clear. There are passages with the text that do not mesh with passages of text found elsewhere. I'm on the fence about getting the hardcover at this point. It means going through the pages, marking them up, sorting through the rules, and sometimes making my own rulings on the rules in order to have a consistent rules set. I also need to make clear: This has nothing to do with the rules being a toolkit. Sorting through clear rules to build what I want is one thing. Finding text that doesn't quite make sense or is contradicted elsewhere is something else entirely; this is doing the work that should have been done before the book went to print. The source material is fantastic, and the rules integration with setting is fantastic. I might well cave. But right now the thought of paying more money to flip through those pages to do extra work to sort the game out before I get to play gives me a headache.

Yup.

That's a lovely sentiment, and would be fantastic if it held up to the actual text. As it stands, I've read deeply into the rules. I've run a session of the game. And I've never played any version of early RQ. And I can tell you now the writing is often unclear and obscure; contradictory and fussy. This isn't a matter of "style" (though the style certainly gets in the way of clarity.) Without referring back go the earlier edition of RQ2 I simply would not understand how certain elements are supposed to work or find certain clues as to make my best guess on how certain elements are supposed to work. As I've said before there are a ton of fantastic ideas in RQG. But some of the core concepts that should be routine (both for any RPG and for RQG specifically) are obscure, unclear, and poorly worded and laid out across the book.

Following up on Atgxtg's points, I went back to RQ2 and looked at the passage pulled from RQ2 and placed into RQG. While the texts are similar, they are not the same: From RQ2: From RQG: (the bolded passage is bolded in the rules) The RQ2 section ends with this sentence: "However, he is considered to be performing that attack for the entire round and can do little else except parry and defend." Which makes it clear that there is only one attack, either physical or magical, each round. (Duel wielding and multiple attacks are special cases that break this rule, which is why they are special cases.) The last sentence in RQG muddies the later by removing that sentence and making the word attack indefinite (how many attacks? who knows) and makes the use of magic plural ("spells"), implying one can make multiple spell attacks. But since RQG is built off the bones of RQ2 I'm happy enough to that text for reference. The assumption seems to be that when engaged in melee one is very busy, but while attacking from a distance one can get off multiple attacks and is less constrained about what can do in the round. (The text is explicit about this: Outside of melee one has a lot more options; in melee, the game says you get in one good attack and a defend). In terms of mechanics and gameplay there is, then, a distinct advantage to being at range. This means opponents may want to close, or attack a character standing back from the fight and lobbing arrows or spells. This offers tactical play because fighting at range and in melee are not the same thing. This may not be what some people want. Some people might not consider it realistic. And that's all fine. But I can see what the rule is supposed to be now. And I can see how it will evangeline players when in a fight. As a side note: I could not find any examples in the RQ2 contradicting this rule, though I'm willing to believe a) there are examples in other RQ books that do contracted the text; and b) plenty of people didn't play this way. Nonetheless, the RQ combat system is an integral part of any RQ game and I'm all for trying it out as is before changing things up. Thanks for all the replies and thoughts.

Fair enough. All good. I simply don't want this to be about my players. The latest advice I'm getting on this is: Ignore the rules you bought; buy a scrying bowl; play the way we did 40 years ago when we blew off the rules too. This is the problem at hand, as far as I'm concerned.

I want to be clear about something: The question at hand is, "How do you hit something?" We now have a half dozen posts circling at that question in a rules set for an RPG. That's ridiculous. Further, you made a weird and nonsensical jump about some sort of abuse or anger about not getting our way. That's not the issue at all. I ran the QuickStart for friends this weekend. It went great... except for a few question about how combat works. We checked the book. Found some confusion, made a call, moved on. No problem. Like, what the hell? I'm saying we'd like to have a consistent set of rules about how combat works so there is no confusion. What does this have to do with whether we hang out together outside of RPGs? (Which we do.) Yesterday I went to book to resolve the confusion. Found out the book doesn't resolved it. Posted here for some clarity. And now at least one person is telling me I should ignore the rules I bought and be playing the way people played decades ago. I'm not faulting Atgxtg for suggesting this. To be told "Well, they cut pasted the rules and really didn't think about what they were doing," is both horrific and calming... because now at least I have context for why the rules read the way they do. But I'm not taking any comfort from the fact that there's a real problem with how this book was made.

And yet the text I quoted explicitly states you can't do what you say people did above. Whether people did things that contradicts the text, the text is clear: You can't cast Disruption and make a melee attack in the same around. I mean, that at least is clear in the text. I'm not talking about what people did in the past. I'm talking about what is right there in the text. The text states clearly you can't do that. You say, "Despite what the text states..." and I'm going be like, "Dude. Right. I'm looking at the text."

For the record, I didn't bold that text. It's bolded that way in the text of RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha. As for your points about the text contradicting itself, sure. Again, for the record, my frustration about the lack of clarity in the RQG rules mounts each time I try to sort through the book. With that said, while your distinctions about descriptive and prescriptive text and how to read them might make sense in almost any other rule book, in the case of RQG I am a sailer at sea after a storm, grabbing onto any flotsam I can to stay afloat. In the specific case of RQG (and not focusing on RQ2, RQ3, or any other editions of RQ, because for crying out loud I should be able to buy a book and understand what the rules are supposed to mean without having to do an exegesis of 40 years worth of published material), my own reading is that the bolded part is the part that matters and the bullet points are merely a continuation of the sloppy and vague (sorry guys, it's true) writing that plagues RQG. Should the bullet point have been clearer with the point? Yes. But RQ Spirit Magic is an extraordinary thing and magic is Glorantha is common, and I can see making a case for being able to cast Bladesharp while engaged in melee as the rules, read one way, suggest. And can the rules be read to mean exactly what you say? That the bullet points state that no spells (of any kind) may be cast once engaged in melee? Sure. And that's the problem. The text lacks clarity on clear on countless points, contradicts itself or drops points made one page when mentioned again on another, uses different sentence structure or phrasing (I assume to avoid being "repetitive") when using specific phrasing or word choices repeated regularly to mean the same thing would be of great help, and doesn't bother to clearly delineate and defined key terms. (I think we can all agree "Engaged" is a key concept in the game. I can't be the only one to notice the game never define "Engaged." It isn't even listed in the Index.) It isn't @RosenMcStern that I disagree with you. It's that I can see your point. And I can see my point. And the book does nothing (and I mean nothing) to clarify the point. We are left trying to piece together whatever clues we can find sprinkled with our own intuition and the way we think magic "works." There are great ideas for both setting and mechanics in the RQG book... but I'm having to weigh right now how much effort I think is worth teasing it out and trying to create a rules set for several sections so my players and I could have a solid, consistent set of rules to work from rather than having to go around in circles as one of us quotes one sentence from the rules to support his point, while another player pulls out a second sentence that supports her point.

To clarify this point (which I think is fairly clear), here is the passage on this matter from page 195 of the RQC The text is referring to spells an adventurer might "throw... at an oncoming foe" and limits, while engaged in combat, the "attack" one might make to either a physical attack or a magical attack. Bladesharp is not an attack on an opponent. It is not thrown against an opponent; it is placed on a weapon. So casting it does not prevent an adventurer from also making a physical attack the same round. The question that still matters to me is: Is there a limit to the number of attack spells a character can make in a round? This question is for both when the character is not engaged, and also when the character is engaged.