creativehum

Hi @Jason Durall Thanks for the above.

This might have been answered in a revised PDF, but I haven't downloaded yet.

If I'm wielding a weapon in each hand, can I attack and parry with that weapon in a given round? (Which I can do if I'm fighting with only one weapon.)

Or was the text in the first PDF correct that I must choose to either attack or parry with a given weapon if I have a weapon in each hand?

Thanks!

20 minutes ago, simonh said:

All cracking stuff, but I think a tie like this is also an opportunity for the GM to complicate the situation, or escalate it in some way. In a chase situation there is suddenly some obstacle or interference both sides must overcome.

In the hide and seek situation, the first guard moves on, but a new one arrives; or the guard’s commander shows up to perform a check; or there is a sudden commotion outside distracting the guard but attracting others; a cat distracts the guard, but now it’s wandering towards the PC.

Exactly.

56 minutes ago, trystero said:

Worse, since the guard is going to move off and continue their patrol if they don't notice anything, they won't get another opportunity to roll; this means the tie is effectively a complete loss for them.

Note that in my example the guard is not moving off to continue his patrol. The Orlanthi is not safe yet because the guard is aware of something and the situation is continuing. I never assumed the guard was wandering off. That would, as you say, make it clear the Orlanthi had one the Opposed Roll. And he hasn't yet.

56 minutes ago, trystero said:

I think that if I had to interpret this situation per the rules as now written, I'd say that the guard catches a glimpse of something out of the corner of their eye and is alerted, but doesn't find the hidden thief's exact location. So the hidden adventurer is still hidden, but the guard is no longer unaware. That feels more like a tie to me; the situation changes, but only partly, and neither side achieves their goal completely but neither fails outright, either.

I would consider this a perfectly reasonable way of reading the situation. So I want to be clear, I don't think I'm really disagreeing or arguing with you.

Ultimately, though, all of this is going to come down to the situation. Not the situation anyone on this board might type up in a few sentences, but an actual, in-play situation, full of details that three to eight people sitting around a table might be holding in the heads, full of details that were just mentioned at the table, as well as details that might have been mentioned eight weeks of play earlier that suddenly seem relevant.

The value of the Opposed Roll tie is that it begs everyone at the table to add more content as the screws tighten, things could get worse, and the situation is still teetering at the edge of resolution. 

Again, I don't see the matter as a stalemate. The key word is "unresolved." There is a situation, it is ongoing, and since there was already tension of one kind or another (why else have a roll?) the fact that it is extending means things can get worse. Which is grist for the adventure mill and in my view awesome.

36 minutes ago, simonh said:

I think the race example...

Not quite sure how you do that in the levels of success method though.

For me, in the race example, a Tie means simply the race is not yet resolved.

I think the "yet" part is a really important part how I am interpreting and using the rules. Instead of the Conflict ending in a Tie, I assume the tie is ongoing.

So if Opposed rolls are made for a race and we get a Tie, instead of showing what happens at the finish line (which would be the resolution of the event) we actually zoom in somewhere along the race, where we see (and describe) the competitors neck and neck, or giving ground and losing ground back and forth.

The race is ongoing, we see what the situation is, and then determine if any new details are added to the conflict: Does the governor who has money on the NPC tell a magician to juice his man so he can win? Does the PC cast magic to improve his odds? Does the fact that the PC is losing to this man, and thus perhaps putting his city or clan at risk, provoke him to roll a Passion because he must win?

What I'm seeing in all the examples I've been running in my head is that while the combat system of RQ is quite precise in terms of inputs and outputs, Opposed Rolls with temporarily unresolved conflicts are invitation to add more details to the station as inspired by the situation and the results of the roll.

1 hour ago, trystero said:

How do you envision a tie/stalemate playing out in the case of, say, Spot vs. Hide?

Not speaking for Jason, but I've come to my own understanding on this.

The text in book says a Tie result "means the situation is temporarily unresolved." It doesn't mean the actions of the charters are "tied" -- simply the die rolls.

If "the situation is temporarily unresolved" it means simply the situation is ongoing.

Let's assume the Spot vs. Hide is one guard looking in the Lunar Captain's 's chamber for a Orlanthi scoundrel.

In this case a tie means the hidden character may still yet be discovered, and the character searching has no yet noticed anything out of place but still might.

In addition to the details Jason mentioned, it means that any other details in the fiction continue to press on the characters. If more guards were called to help in the search then they will be arriving soon... and the Orlanthi does not have a chance to escape unnoticed since the still searching guard is blocking his escape. 

This means, in the next round, the Orlanthi could try to hide even better, or he might try to break for it before the additional guards arrive, and so on.

The key for me is to assume my job as a Referee is to keep other events and pressures impinging on an unresolved situation, increasing the stakes the longer it goes on.

When it comes to Two Losers we have: "Neither party achieves their intended goal."

This means that the Orlanthi failed to remain hidden (he makes a noise, alerting the guard, and must somehow reach a new place of safety) and the Guard failed to find him (so he's still searching, but now much more alert). Or I'm assuming that this means the Guard wanders off and someone else finds the Orlanthi. There are countless possibilities. The key (for me at least) is to add in, "Okay, what interesting new details can be added to the situation to make the next roll or decision fresh."

7 hours ago, 7Tigers said:

I guess you are aware of the errata available on download page?

No. 

But now I am.

How hard is it for people to answer questions around here? Is it something in the drinking water?

And thank you for the link to the errata. As one might guess, it was exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks for the reply.

And for anyone: 

Leaving aside any corrections from RQG, were there any fixes made to the PDF that were not made to the printed version? Is there a list of the typos to the printed version anywhere?

Out of curiosity:

I know the PDF was updated with corrections.

For the printed version: Did it have corrected versions as well, or only one printing?

30 minutes ago, Simon Hallett said:

Hi Creativehum,

It is also worth noting that having nearly 40 years of various rules kicking about in your head sometimes makes you interpret things incorrectly, as you graft on how you think things should work rather than actually reading the rules!

I am absolutely sure that the designers intend RQG to stand firmly on its own (once the odd correction and clarification is made).

S. 

To be clear, I posted something like this point on another thread. I know I've gotten caught up in someone worrying about something not making sense in RQG only to find out it was explained elsewhere in the rules.

My goal right now is to shut the fuck up and finish reading the book before getting caught up in any more discussions.

Also: 

The way the different categories of Runes are applied and work in different ways, so there sense of the categories being more than a label but a real difference between categories. Really, really smart stuff.

8 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Thank you for this sentiment!

I'll admit that sometimes it's difficult to even visit this forum at times, versus spending the time working on the books. This is still a part-time job for me and I need to prioritize my time carefully, so forums and other social media sometimes don't get the attention they deserve. 

It's good to be reminded that complaints about errors, demands for clarification, etc. stem from passionate enthusiasm, not negativity. 

Thanks for your support! 

Yeah, some part of my brain thought...

"What if I was Jason...?" 
"Oh, shit!"

So, yeah. Bravo.

I got to the first pages of the Runes chapter last night. Runes for Inspiration! Runes for Personality! Conflicting Runes! Runes for Personality Disputes! 

This stuff is gold!

As King Arthur Pendragon is one of my favorite RPGs ever you can imagine my delight. But it isn't simply tacked on. It brings the runic energy of Glorantha as a living force in all creatures right to the forefront of both the setting and the rules! I was so excited about this stuff. Thanks!

11 hours ago, simonh said:

And I really do feel like an arse. Must try harder.

Dude. It's all good.

And edited to add: So do I.

I know I've been pushing hard against the text of the new book. I know I've been asking a lot of questions. I know sometimes my own frustration has made me phrase things in ways that don't make me happy -- and those phrasings can't be sugar whispers to the ears of everyone who worked on this new book and this new line of an RPG classic.

So I wanted to make something clear:

I know how hard you guys have worked on this game. I know how hard you worked on this book. I know how hard it is to write RPG text. (Like, really, I know.)

You have produced a new version of a game that has existed since the start of the hobby. And has gone through a half-dozen variations over those four decades. You've obviously put a lot of work and love into the book and the plans for the line.

If there is frustration in my posts on occasion (and I suspect this might be true for others as well) it is because I sense there is a lot lot joy and wonder in these pages and there is a lot of work on my part to pull it out. I want to make sure to get what everyone else is talking about, and has been talking about for years. I want to get all the terrific details and magic and culture resting in the book and waiting for me to bring them to my friends.

And if I have desire to do this it is only because the game system is rich, the setting is rich, and you have built a book that brings both of these things closer together than they ever have in any previous edition of RuneQuest.

So, I want you to know I appreciate all the work. I appreciate all the effort you are making now to get the game released in print, to answer our question, to ponder our questions, and work diligently to make the best game and game line you can.

Wanted to say that.

Thanks.

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

I'd note that my experience with rule books is that you're never going to understand all the nuances on one or two (or three...) reads.  It doesn't mean you need to go back to other texts.  It may mean you need to get clarifications where some bit isn't as clear as it could be.  If you've had the benefit of prior editions without much substantive change (e.g. Call of Cthulhu), then most of those bits will have been fully worked out.  Overall, compared to what I remember when getting started with either RQ2 (which really was pretty bare bones and needed supplements) or RQ3 (where I really did have to rely on Cults of Prax, Griffin Mountain, and other earlier texts to help complete the Glorantha picture), RQG can stand well on its own as a rule system and as a source for getting started in Glorantha.

This is an excellent thing to hear. Thanks!

and edited to add: I think a hard copy to flip through and reference with "space" will make understanding how all the pieces fit together easier for me.

29 minutes ago, Psullie said:

Just dive in, so what if you miss some things or play it 'wrong' for a bit. I've been exploring Glorantha on and off for twenty years and still have lightbulb moments. Organise a game with your players and explore it 

Excellent advice. And I mean that, seriously.

But here is why I started the thread: 

RQG, as far as I can tell, is the best marriage so far of rules and Glorantha. When the rules and details are clear, I understand Glorantha better. Obviously I'll be building own Glorantha.

Keep in mind I posted a short essay online years ago about YGMV that Greg Stafford liked so much he asked to publish it elsewhere. So none of this is about getting Glorantha "right." It is about getting the baselines details, that I'm assuming have been sorted out slightly, at least, over the past 40 years. For example, no everyone casts Peace if they happen to have three points lying around. In the setting of Glorantha Peace is a big deal, distributed to only a few, and only a few from a specific subcult. I might be wrong, but I consider that a big deal.

Now I could change that, give it out in other ways. But knowing that some magic is really narrow and specific in distribution is a thing that matters (at least I think it is ) and tells me a lot about the world, about magic, and about Glorantha.

Hence, my questions.

Also:

Digging further into the text I found two mentions of the Peace spell on pages 292 and 293 which state

Quote

Three Bean Circus: This spirit cult provides Peace to High Priestesses.

This is the limiter found in RQ2. But it is also disconnected from the spell (found on p. 336), and nowhere does it say that one needs to be a Priestess to get the spell from the Three Bean Circus. I can see how one might infer that, especially with Cults of Prax in mind. And certainly I will read the section on Cults and the distribution of spells with this reading in mind. But I never would have made the connection that receiving Peace via the Three Bean Circus a limiter had I not read the another thread on this forum which discussed Peace in the context of Cults of Prax.

So, is the information in RQG? Kind of?

Is it as clear as I would like it to be? No. 

But I understand communicating all these nuances and details will be tricky. The key is that if I had read Cults of Prax I would be able to decode and infer the information as it was presented three decades ago in a snap.

I am curious what else might better arm newcomers in how to infer and decode some of the details that might not be readily apparent to newcomers trying to make sense of this material.

2 hours ago, Jakob said:

I don't have a lot experience with previous editions of RuneQuest (I played Cthulhu and Stormbringer and very little RQ3 back in the day, and a few sessions of Mythras and OpenQuest now and then, but I have no experience with RQ2 an Glorantha, which are the main reference point for RQG); and I find the parry rules perfectly easy to understand.

I found the rules easy to understand as well. And then a portion of the rules was clarified and I realized I was wrong. I'm glad you got it right away though. (Sincerely.)

Quote

The problems seems to be people coming at them with certain expectations from previous questions and also the notion that there should be a special incentive for using two weapons.

There is a whole separate thread for this... but I'll say here that neither of these possibilities hold true for me. 

On p. 197 we have this:

Quote

Weapon Use

Fist or fencepost, a weapon is any object used by an adventurer to do damage to a target. An adventurer may attack and parry with the same weapon in the same melee round.

On p. 224 we have this:

Quote

Two Weapon Use

The following conditions apply when an adventurer wishes to wield a separate weapon in each hand, other than a weapon and shield.

• Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks,  two parries, or one attack and one parry.

The first passage says that a weapon can be used to both attack and parry. The second passage says that when fighting with a weapon in one hand, one must make a choice with each weapon to either attack or parry.

The two passage do not make sense together unless one is willing to assume that one is penalized for using two weapons and loses the ability to attack and parry with a given weapon.

I understand and assume this will be cleaned up soon (there are several layers of problems with the conflicting texts). I am only referring to what was in the book. Given the text above, the game grinds against itself. Not because of prior experience with RQ or expectations of incentives for using two handed weapons, but because of the actual writing in the actual book.

Thanks for all the replies.

And a quick note about this:

4 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

On the whole, I disagree.  I ran the Quickstart just fine with what we had then.  RQG covers most of what you need except for the Bestiary (and there are samples from that already available).  I expect that the Gods of Glorantha book will be a valuable addition, but there's enough on the cults in RQG to get players underway with a lot of choices. 

Perfect. The passage you quoted from my second post should have been more of a question (which is how I phrased the matter in the original post). 

Again, I'm flying somewhat blind here. Still making my way through RQG while not having the foundation of any version of RQ beneath me, and an off-and-on dipping into Glorantha reading via HQ over the past decade.

I appreciate the answers.

1 minute ago, styopa said:

Wait.  I can attack with a weapon, and (with that same weapon) parry an open-ended number of times.

But if I smack someone with the edge of my shield, I can't parry with it?

That makes no sense at all.

To be fair... at this time I'm not convinced I know what the rules are supposed to be.

38 minutes ago, simonh said:

Yes, it’s impossible to play RQG without Cults of Prax. Can’t be done.

I'm assuming this is some sort of attempt at cleverness? Snark? A pointed rejoinder to an honest question about how competently RQG was executed in both design and writing?

The basic package of RQG (printed) is going to be about, what, $175? 

So far, from what I've seen in how the text handled parrying (a fairly mundane and common activity in RQ play) the text of the game is already loaded with problems for anyone new to the game trying to sort out exactly how one is supposed to use the mechanics at hand.

It also seems clear (from the example above, which was only an example, which broadened out to a larger issue of how magic and other issues in general) the game does not in fact offer a comprehensive set of rules for play for a newcomer, but depends instead either on an institutional memory or other text published decades ago for a proper understanding and application of the rules.

Now, I'll be blunt: Your response makes you an ass. I asked an honest question that I think is worth asking, because either RQG delivers the goods on offering a solid rules set that one can read and play the game... or it does't. The example of the Peace spell above certainly seems to be a slip-up where a previous text put a limiter on a very powerful spell... and that limiter is missing from the text.

If you think I'm a fool for asking the question, fine. If you think I'm a fool for wondering whether to begin investing in the new RQG line, fine. But if so, just come out and say it. Don't hide behind cloudy snark.

And by the way, if anyone, from Chaosium or not, comes out and says, "Hey, its your game, these are only guidelines, do what you want!" Forget it. For a $55 book I'm expecting some thought and clarity to have been put into the game. For a game that needs about $175 or so for the four main components to get the game going, I'm expecting more than, "Good luck!"

Seriously, you can either offer help, or answer a question plainly, or say, "Really, Glorantha and RuneQuest are a little club, and we really don't want anyone new to show up. You really wouldn't understand."

But the asinine post above? Shove it.

In other thread this exchange occurred:

On 6/2/2018 at 8:19 PM, styopa said:

OK I retract that.  

Peace 
3 Points
Ranged, Temporal, Nonstackable
This spell causes all persons not of Rune Master status within a 1-kilometer radius to lay down their weapons and forget all violence and war. For the duration of the spell, they prefer rather to listen to the wonders of peace and love which the spirits send ringing through their minds

 

That's ridiculous.  

On 6/2/2018 at 9:39 PM, metcalph said:

Also it's from Cults of Prax.

On 6/3/2018 at 8:31 AM, Psullie said:

And knowledge is limited to just two people, Most Respected Elder and High Priestess of the 3 Bean Circus

In RQ2 Rune Magic was severely restricted, some cults could only learn 1 or 2 point spells which helped limited some overpowering magic. I hope the future Gods supplement does something similar and make many of the more powerful magic limited,

Apparently the RQG text doesn't include the limits imposed on the use of this spell outlined in Cults of Prax.

Let's say my players and I have never read Cults of Prax. Should such limits apply? Are we supposed to read Cults of Prax to play RQG?

And more importantly, are there other details and ideas included in RQG that longtime players of RuneQuest or students of Glorantha would know how to handle well... that some of without such experience will simply be confounded the current rules or uncertain what to do with them?

3 hours ago, deleriad said:

Literally, and again I don't know if this is *meant* to be the case, attacking with a shield prevents you from parrying at all during that round. I presume it is meant to mean that you can't parry with the shield you're using for the attack but presumably can still parry with something else (and/or replace the parry with a dodge.) 

 

*sigh*

Yeah. I think the rule is supposed to mean you give up your chance to parry with the shield. But I've already been wrong a couple of times after really trying to grok the text.

But you are right. What the rule states is that if you attack with the shield you give up the chance to parry with any method that round. 

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

So all shield users should bash with their shield, because there is no reason not to (other than risking damage to the shield)?

It comes down to which special rules are in effect and which, perhaps, don't belong in the text at all.

The text tells us that a shield can be used for an attack on SR 12, which removes the possibility of using it for a parry. So if that rule is still in effect, there is a reason not to attack -- you don't get to parry.

p. 219

Shield Attacks

It is possible to attack with a shield, giving up the chance of parrying that round. The chance to attack is identical to that for parrying—shield training covers offensive as well as defensive usage. Attacking can be done with the front of the shield or the boss (a large metal knob in the center) or with the edge. A frequent tactic for shield-users is to attempt to knock opponents backwards or off their feet (see Knockback, page 224).

All shields are weapon type C (Crushing) and do crushing damage when special or critical successes are rolled.

Those are valuable things to say.

My post was really about my realization that the passage on p. 224 is weirdly crippled into utter uselessness on all fronts once one considers the rest of the rules/rulings at hand. Any choice of consequence for attacking or defending when fighting two handed is gone -- whereas that passage suggests there is a significant choice to be made.

4 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

All that needs to be stated is that you can make 1 or 2 attacks

It is early. And I haven't had my coffee yet. So I might be completely wrong about this...

But do the rules even need to say this?

Given the direction the rules seem to be going, if every parry accumulates a -20%, and if every weapon can attack and parry in a given round, why would anyone with two weapons do anything but attack twice and then parry? (Whether they parry with one sword or both, it doesn't matter.) Why would anyone make only one attack, ever, if armed with two weapons?