creativehum

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.

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 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.

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.) 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: On p. 224 we have this: 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: 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.

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

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: 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?

*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.

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.

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?

For me this isn't it at all. I came across a passage in the rules (a passage that has been quoted repeatedly above) that told me two weapons would let me parry with both weapons -- but doing so would be at the cost of my attacks. So clearly there would be some advantage to parrying with both weapons. But there isn't. And that's weird. And I think that's the core issues.

Agreed. I'm not sure what Jason would say. But that's how I'd rule. My instinct is always to go for the interpretation that is easiest and moves things along. It helps to remove any worrying.

Actually, I have one more follow up question. Which might have been already answered. Or might be errata already dealt with. But some of this text is like a blob of mercury... every time I think I'm about to nail it down, it moves again, and I lose track of whatever clarifying rulings had been made before. On page 197 we find this sentence: "An adventurer may attack and parry with the same weapon in the same melee round." Is this true? Is it true when fighting with one weapon, but not with two? Or must a weapon be used to either attack or parry in a given round?

I am so glad the confusion on this point isn't just me!

Once again I cross-posted with someone else and came in second. But, again, Paid is going after the same question I am. Also, I was going to make a separate post about this: I'm assuming the text in the book is correct? But maybe not!

Jason, great. Thanks so much. Final, bonus round (for me, at least): Why would anyone armed with two weapons choose to parry with both weapons? I asked this question above, and you replied with a list of reasons that explain why someone would make sure to have more than one weapon or be trained to fight with more than one hand. But the answer does not explain why one would ever give up an attack for a second parry since: One can only parry any attack once Each parry will incur a -20% mod As far as I can tell, the mechanical effect in the game of a 1H-weapon-and-1H-weapon combatant parrying with one weapon (parry all attacks, accumulate -20% mods) is identical to parrying with only one weapon. In one case is he alternating weapons to parry at a -20% mod for each parry, and in the second he is only using one weapon at a -20% mod for each parry. In the first case is losing the chance to use his second weapon to attack, and in the second he gets to attack and is using his second weapon to parry. Leaving aside the difference skill %s that each hand might have, given the above is there any reason ever to commit both weapons to parrying rather than have one attack and one parry?

Thanks for the replies. For me, at least, we are so close to me understanding what the rules are supposed to do. A couple of more questions, based off this passage of your reply: If I understand the words above correctly: When welding two weapons a weapon can be used to parry only once in a given round. Is this correct? This would be in contrast to parrying with a shield, which can be used for multiple parry attempts per round? Is this correct? Out of curiosity, does the same limit of one-parry-per-round-per-weapon apply even if one is using a weapon and shield? That is, universally a weapon can only parry once in a given round, but a shield can be used multiple times? (I didn't think this was true... but I don't understand why one would be able to parry multiple times with a sword if holding a sword and shield, but only once with the sword if holding two swords.) The reason one might parry with each weapon when armed with two weapons is that you might want to parry more than once. You can only parry twice in a given round if wielding two weapons, but if you need a second parry, you use the other weapon for the second (and final) parry for the round, and no attacks. Is this correct? Thanks! I cross-posted with deleriad, but this portion below goes after the part I am asking about. Can someone parry each incoming attack with a sword if holding only that one sword, but parry only once with a given sword if wielding a sword in each hand?

Hi Furry, A couple of questions for you: Can you talk to me which RQ2 rules you would be reverting to? (Combat? Magic? ...?) And which rules rules you'd be taking from HQG?

This is becoming a problem with the text for me... I'm spending time trying to read between the lines to justify the text. It is becoming too much work. The "two parries against the same attack" is the only reason I could think of for using two parries as a statement of intent. (Jason's reply to my question upthread lists great answers for why one would make sure to carry more than one weapon... not answer the question one would would give up an attack to parry twice if one is armed with two weapons.)

I'm with you two. Out of curiosity, how would you handle someone wielding two swords and parrying with both in a given round? Both are Sword Action, and yet one is Off-Hand, which to my thinking still makes it something different and thus each should have their full value for each sword's parry.

@Jason Durall just said posted literally the opposite of this in this thread seven hours ago. (I mean, as far as I can tell.)

I'm confused by your confusion, as far as I understand the question. The rule says, "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." So, as to your questions: Well, yes, right? "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." Isn't that what that sentence says? Two attacks, or two parries, or one attack and one parry. You choose among those three options. And... Well, no, right? "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." Isn't that what that sentence says? If you choose to parry with both weapons you don't get to attack. Now, is your confusion that you might only get two parries total, and not be able to use the same weapon for multiple parries at the -20% mod? Because at this point I can safely say, "Who knows?" I would normally assume that of course if you are parrying you can use the parrying weapon (or both weapons, if you are parrying with both) multiple times at a cumulative -20% mod. But it does say "one parry"-- and I've hit a point of realizing that despite my best efforts to comprehend the text I honestly am not sure that what the author intended and what I'm understand the text to mean are the same thing. The phrasing states clearly that if you are fighting with two weapons you can either make one parry or two parries, which isn't how the parry rules work elsewhere. (Because the rules state elsewhere you can parry any incoming attack at a cumulative -20% mod per parry). So I don't know... and I kind of toss up my hands at this point.

I'm surprised by this as well... but it does seem to be what Jason is saying. But I'll be curious about any further clarification. I can only assume that if one is parrying with two weapons, one can make two parries against the same attack -- the first at -0% mod, the second at -20% mod? If not I can't figure out why anyone would ever parry with two weapons.