creativehum

Hi David, 

Thanks so much for the reply. (And I'm sure many of the questions I'm asking have been covered elsewhere. I asked on another thread if a comprehensive list of corrections is posted anywhere and haven't been pointed to it yet.)

Could you tell me which phrasing is incorrect? Each phrasing is the text of the rules themselves. So are the rules about each side trying to accumulate the RPs? Or scoring RPs against the other side?

On page 74 discussing Extended Contests the rules state the the winner of an exchange accumulates Resolution Points and that the first side to reach 5 RPs wins. 

However, on page 78 onward, the rules for Group Extended Contests state RPs won by a character are scored against his opponent, and that first person in a conflict to accumulate 5 RPs loses. 

Clearly, it's a mistake and one need only pick one way or the other. So I'm hear asking if it matters which method one picks. (It's late and I'm tired and I assume either method will work just fine. But if one falls apart because people can switch opponents in a Group Extended Contest or something, I'd love to hear it.)

Thanks so much for the response!

10 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

I tend to be very selective in my Lingering Benefits or Penalties - usually only as a result of some Extended Contest, and not even all of those.  Why? Well, with a Simple Contest, the result concludes the interaction and you immediately get the benefit or suffer the consequence, so I don't feel a need for some aspect to linger.  An exception might be during an actual HeroQuest, particularly if there is some chance that whoever you defeated (or defeated you) will return in some subsequent interaction at a different station, or that the result allows you to carry something forward to the next station. 

True, and good points, and something I have been thinking about.

But the point of reworking the table is to:

• Make it clear who has won a victory and who has suffered a defeat (because, seriously, what is what the layouts with the tables in this book?)
• Have the penalties and benefits right there, on hand for the Referee instead of having to look them up later. Even if the Referee is selective about when to apply them, there's no reason not to put them exactly where they'll be when triggered.

But your points is really well taken. What I like about offering the penalties and benefits is it gives the success and failures some mechanical teeth. But they should, as you say, offer those teeth only when if makes sense in the context of future situations and contests.

I'm pulling together a booklet of the HeroQuest rules in an attempt to clean up the rules, typos, and needed clarifications and get the mechanics presented in as simple and straightforward manner as possible.

It dawns on me I'm going to probably have many questions as I go, so rather than keep adding new threads I'll start one thread and keep adding the questions.

First Question: The Resolution Point Table (p. 70)

On an errata thread Oracle wrote:

p.70 – (as well as other pages) there are references to the “Resolution Point Table.” On p. 70, the second table is labeled “Extended Contest Resolution Points.” After looking for the “Resolution Points Table” and not finding it, I realized that the “Extended Contest Resolution Points” might well be the Resolution Point Table. Is it? If so, I don’t think it should be labeled “Extended Contest Resolution Points” — because it is used for both Simple and Extended contests. Yes? It simply is the “Resolution Points Table” and spits out information for Group Simple Contests and Group Extended Contests. (That is, if I’m correct about the Table’s purpose!)

I had the same confusion, but I do believe that this is the Resolution Point Table.

However, I have a new confusion. The rules state that "winning side" gets the point value listed in the table. But what if the Target value for each side side is the same and there is a tie? Do no points get given out? Is there a tie breaking method for the table.

I apologize if these rules are already in the text. I have looked and cannot find them.

Given the discussion above, it makes sense to me to rebuild the Results Tables from the point-of-view of the players. 

The means I get to see -- immediately -- the possible damage and benefits the players might receive. 

Hero Points are used to:

1. Raise Abilities and Keywords
2. Spend during conflicts to improve results of said conflict.
3. “Cement” people, objects, relationships with groups to your Hero.

I understand each of these on their own. And II really love the Cementing rule… one of my favorite HQ rules. And it is a kissing cousin to improving an ability, since cementing something is essentially adding it to your sheet as a new Ability, so 2 and 3 aren't that different.

But the difference between 1 and 1 & 2 is to be big and complex.

There's no way to know how fast PCs will advance, since it is dependent on how many HPs they use during a session.

Moreover, Laws' solution in HQ2 to build the Resistance Treadmill where the advancements come so fast you simply keep making the game harder isn't really my thing. 

But maybe I'm missing something!

How have the HPs worked out for people? How has advancement pacing worked out? How many HPs do Players tend to spend in a session? Have people built house rules to separate out HP spending during a session from an XP method? Have people built house rules in regard to advancement and pacing?

1 hour ago, JonL said:

You can also split the difference and write "Typical" in front of the Abilities section as well, making the package a guideline for interpreting an umbrella and inspiring/informing breakout choices.

You've touched on a key dynamic of understanding when to apply more detailed mechanics within HQ: The more everyone understands the fictional parameters of the game world, the less mechanics are needed to portray it. Conversely, that's why most of the fiddly bits & bobs in the rules end up being related to things like magic, because it's not obvious based on our lived experiences, knowledge, and common fictional points of reference just what should be easy, difficult, possible only with great effort and support, or outright impossible for a wizard, Rune Lord, or what have you.

Absolutely. 

But even with this distinction... issues. 

For example, in the HQ2 rules, Laws seems to believe that as long as the Referee sets a "genre" everyone at the table will have a clear idea of what "Pulp" is. Or "Horror." Or whatever. What I have observed, however, is that people don't always share the same concept of a given genre-label. And even more flummoxing, some people don't even know what certain labels mean. (I know what a "Planetary Romance" is... a lot of people don't.)

If the Referee builds the list of Occupation Packages for Players to choose from in certain game he goes a long way to establishing the the tone, feel, and the reality he wants for the setting.

And then we move to the next degree of complexity... something like Glorantha, where new players might have a frame of reference because of earth-culture analogues, and some people might not even know those. (And some people who know Glorantha might even have completely different ideas of what it means to be a Heortling!)

The more I think on it the more I think Packages are the way to go. Or, at the least, to have people people pick the Keywords and come up with two Breakouts for each so that a conversation of sorts is created at the table for everyone to get a sense of the tone and feel of the world, the characters, and the genre (per your Monster High thread.)

Absolutely.

Is 

On 11/29/2016 at 1:04 PM, Ian Cooper said:

What is errata? Chaosium has a strict definition, errata is game text that is wrong as written. Whilst typos etc. will inevitably exist, these are not considered errata. So if a rule is wrong, or an example illustrating a key rule is wrong, that is errata. But if a name is misspelled or a comma is missing that is a typo, and whilst no one really wants those, they would only cloud errata.

1. That means that Chaosium is likely to find itself in arguments over individual items as to their status as errata or proofing error.
2. Its not to say the collating potential proofing errors might not have value to someone in the future, but that if something was to be produced now as an official 'errata' it needs to focus on rules concerns.
3. Clarifications are also not really errata. But where a rule is unclear or ambiguous it may make sense to issue clarifications with errata.

 

Using Ian's definitions, is there a solid list of errata at this point so I can mark up my book of HQ: G?

If not, can anyone point me to the (probably very involved) threads so I can dig them out?

Thanks!

Thanks!

While I can appreciate the value and ease of the Umbrella-style (a lot less work, for one thing!) I have to say that there is a solid value for the Package-style. With the package style anyone new to a unique setting can get a grasp of the setting though the defining of (for example) Homeland, Profession through the quick-sketch details found under the Keyword.

When I read Hero Wars years ago (my first foray into Glorantha) I read the Keywords for the Heortlings and thought, "Okay. Got it" from scanning down the lists under the Keywords. Whereas when I read the descriptions of Heortling Keywords in HeroQuest: Glorantha I'm pretty much left on my own to read a lot of material as potential player of a Heortling to nail down the concept of that kind of character. And the same with Occupation Keywords (though obviously with more to go on than Heortlings.) 

If I hand players a list of Package-style Keywords to work from, by the time they've made their selections they already have more of an understanding of the unique and alien world than they would if I set there read pages of text at them to get them to understand it. (At least in my experience.)

Thank you so much for the reply.

I'm aware what I'm discussing is similar to a Group Simple Contest. But in the example above I'm 

1. Not using totaling efforts by the group (which you discuss above)
2. Not using or totaling Resolution Points. At all.

Instead, the focus of the Players is on the results of the rolls and the effort to gain modifiers through victory, assists, and situational modifiers... all of which focus on the concrete details of the world and the actions of the PCs. 

I'm not saying that's a problem. But I'm looking at the rules to see how they might be stretched to use HeroQuest's very quick and flexible system to produce results that are less-abstracted and feel more like traditional play: The Players state intentions and actions. We resolved. We move on to the next beats of action from the results of the just resolved action. Bonuses and Penalties are applied to the next actions as appropriate. 

In the example above, a Mage might want to fireball the Lone Star guards since their silent operation has gone loud. If she succeeds the gang gets lingering benefits and the penalty the Street Samurai is carrying is removed because he's no longer pinned down by the guards. We're staying focused on the moment-to-moment details in the fiction, and pushing forward from them.

Notice, however, I'm not talking about a blow-by-blow resolution. Broad agendas and grouped actions ("He jumps at you with a fury of blows!" "I'm going to get the control of the trigger on his bomb vest!") is still very much part of what I want to keep from the overall HeroQuest rules. 

And in humility: What I just described might be exactly how a Group Simple Contest is supposed to play out. But the moment (per the rules) where everyone rolls first, gets a total, and then the Referee starts describing what happened... I begin to feel abstracted from those specifics. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm simply looking to tweak the system closer to what I'm looking for.

Thanks!

Again, an ingenious element of HQ that reduces the Referee's bookkeeping.

On 11/1/2016 at 8:36 AM, JonL said:

Umbrella Keywords (HQ:G default)  instead of Keywords as Packages (HW/HQ1-style, option in HQ2)...

Hello,

This is off-topic, but could you defined the differences between these two concepts for me. In my head they blurred over the years to be the same thing. But clearly they are different.

In HeroQuest: Glorantha the text for the consequences of defeat (p.64) and the benefits of victory (p. 69) that these modifiers apply only to the Player Characters ("the heroes").

This makes perfect sense, as it seems like it would prevent the Referee from having to track additional modifiers for his NPCs. Moreover, the values of the NPCs/Obstacles are whatever the Referee wants, and are of value in that they are relative to the abilities of the PCs. They can be fixed as long as we're tracking the bonuses and penalties of the PCs. 

This is probably obvious to everyone else. But I wanted to check.

To pick up on Baroque's first post....

Let's say I'm using the HQ system in the setting of Shadowrun. The team is making a run on a well secured data centers.

If I understand what people are saying, one could make one Roll to determine if the team gets into the center. If the team fails, then they can't try again. The failure means the Referee describes the events of the raid in such a manner that it's clear the team is having to high tail it out, and they simply have failed to get in.

Am I getting this right?

On the other hand, an example with a series of chained tests. I'm not saying this is what the rules say, but I began imaging how such a raid using the HQ might play out and it seems viable:

The team needs to get past the external security measures around the data center.

The Street Samurai rushes a position of Lone Star guards. We make one role, determine the result, and then narrate the fictional results based off that range of mechanics. 

He gets Marginal Defeat. Let's assume for the moment that our focus here isn't that he gets hit and takes damage, but the tactical position he wanted by storming the Lone Star guards is not only lost but turned around. He ran for the guards, trying to get there before they could react, but they raised their weapons and started firing. We narrate that he ducked behind some crates. Not only did he fail to get to the guards and take them out, he's pinned down behind the crates with a -3 penalty for any actions he takes in efforts to advance on the data facility. It's a lingering penalty till he shifts the situation in some way to remove it.The rest of the PCs have yet to act, and we can continue with the PCs taking action, hoping to get lingering benefits as they move forward. But the raid is a series of contests that either move the PCs closer to their goals (along with benefits for better victories) or slow them down or route them (with penalties).

I know that we might use the Extended Conflict here. What I'm specifically asking about is using the system as a series of linked Simple Contests to build out a moment-by-moment action sequence using the consequences of defeat and benefits of victory in a compact manner to build a terrific combat sequence. 

Am I talking crazy talk here? Because it seems to me this could work.

Thoughts?

On 11/28/2015 at 8:16 PM, Baulderstone said:

I think a lot of people take the wrong reading on marginal victories. You say it is "not with any massive style" but I don't see that as having anything to do with it. Marginal victories are the exciting ones. Say, you are jumping over a pit. A marginal victory means you make the jump, just manage to grab the far edge, then scrabble to pull yourself up as the rim of the pit crumbles. A complete victory means that you hop over the pit effortlessly as if it was no big deal. 

Hi there,

There is so much I love about the HeroQuest system, going all the way back to Hero Wars. Yet I find myself confounded sometimes by the assumptions laid out in the game. This isn't a fault of the game. This is me not see, I think, from the same perspective the game works from.

So, for the example above, are you saying that if the Player rolls a Marginal Victory for his player the player (or the Referee) describes how the character grabs the far edge, and then scrabbles to pull himself up as the rim of the pit crumbles? That there is no second roll made to resolve the issue of not having made it safely across, and that, it is exactly like any other victory but that the Player or Referee adds some additional description to justify the Marginal quality of the roll?

I think this is what you are saying. But I want to make sure.

Hmmmm... I have a feeling Jenx, jajagappa and I are pretty much on the same page and that I might not be making myself clear. And so, the following:

1. The portion of HQG that I'm talking about

Quote

 

Your Runes are your main source of magical power.

They are awakened at your initiation to adulthood. The

Runes you choose define you – they define your soul,

your temperament, your personality and your magical

connections and enmities. Your choice of Runes may

well determine your fate!

 

And then, of course, all the passage that follow about the three runes you choose that:

1. "reflects the dominant aspect of your soul"
2. "defines your dominant temperament" 
3. "your magical temperament"

And then the next section discusses how "Your Runes have a distinct impact on your personality..."

So, that's the stuff I was talking about above.

2. There Should be Tension With Behavior Expected  of Runes and Gods

8 hours ago, Jenx said:

I don't see how the Runes and Gods having influence on your behaviour should contradict the character going against it. It's just that the system points out you can't do that without consequence, which I think is fine.

What Jenx wrote right there, I love that stuff. Characters should go against the expected behavior of Gods and Runes if that's what they want. That sort of stuff is awesome.

What I'm not keen on is the stuff from point 1 above. Yes, I understand that one can make a roll against it if one wants to "act in a manner contrary to the Rune." But the point is, it's not just a Rune, it's who you are, as defined in the points listed in 1. In such cases the PC is always acting against himself or herself because the Runes, as described in the character creation section, are innate in the PC and the default. This is different than Traits in Pendragon, in which a Knight is never determined to be one side of the Traits or another, but can move in a fluid manner over to time to have a higher value in either direction. 

3. Conflicts of Between Temperaments and Flaws and How the PC Want to Behave are AWESOME

2 hours ago, jajagappa said:

What they have been generally driven by is the Distinguishing Characteristic and whatever Flaws that they decide on when creating their character.  Whether these are in tune with their Runes and their Gods is a completely different story.  Nor have these choices precluded character development.

Sounds great. I love Distinguishing Characteristics and Flaws as points of conflict in any RPG, and I think they work great in HQG.

However...

4. By Not Using the Thing That Rubs Me the Wrong Way, One Avoids Those Things

2 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Do my players use the Runes as personality traits?  Not often.  Mostly they are the foundations of their magical affinities.

Okay, great. You don't use the things listed in my point 1. Great. We're on the same page.

5. I Have No Trouble with Runes and Gods Expecting Behavior

Please note that I am excited and pleased by all the points raised by Jenx and jajagappa in the quotes I have pulled.

All I was talking about is how the Character Creation rules dictate choosing three runes out of the gate that determine the character. 

Let me be clear:

I utterly believe one can justify the Rune As Character as a solid piece of Glorantha logic. As a piece of metaphysics it all makes sense.

I'm talking about this in the context of RPG play. In my view, some rules, some settings, some utilization of some settings (and this is what I'm talking about here) are more fruitful for RPG play than others.

I like my Players to have choices. They need to have agency. They might well choose to follow the path of Orlanth all the way to the end. But I want them to have the choice to betray the behaviors of Orlanth out of anger, a sense of betrayal, love, whatever. This is how new things happen within the world of Glorantha. Characters switch sides, betray gods, take on new gods, make new, unexpected alliances. It in the myths, it's in the history of people of Glorantha.

I bring this up not to argue against all the solid points you brought up above. I'm speaking within the context of RRP play. Those choices that characters made in the stories already written in Glorantha are the kinds of choices I want the Player Characters to have. And I believe that RPG play is better when Players have this sort of agency available for their characters.

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

I think the runes to be used in the new version of RuneQuest will be the same as the ones in HQ:G, so going forward there will be a high degree of compatibility.

I read the design notes blog posts linked earlier, so I suspect so yes.

But in reading those I saw references to Pendragon, which is what tipped me off as to why they had been rubbing me the wrong about about the "fated personality" aspects of Runes introduced in HQG--such a mechanic is the opposite of how Pendragon Traits work.

I understand this will be the way Runes are introduced to new Players (via Character Creation). I just think

1. It's too heavy a burden for some players to have to decide everything about their characters at the start (some players aren't like that)
2. I think it robs the sense of discovery and drama in terms of choices for their characters. With Runes stamped upon a PCs soul like that, one is told, "This is who you are," which precludes the discovery of "Who will this character become?"

Again, thank you for the thoughtful and informative replies. 

Here's where my thinking is on a few things:

First, I made the same mistake about the use of "initiation" in HQG that this poster did from a thread from 2012. i assumed that being initiated with Runes meant one was initiated with Rune magic (that is, into a cult). But apparently these two things are different. So that's on me. But this thread helped me dig down further and I sorted it out.

Second, I do think, even in the Glorantha material as presented, there is a distinction "the every day world" which is relatively mundane and the higher magic available to certain people in Glorantha. I say this knowing that there is everyday magic all the time from farmers and housewives and such. But we know that once upon a time there was no seperation between man and gods... and then Time began and all that changed. We know that in the Middle World can only tap the powers of higher magic through rituals, HeroQuests, and Runes. Other than that... no dice. And so, to my point, I want to make sure that distinction holds. But this point is on surer footing since I can to understand how I had made my mistake about initiations. 

Third, with all that in mind, I have an answer to the question from my first post: "Are the runes PCs start with in HQ:G the same runes that PCs once sought out in RQ? That is, do the PCs start with what they once had to work to get? Am I understanding this correctly?"

The answer, in terms of pure fiction, "Yes, sure." In a practical sense for RPG play, the answer is "No." The Runes one starts with in HQG are about one's soul and temperament and can be used to Augment mundane Traits. The Runes one gets by Initiating into a cult (as one got them in RQ) allow all sorts of other abilities and powers. (Even if the lists of benefits is short and incomplete in the text of RQ, those magical benefits and Rune magic are still there.)

Fourth, to be clear, this is the text I was referring to when I spoke about acquiring Runes in RQ:

Quote

 

Purpose of the game
The title of the game, RuneQuest, describes its goal. The player creates one or more characters, known as Adventurers, and plays them in various scenarios designed by a Referee. The Adventurer has the use of combat, magic, and other skills, and treasure. The Referee has the use of assorted monsters, traps, and his own wicked imagination to keep the Adventurer from his goal within the rules of the game. A surviving Adventurer gains experience in fighting, magic, and other skills, as well as money to purchase further training.

The Adventurer progresses in this way until he is so proficient that he comes to the attention of the Hgh Priests, sages and gods. At this point he has the option to jon a Rune Cult. Joining such a cult gives him many advantages, not the least of which is aid from the god of the cult. At this point he has the option to join a Rune cult. Joining such a cult gives him many advantages, not the least of which is aid from the god of the cult. 

Acquiring a Rune by joining such a cult is the goal of the game, for only in gathering a Rune may a character take the next step, up into the ranks of Hero, and perhaps Superhero.

 

I like this section from HQ because I think it frame things nicely for an RPG experience. I understand Glorantha is bigger than this (and has become bigger since the publication of HQ2. But I think there's a real value in having, for new players to a game (and new players to a detailed world) a handlebar or two to grab onto. And those paragraphs provide it.

Note that nothing in the quote above contradicts anything in HQG. The quote is simply an arrow for the focus of ambition and action in early play. How one choose to become so proficient as to attract the attention of high priests, sages, and gods is completely up to the players, of course. But at least the player know they're going to be working, in the early stages, toward getting themselves initiated and being blessed with the runes that come from that to increase their power and become very important indeed.

Six, I realized one of the reasons I went down this road is because I'm not that crazy about the "defining personality with Runes" thing. I really love the need to behave in alignment with the god's expectations as an initiate. I prefer, however, that there might be tension between who a character is and the god he has sworn to serve.

Notice that in Pendragon Traits don't dictated behavior. (Not, at least, if you're playing the game right.) But in the system in HQG what your runes are, and hence your behaviors, are who you are--in your very soul. These runes of initiation into adulthood define and limit behaviors. I know some people like this. But it isn't more me. Watching a character bend toward his or her god over time in an effort to remain loyal, or watching a character finally snap in frustration at his or her own shortcoming is something I'd love to see. But that'll be hard if the PCs soul is, by definition, already in alignment with the god's runes. (I understand that one or two of the PCs runes might cause trouble for an initiate if they mismatch with the cult the PC joins. But no matter what, the Runes are there to nail down and define the PCs innate personality and soul. It strikes me (and probably only me) as too much of a stick, lacking the leeway found, again, for example, in Pendragon.

Seven, which finally ties all my questions together: I like the idea of the Players coming to understand how the gods, runes, and cults interact and having dreams of gaining the attention of the cults and gods, behaving of their own volition and effort, to act certain ways, add traits if need be, cement them, and so on.

As Jenx points out, there is the fictional world of Glorantha and then there is the RPG interpretation of Glorantha. How one organizes the RPG experience can help or hinder the ability of Players to learn the rules, understand the setting, and so on. As a Narrator, I love the idea of letting the Players have some time to get their feet wet, come to an understanding of the rules and setting, and make plans based on those understandings. For me, initiating into adulthood within the Storm Pantheon would be amazing... but I'd let them sort out what sort of person their character is as they go. 

Again, that's me. Not try to get anyone to buy into it. But this thread has helped me see how this all fits together and how to make it work for the game I'd like to run.

Thanks!

3 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Yes, those were specific examples of the generic "Runepower" rune magic spells.  And those were expanded on with Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror in RQ2, and later with Gods of Glorantha in RQ3.  HW/HQ1 continued this, though rather over-splintered/fragmented into lots of little gods.  HQG has returned more to the roots from RQ2.

I find this fascinating. I haven't read any other RQ books but the core rulebook (so I have not ready Cults of Prax an Cults of Terror). And you're saying that the list of gods in the core Hero Wars rulebook (which was the first Glorantha book I ever read) has more gods than were listed in the RQ product line? This makes sense, I guess, as there were many gods! Even more when you add in Thunder Rebels! (That's why, when I cracked open HQG, my reaction was, "Wow, this book is light on gods!")

But one of my concerns is overwhelming players with too many choices and too much to do out of the gate. 

3 hours ago, jajagappa said:

However, there's nothing in HQG to keep you from starting earlier...

And if you want to run the coming of age story to define your runes, that's fully possibly in HQG.  Just leave out the Rune keywords!  Begin them with initiation into the community to help them identify at least their Elemental rune.  If you're playing in Sartar (or Pavis), best place to start for that opening quest is here: Prince of Sartar: the Uncles.  Pages 2-6 outline the initiation for boys to become men.  Ernalda's initiation for girls to become women is elsewhere. 

As a big fan of King Arthur Pendragon going years back, I always found that first session of getting knighted on the first adventure a big deal for the Players. It drew them into the world and made them feel as they were part of the culture and events through their own action and experience.

And, as you note, the HQG rules explicitly state that starting before initiation is possible. 

I have found that some players don't know their character right away, and need a session or two to find out who they are and how they relate to the people and the world around them. I'd be inclined to do the "create-as-you-go" for their Rune temperaments through the choice of Rune Keywords as play occurs.

Finally, with the concerns of "too many choices" in mind (my concern, maybe the concern of no one else!), one of the things I liked about HW was the use of lists for the Affinities. While I love (love) HQ's flexible nature to handle any inputs and creative possibilities for conflict and action taken on the part of the Players via their characters, there's something to be said for structure and limits. The lists of affinities in HW are a clear list that say, "Here are the kinds of things that are associated with this god. This god is like this, and grants this kind of magic." Thus, the Players can see clearly the potential of a god's affinities and the nature of the god itself. 

They might be considered training wheels at first, with a looser set of interpretations based on them later. But I do think, for a group new to Glotrantha, such limitations are helpful.

I just checked the HW book. Each god is listed separately, and under each god the god's Affinities are separated into groups with the icon of the group's respective Rune icon. (Feats have no Rune associated with them.)

I haven't compared the lists of Feats and Runes in HW:G and no idea if the affinities and runes match the lists in HW:G.

I'll add that there is a solid description of the Runes in the HW book. But it is of course not as detailed as in the later HQ:G books. 

It may be that I'm reading RQ2 with an unfair hindsight. But while you are correct that acts of initiation are not spelled out, the matter isn't obscure. It seems to me to be a matter of a) the player gathering resources to make his best bid for success into the cult; and  the having NPCs offer the opportunity to the PCs.

While I appreciate that HQ:G nails this all down concretely in character creation, for reasons stated above I am intrigued with holding that off and making the learning of the mysteries of the runes being something earned through play. 

18 minutes ago, scott-martin said:

You'll find a generic "Runepower" as a placeholder in the list of rune spells (Classic version p. 65, original RQ2 p. 63) but it was never really developed in print beyond elemental summoning spells. Pity! Still, that may be corrected soon.

I must have a weird edition of the book. I'm looking at it right now and I see Orlanth Rune spells on page 69, Kyger Litor Rune spells on p. 72, and Black Fang Brotherhood Rune spells on 72. Note that I'm not claiming any kind of comprehensive list of rune magic (clearly not). But it does seem to be there.

18 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Possession/Knowledge of a rune was not required in the game to possess a gods magic, only an affiliation with the gods organization (initiation). This of course is implied, because there were tests to be accepted, etc.

It was certainly the Meta aspect that was being shot for, but again the game really didn't support that kind of play by default. That level of integration wasn't achieved until HQ:G really, though I imagine that there were many games of HQ1 that did something like that.

SDLeary

Can you tell me more about this? I ask because Hero Wars certainly seemed to go into great detail about what Affinities and Feats were available to initiates. I had assumed that to become an initiate of a God was to learn a rune... but perhaps I was wrong about that. 

Not challenging you. Honestly curious. (Again, each edition lays out different bits of knowledge and ways of expression all things rune!)

By the way...

I understand that Glorantha is a place rich in magic--even made of magic. And that everyone having magic is just par for the course. However, after mulling all the material for some years now (and working backward from Hero Wars when I first picked it up), I think I want to slow down the magic and mix some mundane with it. I was just beginning to grok the world when all the more recent Glorantha stuff came out and blew up my growing understanding of the setting. But what I've realized is I really like my original understanding of the setting.

Here is my thinking on this:

1. Jumping into the deep waters of the current Runes Come with Character Creation seems to be deep waters indeed for players new to Glorantha. I'd rather they have some time to acclimate themselves to all the in-setting culture, myths, and more before they're worrying about committing to Gods and affinities and such.

2. I like the idea (per what I've read in RQ 2nd and Hero Wars) that the initiation into the cults is a Big Deal that the PCs earn. Yes, there are priests who know this stuff. That it is something to be earned helps with that. It also gives the Players time to sort out what sort of God they want to initiate into after they get a sense of both the world and their character.

3. I like the tension between the mundane and the magical. My instincts tell me that if everyone has this stuff (especially without effort) then it seems less magical. I like the idea of the Gods and the Runes and the Rites being a bit of a mystery and the Players (via their characters) coming to terms with understanding these thing, moving toward them, becoming part of the tales and myth as they come to understand the world through their adventures. The tension makes mundane life matter because it is mundane, and the mythical life matter because it is larger than life.

4. As a Referee I read the chapters on character creation and the use of magic and honestly, perhaps because I haven't been thinking about Glorantha for decades, it makes my head spin. Not because of the great sums of mythical material (that I can handle). But because it seems so chaotic and flying all over the place, with everyone casting so many spells in so many ways. I, too, need some time to get my feet wet. And I think something with a few more rules and limitations will allow me to find my way with both the game and the setting as I introduce both to the players.

I understans YGWV, so I'm not sweating any of this stuff. Nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything. Just explaining where this thread came from.