Ian Cooper

There is a good and bad side to the clan creation questionnaire. The good is that it teaches the players about the mythic and real-world history of Glorantha. It sets up their clan's enemies and friends. The bad is that it is a lot of play before play, that may not be used. You don't have to use the clan generator before play, you could play some sessions and return to it. Of course, some choices may not make sense once play has begun, your early sessions will pretty much reveal if the clan has thralls, what its attitude to the Empire is etc. but you can decide those results of you need to when the group comes to play. Alternatively, as the GM you could indulge in solo-play to build the clan, learning about the setup yourself, and record the results on the clan record sheet. Then you can work in details of explanations for the players as it comes up in play. This means the players get less invested in those choices, but lowers their learning curve about Glorantha. Indeed, if you use something like The Coming Storm, the clan generator results are pre-done for you in precisely this way. We recommend putting aside some time to run through them, but this could certainly be once a few sessions have passed and the players want to get into more detail. In your case this could well be a later campaign. I would always focus on building a relationship map of key NPCs over the clan's mythic background, for the first few sessions.

Yeah, let me fix it. There are two different scenarios, one repeat

I have some direct links at this post Inlined for ease So if you are coming to UK Games Expo we have some new HQG games for you. If you go to http://www.ukgamesexpo.co.uk/bookevents.php?category=rpg and search for Heroquest you should find three games now. The new ones are Highwall Inn: http://www.ukgamesexpo.co.uk/game.php?id=RPG2579 Cold Hard Iron: http://www.ukgamesexpo.co.uk/game.php?id=RPG2639 For clarity I will try to get the description changed, but Mark will run a repeat of 'Cold Hard Iron' as described on Friday http://www.ukgamesexpo.co.uk/game.php?id=RPG2480. We also have a playtest of the new Runequest by Andrew Jones: http://www.ukgamesexpo.co.uk/game.php?id=RPG2551 Hope to see you there!

Lots of ideologies hold contradictory behaviours to be true. Sometimes the religion gives easy guidance on this. For example Orlanth takes responsibility for his actions, with the ultimate example being the Lightbringer's Quest. So if I kill Hahlgrim ina drunken brawl because he insults my prowess (reckless and violent), then I should notify a local juror of the crime (Just) so that his kin can claim compensation from me. At other times the guidance may be less clear, and there are no good choices, all result in the god's displeasure. But the important thing to understand is that from such conflicts stem great stories.

Indeed, I'd very much like the HQG line to be accessible to folks if you didn't have time to read a lot of background, either as GM or Player. Of course, I would want to support the richness, but tthere are ways of layering the detail so that you can dive as deep as you want or need.

I originally wrote Jonstown for the Red Cow books. We moved it because space was becoming an issue in those books and so I gave it to Jeff, who then worked on it some more and put it into the Companion for me. Gifts of Stone certainly works well for the Cinsina as a scenario as well. In fact most of the SC scenarios can have their 'numbers filed off'. In addition we tied the Red Cow to the Orlmarth (historical debt and friendship) so that you had an excuse to have PCs from one campaign visit the other.

There is a Downloads section that you can submit a file to, if you wanted a way to share that. It would be good to get some HQ content in there

You will begin to internalize it. The way to think about is the number of levels of difference between two results. So: Success vs. Success = 0 Success vs. Failure = 1 Success vs. Fumble = 2 Critical vs. Success = 1 ... Then all you need to do is to undestand what that 'difference' represents: 0: marginal... yet, but or no, but 1: minor... yes or no 2: major... yes, and or no, and 3: complete... yes, and, and or no, and, and (yes is my shorthand take on how to narrate those) Once you are done with the narration, remember consequences of defeat and benefits of victory. Tracking those is a key to driving play. And remember, you care about the outcome mechanically mostly from the PC point of view. Focus on the narrative for the NPCs and don't worry about tracking results for them.

I'm glad you are back in the Glorantha fold. I'm also glad that a system you love, Runequest, is returning as a way for you to play Glorantha. I'm also extremely grateful that you have bought The Coming Storm and are keen to get The Eleven Lights. But just as a counterpoint, I came *back* to Glorantha with HW having gone cold on Runequest. I needed a rules-lite engine that was focused on story over simulation; I needed a 'one-roll engine' when I wanted it and blow-by-blow when I needed to go deeper; and I needed the liberation I felt from the game's necessity to co-create Glorantha as part of *your* story. Most of those I play with, and many other people deeply involved in the HQ era output have exactly the same experience: we grew up on Runequest but at our table we needed something that 'got out of the way' more as a system. It's antecedents are all there in Chaosium's output: Ghostbusters and Prince Valiant influenced this product, and its DNA shows throughout them. So even 'back in the day' Chaosium was experimenting with different rules sets for different folks. We believe there is a need to meet to both people's needs: those who prefer the more story-focused, rules-lite approach of something like HQ, and those that want the more traditional approach of something like RQG. Now, I still think that RQG is likely to deliver certain types of stories better for me, and if I find the time and a willing group I'll gladly give it a shot as well, but its worth remembering that for many HW/HQ was exactly what they were after. So welcome back, the tribe is a little more diverse that when you left the hall, but there is room around the hearth fire for all of us.

The trick to understanding the Big Rubble is that it is an old-school megadungeon. As such it has: large unoccupied areas (where the main threat is a wandering monster from another area), areas occupied by different groups (trolls, dwarfs, elves, humans, chaos), and 'Saturday Night Special' areas (Puzzle Canal etc.) It has more in common with Castle Greyhawk or the Undercity of Jakalla than Jonstown etc. See http://dmdavid.com/tag/when-megadungeons-ruled-dungeons-dragons/ but note that most 'modules' were 'tournament dungeons' that could plausibly be cleared whereas within a megadungeon that would merely be a portion of a level. But this is possibly a whole other thread.

It's more 'out of interest' in terms of the people here, than any belief that a survey here would produce a statistically significant or representative sample.

Agreed, I really liked it

Personally I don't think that the Glorantha forum is the place to attack any system for playing Glorantha. It should be for discussing Glorantha itself. If you want to express your opinion in the Runequest forum on the merits of Runequest over the Heroquest engine, then it might be an appropriate place. I would use less emotive language that 'rape the canon' if you don't want the debate to decay into a fight. Personally, I don't find its very fruitful to attack another game system to extol the virtues of my preference, but if you like to stir up trouble, that's your choice. The topic here was about the value of the background that Mongoose produced during its ownership of MRQ, concerining the 2nd Age. I'd politley ask you to stick to that so this thread does not get derailed by the snide remarks. I think most people have offered that Mongoose's interpretation is no longer considered canon because it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff cleanly. There were some talented writers involved, with terrible constraints, who produced some good material that can be used for inspiration (as I say Dara Happa Stirs is a favorite), but even the best of the books have dubious elements to them. One major problem was that any 'Gloranthan' feel seemed to be sacrificed in favor of generic fantasy, perhaps because it was assumed that would mean it appealed to a wider audience. For example, IMO the Clanking City has always seemed a metaphorical story that contrasts Romaniticism (the Glorantha of myths, gods, and heroes) with Modernism (our own world of soulless consumerism). For my part it has far more to do with Tolkein's' Scouring of the Shire' than a poor take on Moorcock's struggle of Chaos (magic) vs Law (science). But because the former is a more difficult idea to represent and perhaps sell, the struggle against the Zistorites was cheapened into a sub-Elric 'science as magical powers'. But that said I always remember this. When you use Glorantha for gaming, then what happens at your table should be about whatever is fun for you and your group. Certainly, I doubt that even Greg strictly adheres to 'canon' when gaming, over having fun with his friends. Just because it happens in your game, doesn't mean you it has to conform to canon. Your Glorantha Will vary. So if you find stuff there that entertains you, and the way you want to use Glorantha to have fun, more power to you.

Awesome reply. Thanks.

I agree that framing what the stakes are helps. After all even in a fight to the death the goal is usually: I kill him, but don't suffer fatal wounds. That gives the narrator a choice: sure you could kill him, but you would likely end up mortally wounded, and if the player does not bite... Of issue here is that I think some of this is a holdover from ealier editions, that could have been dropped. An NPC has no stat block, so any injury is part of the fiction anyway, and not mechanical. If injury was not the stakes, its mostly color. If murder was the objective, why not let victory be the guide Injury as a result thus only really matters to the PC -w ho suffers a penalty to further action - but consequences of defeat supplies this anyway (as benefit of victory the reverse). So if a PC is 'injured' you have a means to award a mechanical penalty and determine what form that takes from the fiction. "You live, but the sword your father gave you lies shattered in pieces, you do not feel any other will fit your hand as well", "You flee clutching at the bloody stump where your hand once was, perhaps the Sisters of Mercy at the House of Peace in Jonstown can help you" For me the consequences of defeat and benefits of victory are a key to contest outcome management.

Yes, that is in an interesting point on the use of Marginal/Minor

In the 11 lights we do have an adventure in The Green Age. But as pointed out here, the Green Age rapidly becomes the Golden Age as ideas of 'self' and 'other' emerge. If you have used the clan generator then you will have an idea of your clan's first moment of consciousness, of identity. This emerging idea of consciousness is how your clan knows to exit the Green Age. It might be understanding that you are not food by killing and eating something for example. So you need your players to assert their identity, somehow, to escape. But this is very dangerous. Fail and your self probably gets lost on the hero plane, and your body in the middle world will enter a vegetative state.

Robin's comments are interesting, and he did write the game, but I think that at this point I agree more with Andrew Luther's remarks on page 5: https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?464819-HeroQuest-Hacking-each-other-to-bits/page5 It is worth remembering that we have Consequences of Defeat and Benefits of Victory to track long term side-effects to both sides. So if the objective is 'steal the gem' and you get a minor defeat, you may well not only lose the gem, but be injured in the heist, or lose status with the gang. I agree that you don't want to lose those items from the game. But on a marginal defeat, you might be able to get away with the gem but be forced to stash it during a pursuit, Now you only have to get it from your hiding place, or on a major defeat you may not only fail to get the gem but be captured and thrown into gaol. The concern I suspect over killing an opponent on a victory is the 'reversal' issue i,e, if the stakes are 'death' rather than overcome, then its high risk for the player if you assume minor defeat for the player would be death too. I find this the hardest issue here, as it reverses the usual complete defeat and makes HQ much more deadly for players. But I am loathe to make combat a 'special case' for outcomes. I think this depends on the narrative tbh. In the same way I would not want to block story on a defeat: the door is closed, and you are not getting through and replace it with: you can't pick the lock, but now you recall seeing the key hanging around the fat guardsmen's neck when he was at the bar, then whilst would certainly have the player at risk of death, I would not want to prematurely end the story with player death and would be tempted by: you flee in terror when he breaks your sword and hear the mocking laughter of his companions following you. Does that mean I favour PCs. I might say I favor the story. I might not countenance player character death on anything other that a complete defeat outside the climatic consequences.

No source, but I have a memory that it was the Praxians. The reference was to the horse-riding Orlanthi

Agreed, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, and you are right PbTA can devolve into too many complications as every roll seems to almost imply more trouble

Let's just leave it there. I sense no point in trying to persuade you against your alternative facts

It's not necessarily about 'replacing' what is written, it is about a change in terminology. The problem with marginal is it implies: you just scraped home, and not by much. Because this is the most common result, you get a distint whiff factor in play: oh,another marginal victory. Rephrasing it as yes, but... moves it to you got what you wanted, but there are complications which is interesting in story terms, but has less of a whiff to it. As @JonL mentions, this is the default in PbtA where a 7-9 (on 2D6) is a yes, but... result which further complicates the story line by introducing a hard choice etc. Changing the HQ terminology just helps emphasize that you 'get the prize' on any victory, and levels of victory just describe what it costs you, or what else you get. It's less whiffy.

We have a fair amount on how Sartar's towns run in Sartar Companion in the Jonstown section. I wrote it taking Pavis as a primary source and then holding discussions with Greg and Jeff.

We had an entry for this in Dragon Pass, Land of Thunder: Village in the Verge (E6) Source: History of the Heortling Peoples. Vargast made the first settlement here when he founded the Clan of the Verge. Since then the village has been settled, burnt, and resettled many times. Derik Poljoniwas lord here when he led the Poljoni out onto the Plains of Prax. It is home to the desperate, outlaws, and exiles. In troubled times the population swells with refugees fleeing the troubles in the Pass. The inhabitants are now largely Dundealos fugitives, nursing their hatred of the Empire

I'd recommend Dara Happa Stirs though, I think it is an excellent piece of work.