Yelm's Light

It's possible he defected when the God Learners defeated the Waertagi, I guess, but everything 'canon' I've ever seen indicated he was a God Learner. Granted, he's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, and there was contact between the God Learners and the Waertagi. And he does control an undead orca...

Not to derail this fascinating discussion too much, but I'd like to respectfully disagree with the Giger characterization. To me, that was much more insectoid than vegetable. (For example, his art of the alien ship's control room appears more to me as some form of hive, constructed but weirdly organic.) Granted, elves are alien, but not in the Alien sense. My personal view of them was very much influenced by those little sketches of Luise's. It bespoke to me the two watchwords I've used to portray Gloranthan elves since then: puissance and mystery (but in a different sense than dragonewts would fit into those categories). When I visualize a scene involving elves, I get a sense of an almost Nordic, or Germanic, otherworldly choir singing in soft, dirge-like tones in the background. (If I were a musician, I could give you an accurate representation of it; I can hear it, but am not particularly talented at communicating it. Maybe I can find something that will approximate it.) This isn't to imply that elven society is in any way Nordic, just a bit of atmospheric flavor that implies power and gravity for me. It took some time for me to see the vegetable side, as well. I originally, and for a long time, had made an assumption that they were mammalian in nature. This was rooted (pun unintended) in her sketches, as they tend to appear strongly humanoid. Elves were also described as children of Aldrya and Man, which imparted another 'human' (flesh) component. It wasn't really until I read some of the Digest entries that the vegetable side came through more strongly for me. Anyway, take this for what you will, or won't, or tell me I'm crazy.

The cults of Chalana Arroy, Eiritha, Pavis, Yelm and Yelmalio are all associate cults of Aldrya, so they'd probably be the best place to start.

Coming up with a system that scores high on both the simulationist and playability scales is a really tall order. At its base, RQ2 does well enough at both. (To me, anyway.) Besides, Glorantha is an ancient world.

Going back to the Ability Results Table (p. 3), you'll see it's not broken down into multiples of 5, so I expect skill increases will differ at least. (Maybe PC's begin with skills in multiples of 5, but that's complete theory on my part.) Also, the only 'experience' that shows up in the QS is the gaining of Reputation as a reward, and that's between 3% and 6%.

I don't see how 'going the extra mile' immediately and temporarily improves your knowledge, or your ability to pick a lock, or to improve your jumping ability. The current system is at the least overbroad as far as skills are concerned. I'd also argue that gaining up to half again your skill chance is more than just a bit better. As for the Princess Bride analogy, how about that Inigo Montoya was just that much better than the Six-Fingered Man in the long run? But that doesn't get at the other of my primary objections, which is that it in effect promotes rules lawyering over play. I can see it happening occasionally at GM discretion and introduction, not PC's, based on situations that fit logically. But there's no way I'd adjust skill that much or install it as part of the game, nor have time-wasting discussions with PC's over what is and isn't an appropriate rationale for it. The god(s) you follow should fit in there too. I also think it implies far more sentience for Runes than they have (which is to say none). You may see it differently, and run the world accordingly. My view of it is that Battle Magic is rote learning of formulae, whereas Sorcery, while it can include such, also focuses on creating spells/effects that didn't exist before. You're still dealing with the same forces, it's just that sorcerors learn to creatively manipulate the nature of magic.

This morning was the first time I had the chance to read through the QS completely, though I'd read bits here and there previously. Following is my review: Putting the cart before the horse, I loved the scenario. Not high marks, top marks. It was clear and concise, had a good story, flavor, and background, was well-balanced, and provided numerous options for the PC's and GM. A very solid example of a one-off, with hooks for possible campaign use. Personally, I liked the sprul-pa; the atmospheric of their ability reminds me of the summoning of the supposed vodou spirit from Live and Let Die. Some minor quibbles: I question the Loyalty levels of a certain PC, who should be obvious to those who have read the QS. I would think they'd become clear fairly quickly, with attendant consequences. Also, a Priestess with <18 POW? Extremely minor quibble: How many times can Vasana 'fight with great glory?' As for the rules as presented, not so much. (Note that this is specifically with reference to the rules additions; RQ2 is and likely always will be my all-time favorite RPG.) I'm certain that many of the things I will mention below have been brought up in other threads, including a couple I've already commented on elsewhere, nor do I expect them to change much, if at all. Pros: 1) Rune Point reservoir and the ability of PC's to select castable Rune spells from among the cult's pool of available ones. This has been needed for a long time. 2) The creation of Magic Points to differentiate spell reserve from characteristic POW. 3) A Reputation system, though at this point it's necessarily vague. Ransom, too, which wasn't dealt with in RQ2 as far as I can recall. 4) The new skills add color and help suggest story lines. 5) The box of advice for players re: Combat. I assume that this and lots of illustrative examples will find their way into the full rules. Cons: 1) Systematizing the adjustment of success chances (i.e. Inspiration). It basically encourages players to spend their time looking for ways to improve their success chance instead of strategic thinking or RP'ing. 2) I really don't like Passions. I've registered this objection before; I think it's unnecessary for experienced RP'ers. Nice guide for newbies, but merely excess crunch otherwise. 3) Speaking of added crunch, I'm not a big fan of the reworked Rune magic system, aside from what I mentioned in Pros. I generally prefer auto casting success to a chance of failure, especially with spells that not only require sacrifice but are granted by a god. Rune Affinity's issues tie in with 1 and 2 above. (Yes, I know, if you're misbehaving you should be punished, but there are other avenues for that. Be a real shame if you couldn't recover your Rune points, huh?) 4) I'm definitely of the 'Battle Magic' school vs. 'Spirit Magic,' and I don't like the rationale being completely spirit-based. (This excepts Sorcery, of course; although if sorcerors are able to manipulate 'reality' according to fundamental laws or attributes of magic without spirits, indicating that such laws exist, why not everyone else?) 5) Quibble: Are crits on the Ability Results Table subsumed under Special Successes? If someone has less than an 08% ability and rolls 01, do they get to choose between special and crit successes? Overall, I don't see much that motivates me to get the rule set itself. I'm perfectly fine with running my modified RQ2 game, and its similarity to RQG makes conversion nearly trivial. However, you've still got me for the background books and scenarios. I've almost always been impressed with the level of quality and information of Chaosium products. I realize this may not make me too popular, but it is what it is and I'm an ornery cuss. MGWV.

A curiosity question: If the focus is visible (on weapon, shield, skin, whatever) would another practitioner of the same spell be able to recognize it as such, or do foci vary by cult? (I would think that at least someone with that spell from the same cult would.) This could have some minor effects on strategy.

Hmm...a new origin myth?

Not to be the word police, but the Ringworld term for that ritual is rishathra.

I wouldn't say it's obvious at all, since most gods are associated with multiple Runes and Runes aren't specific to one particular deity. However, given the multiple personalities of gods such as Orlanth, it might be difficult not to act like him as a follower. Also, given that it's suggested that positive Runic affinities begin at a minimum of 60% and experience isn't codified in the QS, it's not clear how much effort it would take to get to 80%. A smart player doesn't need guidelines in the first place. They seem to be geared towards those inexperienced at RP'ing.

I don't see Runes as quite that integral to the world. If anything, followers are encouraged to emulate their particular god/dess, but as has been shown in real religions, there is a wide variety of degrees of such emulation, even among those who are titularly in positions of authority. Slavish commitment to 'what the Runes want you to do' in application is a little more than I want to dictate RP choices.

I can't access that page, but I have a great deal of trouble buying the former claim. If you're talking about single-fire five times in 2-1/2 seconds, there's no way in hell anyone could pull it off. Maybe a one-shot in some kind of 'V' formation.

Agreed. I expect that my game will be HR'ed more toward RQ2. For instance, I've never been a big fan of Passions; to me it's just unnecessarily regulating RP (especially when it comes to high Rune skills effectively taking control of the character). The people I've played with have generally been evolved enough from the hack & slash mentality that it's unnecessary, and I'm well able to goose players in certain directions if circumstances warrant it. ("Your character really wouldn't do that, you know.")

The vast majority of those seem nitpicky in the extreme to me. If you happen to be a Buddhist priest it might be relevant at times (or you want to play your Healer Priestess that way), but I don't think it has much relevance to RP. The spirit combat example would seem to be the most problematic to me, but in the event, when it's a choice between ceding your will or 'fighting' back psychically, the latter option is justifiable. As a general rule, I modify the CA oath to: "never knowingly harm a living creature..." etc. This tends to eliminate the block/opponent fumble thing, and other situations where unforeseeable consequences occur. As for the definition of living creature, barring obviously sentient forms of life like Aldryami, I don't classify plants that way for purposes of the oath.

Sounds like a D&D description with stats converted to RQ. Lower planes...night hags...become ethereal?

I'd like to see a helm and foot protection of some sort...and I'm not a big fan of the butt-sticking-out, WWE-wrestler stance in general. Also, the skin (feathers?) of the upper legs/abdomen looks more reptilian than avian, and the arms and hands are completely human.

The medium, yes. The sculpture, not so much.

While I agree that RQ can be deadly, it made my regular players more cautious and prepared in dealing with it. (I did do a little goosing in that direction in the beginning.) They made contacts with the local Daka Fal and Chalana Arroy priests, and eventually had a Healer Priest of their own. They didn't just jump into melee at the drop of a hat as happens in many other RPG's; they took Sun Tzu to heart. Scouting, planning, and positioning were the order of the day. And yes, they'd even retreat if they thought it was necessary and possible. The end result was that permanent death wasn't much more common than in those other games. It helped that there were no Storm Bull cultists among them, of course.

Creative combat maneuver...I eat the gorp!

It's always scorpion men that are the cover boys...you'd think it's the only race in Glorantha.

Sounds more like Storm Bull to me...

The major thing that's holding me back is Rune Magic. I'm strictly RQ2, though I have RQ3 Deluxe and a number of RQ3 campaign books. I don't know specifically how it's going to work, and I want to be sure I'm on solid ground as far as that's concerned before I start going crazy with writing stuff up. Most likely I'll come up with some general campaign/scenario notes and then flesh it out when RQG comes out.

Seems to me there's something we can do...like a new fanzine with player-contributed stuff that covers some of the areas you've mentioned, especially scenarios in other places, or even the same places. For me, I've primarily specialized in Prax/Dragon Pass/Sartar, so that'd be the best area for me to deal with. As for delays, I'd rather have the game ASAP, as long as the quality doesn't suffer. I can come up with campaigns with little trouble, but I'd really like to know the actual system, which would make writing them easier.

You yourself admit how generic the magic items are in D&D, so your first point is moot. This isn't based on some wild, out-of-the-blue assumption; it comes from years of experience, of play, and seeing others play, at games at FLGS', cons, friends' houses, etc. It's not because I'm some kind of Monty Haul GM (mostly since I'm pretty clearly not), and I didn't imagine those long lists of magic items. It is, pure and simple, part of the design of the game, or it wouldn't occur over and over again. It's no more 'evil' than the marketing of any other product. You do realize that RQ was contemporary with D&D, right? Could we use any more rhetorical exaggeration in that last sentence? If you want to make a serious argument or disagree, fine. But that kind of crap does you no service whatsoever. It certainly doesn't lend you any credibility. I have no idea what 'we' are saying. What *I* am saying is that items are not a lynchpin of RQ.