jrutila

Reading the rules and by experience I would say that in GEC you determine the level of victories per opponent. It says in the rules (p. 80) "The group extended contest ends as soon as there are no active participants on one side of the conflict. The side with one or more participants left standing wins. Consequences to all participants are then determined." The individual level of victories (or defeats) are then decided by the climactic or raising consequences. I think this same idea is present in the GEC example (ending in p. 98). I see that you are trying to find out what is the overall level of victory of the GEC (as we can do in Simple Contest, Group Simple Contest and Single Extended Contest). But do you really need that information, though? For example in the Hero and his Alynx vs three Broos the hero-side wins if the wins are two against one (so two broos defeated and one broo won). Then you just decide what are the final level of victories for the Hero and the Alynx and roleplay accordingly. The last broo probably (even if he won his contest) runs away. Referencing my example in the other thread of the heroes trying to get pass the Lunars I devised a Group Extended Contest with two "opponents". One opponent was the abstract resistance of them just getting past the lunars. So winning this opponent they get to their goal. The other opponent was if the exchange with the Lunars gets bloody. They could score any combination of these and get different result. Win-Win: They get past the Lunars and don't make themselves enemy of Lunars at the same time Win-Lose: They butcher the Lunars and have to hide from them in future events Lose-Win: They try to get pass the Lunars but are blocked. The exchange is still friendly and no harm is done. Lose-Lose: Worst case. There is a fierce fight and they kill Lunars but are driven away. In above case there really isn't final level of victory for the overall GEC. This is my way of thinking HQ and using the abstract opponents idea.

Sorry, why did this contest end? Shouldn't it end only after 5RP against either side?

When I frame the contest I tend to give some idea what the negative consequences might be. I do it in a vague way so it gives the contest more meaning when players know that they can lose and what it would mean. It is also a test for me (as the GM) if the contest is actually even a contest that should be had. As the defeat should always have some interesting outcome story-wise. The final benefits and penalties are always determined from the dice and player's ideas. In extended contest the penalty can also sharpen during the contest. My players were going with the goal of getting to Grave Hill past Lunar guards (Eleven Lights). At some point the extended contest went to be a horse riding contest and it became clear that if one of the players (having already 3RP against him) would've losed his contest his horse would have changed hands to the Lunar riding champion. This was something we came up during the contest (after three rounds or so). There was a bet so he was well aware of losing his companion (until they steal it back) in the case of defeat.

Question 1: I don't see any flaw in your simplification. In a tie (as a part of GSC or EC) neither side scores any points, that is correct. Question 2: You are asking interesting questions. I just spotted the sidenote on p. 63 regarding SIMPLE CONTEST RESULTS table that tries to give some hindsight to ties but doesn't really. As there is no Fumble vs Fumble outcome in the final victory level. It is only RPs against RPs. Or is it targeted for singling out participants in GSC? But besides that I don't really have an "official" answer. In a tie the players don't get their prize. Isn't that penalty enough? The marginal victory is the "Yes, but" -idea of giving them the prize but also giving them some penalty.

This is something I have pondered also before. It starts to make sense that there are: Bumps with what you bump any result (even GSC single rolls) one level of degree up. Boost with what you, as a group, make the victory level of GSC higher (after everyone has rolled). This is to reduce the flattening effect of GSC. I don't have any math now to support either way but (as jajagappa said) there might be some "issue" with Hero Point bumps being too powerful in the case of GSC. But this aspect isn't really present in the rulebooks (I checked the Core rules also) but something brought up later in the discussion. In these discussions the boost might have been interpreted as the only way to use hero points in GSC, which it (by RAW) isn't. I would allow using HPs to bump any roll and in GSC boost the final result. This removes any exceptions to the rule. Then just adjust the difficulty level according to the feel.

We have always played so that a hero can augment another hero's ability. Assist is only used in Extended Contest to remove Resolution Points. Augment will increase ability value. In case of Simple Contests this is a neat way to get two heroes to participate in the contest as the other augments the other. But only one augment attempt (from himself/herself or from another hero) for one ability use in a contest.

I read the rules, again. And also found out that the idea that GSC can only be boosted, not individually bumped, isn't really mentioned in the rules. But I think the general consensus is that the idea was that, in Group Simple Contest, players cannot bump single results. Only the final result. Some discussion about this: So, by Rules-As-Written, the example would be wrong. On the other hand the example was the correct one in the case of contradiction 2. It is known that the examples and the rules contradict in HQG book. You could say that "errata" will be published in the form of QuestWorlds SRD. Hopefully soon.

This has been ruled as being wrong in the rules. You can bump the group simple contest result after the results. See:

Book suggestion: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/150736/Gloranthan-Adventures-2-Red-Sun-Rising It has four scenarios in the Oslir River city of Serris plus more Lunar stuff. It could work at least as a "tone-setter" for your Lunar adventures.

I might've stepped into the HeroQuest Core Rules -trap in here. I don't have the book or the pdf now but it might've been there somewhere. I didn't find it from the HQG either. But p. 58 in HQG is about framing and the horde "rule" I referred to might actually be just an example of framing: "I try to kill that horde of 100 trollkins" could be just simple one roll contest.

The multiple opponent penalty comes from each contest the PC is part of. Now, do you want to have 100 individual contests? Probably not as that would require lots of dice rolls and would be really biased against the PC. There are the rules about hordes. In this case you treat the auditorium of 100 npcs as a horde and a single contest. If you would want more contests the main adversary might be opposing the orator and you can have two resistances: Winning against the main adversary might mean something in your story Same time the PC can lose the contest about rest of the auditorium gaining some kind of penalty in the story To fully win the whole extended contest the PC would have to win both contests. For the second contest (auditorium) the PC gets -3 multiple opponent penalty (as the PC is fighting them simultaneously). If another PC would be thwarting the main adversary (for example blackmailing him through a telephone during the event) then they would have their own contest and the MOP does not apply. But now if the blackmailer would fail (5 RP against them) the main PC (orator) would have to address also the main adversary by themselves and get the penalty and oh, the tension is rising! So, it all comes to framing the contests and finding meaningful contests. Don't be afraid to abstract a lot what the PCs are actually facing. In my PbP HQG game the PCs are just about to eliminate some Lunars to get to the sacred place. There is an NPC who wants the Lunars dead but the PCs don't want to stain their hands with Lunar blood. They are facing two contests. First, if they manage to eliminate (in a non-violent meaning) the Lunars. Second, if they manage not to kill Lunars or cause trouble comparable to that. Both of these contests might succeed or fail and the outcomes are different. For example Minor Victory and Minor Defeat would mean access to the sacred place secured with dead Lunars everywhere. I don't even know how many Lunars there are at this point. I think the final amount of Lunars is determined during the first die rolls of the contest.

I think the rules as written doesn't really say that the multiple opponent penalty affects the NPCs or abstract resistances. But that is my interpretation and I know others disagree. And, I think, it will be clarified in the upcoming QuestWorlds. Still, I have ruled that the resistance does not suffer from multiple opponent penalty as the PCs have enough advantage by engaging in the contest each one individually and they have other tactics (like assists) that the resistance does not have. Rules-wise the penalty is cumulative and the -15 penalty would only come to the sixth contest. So the "first" contest (how do you determine which PC gets to have this contest? I'm just asking...) is vanilla, second one is -3, third one is -6 etc.

In the Helden story (https://myth-o-logic.org/glorantha/gloranthan-fiction/helden/) the main character (a Humakti) is communicating with a spirit bound to his sword.

You could do that but you don't have to. HQ1 was more this way, actually. There are couple of things to take into account: Not every resistance is NPC. You still have to come up with resistance values for contests that don't involve NPCs. You probably end up still fudging the NPC stats depending on the case and the contest goal. If your PCs would be fighting the Humakti sword it would fight with its full ability. If the PCs are running away from him you would probably lower his ability for this task (or give him a penalty, rules-wise). So, the resistance depends on the framing of the contest. Multiple opponents are easier. Given you are not using Extended Contest you can just lump the three mooks the hero is beating behind one resistance and one roll. If you would stick to the NPC stats you would either roll three times (that worsens the possibilities) or calculate average effectively giving a single resistance. You have more freedom (and less prep) doing it the HQ-way. Of course "statting" the NPCs beforehand makes it easier for you to roleplay them even if not using the actual stats.

I wrote a scenario for Red Cow clan (The Coming Storm) about an abandoned baby laden with positive omens. I had an illustration idea for it. The scenario begins when the characters find the baby abandoned on the stairs of Ernalda cult house or loom house (next to the Grave Hill) during a stormy night. The thing is that aggressive snakes have gathered to guard the basket where the baby is and try to fend off the characters. I can imagine that the cloth in the basket is decorated with runes. I would really like to see this kind of drawing and maybe use it when running the scenario in conventions.

Here is a nice thread about thinking the different levels as "Yes, but", "Yes" and "Yes, and" etc. The overall point (I think) was that the marginal victory/defeat introduces more juice to the machine. Yes, the characters get their goal, but this other thing happens that they now have to deal with. This discussion had some good pointers about this:

I remember when we played RuneQuest way back then. There was always at least one ogre character in the group that was disguising themselves from others. The way to disguise was filing your fangs so that they look like normal human teeth. Nowadays I would rule that something else would also give out their chaos taint. At least when they meet Storm Bulls, that is.

And so, Jaranal remembered what Kallyr used to say: "keep always an extra dagger in your left boot". It felt like Kallyr was guiding Jaranal once more as she plunged the small dagger, her only weapon snatched from her left boot, into the bad man's eye. There, that wasn't too hard. If it can be used to resolve a problem, it is an ability. This is the beauty of HeroQuest.

Just an off-note to make life easier: you could use the form HeroQuest of the rules system. And when you are writing about heroquesting you can use the lowercase form. HeroQuest is a proper noun and heroquest is just a noun.

From D101 July newsletter: These are apparently the HQ news @Newt hinted on. Nice to see action in the HQG space. I hope whoever is runemastering these have read Robin's Sharper Adventures in Glorantha chapbook and take some input from there, too.

Where's that gif about shutting up and taking my money when you need it?

Interesting! What happened that it is not in Glorantha, though? Thousands of gods and bronze age mentioned...

Even if these are not canon and the forementioned problems these books are available as pdf for example here: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/50025/HeroQuest-ILH1--Imperial-Lunar-Handbook-v1 https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/50027/HeroQuest-ILH2--Imperial-Lunar-Handbook-v2

Again, I think this topic should be sticky (and now I bump it back up).

I stumbled upon to this: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-real-reason-fans-hate-the-last-season-of-game-of-thrones/ The article (if you don't want to read it) talks about sociological (vs psychological) storytelling. I googled a little bit more and found out also this youtube video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1-vPQKwXbY Now, I always mirror these theories to Glorantha and RPGs (the stories we tell) about Glorantha. In Glorantha, I think it is easy to think sociologically. My usual example is about Sartarites and Lunars. From Sartarites point of view (well, most of them) the Lunars are evil and suppressing them. The Lunars, on the other hand, are there to free and civilize the barbarians and have to do some necessary actions to save them. These sociological reasons cause the Lunars to act as they do. Other example are gods. Why did the trickster pee on the potatoes that were served at the feast. It is not that he is mean (well, he might be), but the sociological reasons in his religion and god. So, this was just my observation that I have done before and now finally found a term for it. Do you have other examples from your games about sociological storytelling? And, is the evil of Chaos sociological (so, caused by the environment and establishment) or psychological? Is there absolute evil in Glorantha in the form of chaos?