Hyperlexic

For those of us that slept on this... is there a way to get it now?

Thanks @Corvantir!

Hi all - Picking up from my former thread... https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/11023-using-hq-in-the-lunar-empire-tips-tricks-and-homebrew/ I just reread the Lunar magic section (starting page 179 of the Heroquest: Glorantha edition) and the example of Magatheus on p55; I scanned the Seven Mothers section and the Illumination section but haven’t reread closely yet. In any case, here’s my understanding on how to create a Lunar character in HQ:G - please confirm/correct: 1. Lunar magic stems from the character’s Moon Rune a. This is one of the 3 tunes that the character gets during character creation b. Lunar characters select a specific phase of the Moon c. The All Phase rune is only accessible to Illuminates ie not starting characters 2. Lunars can choose to initiate to one of the gods of their phase (those listed in the Seven Mothers or New Gods listings). a. When doing so they have access to the runes of that god, as sub-abilities of their Moon Phase Rune b. The character has to have a rating of at least 1W in the moon phase rune. c. The individual Seven Mothers qualify as New Gods for this purpose (p185) despite being listed as separate in the Moon Phase list (p180 and following). 3. Lunars can use their Moon Phase Rune to “create glamours mimicking the runes that Phase can replace”. a. I think I understand that this means the runes the phase “Embodies”? Eg Darkness and Death for Empty Half Moon? b. As an aside a little definition of the various characteristics of the Phases would the helpful, eg, what Embodies means. c. In any case these “mimicking Glamours” can be used at the Phase Rune rating for augments. d. “The direct use of the Lunar Phase incurs a Stretch penalty of -6 (see page 103) – unless: (1) the Lunar is an initiate of a Lunar New God cult and is creating glamours in accordance with the teachings of that New God; or (2) is using a Lunar Grimoire.” 4. Lunar characters can buy access to Grimoires a. These seem to function just like Sorcery Grimoires? Except for the lunar cycle in play. b. Each Grimoire inherits the rating of the relevant Rune, which might be the Moon Phase or might be a different one (eg Magatheus has one off his moon phase and one off his law rune). c. Characters can assign a bonus to this rating. (E.g. Magatheus has assigned +1 to each Grimoire). This applies to all spells in the Grimoire. 5. Characters can replace their Moon Phase Runes with a Chaos rune. a. Game mechanically this seems to allow the character to use the Rune for active / direct actions without the Stretch penalty? And use it more widely?

Thanks all for the comments! You’ve all given me quite a bit to think about... and I need to reread some material, notably the Lunar parts of HQ:G. I seem to remember the Lunar magic seeming designed for existing characters converting to it, especially the moon alignment, but maybe I just didn’t understand it. I’ll reread.

Thanks, Joerg. I assume this is Herr Baumgartner. I probably should have been more specific in my brief ask - I’m most interested in specifically HQ rules items, since HQ:G defaults the player creation in particular to Dragon Pass. I’ll definitely have to think about the “clan rating” idea. That’s a good option. I agree with you comments about the Champions in the HW material, both the pros and cons.

Hi all - I am (once again) thinking of setting a game in the Lunar Empire. I thought I’d see if people have any advice or material for how best to use HQ for this. I have to re-read the Lunar magic portion of HQ:G and may have more specific questions after that. I also have the old Hero Wars / Issaries Lunar books and will look back at that, for cult structure etc if nothing else. Similarly I’d be very interested in any home brew materials or personal setting/rules info. Thanks in advance! Hyperlexic

I think one thing - a lot of these rules seem to work really well for 1:1 duels, it's harder in the chaos of a mass melee with movement, ambushes/flanking, etc.

Boy you have that right. To be clear I'm totally comfortable adapting my own version of this to run at the table. I just usually want to understand the rules as written first... I think in total - I don't really love this initiative system. The whole Statement of Intent system seems really cludgy. And the fact that we're missing reach (size and weapon length) and speed lead to some pretty odd results (e.g., a really large fast fighter with a long weapon could possibly attack 3x in a round; a really small fast person with a small weapon couldn't). I'm going to look back at RQ6/Legend and see what that has. I seem to recall the Action Point system and thinking 'wow that's interesting... complicated but interesting'.

Ok so, just to wrap up this thread: - There isn’t a good example / actual play that anyone is aware of - The basic approach in rules as written is: * Declare Statement of Intent at the beginning of the round - including the SR count (eg “I’ll fire and arrow on SR 3 at Enemy 1 and again on SR 11 at Enemy 1) * Over the course of the round the GM counts up the SR’s and events unfold * If a declared SoI becomes invalid, the round is wasted (though apparently this is commonly houseruled) Is this all correct?

Thanks!

Right - I'm just wondering what the rules as written really mean, and going back to my original question - any example of how this really plays out. Is there a good actual play recording?

So basic question: can things change from the Statement of Intent, as played out on a per strike rank basis? E.g. let's assume that both Player 1 and Player 2 declare their SoI to be 'I'm hitting Enemy 1'. Player 1 strikes first on SR5 and drops SoI; then on SR6 Player 2 comes up - can he/she change their action or does the whole action get invalidated? You can imagine many other similar examples.

Thanks to various people for their comments. I guess my fundamental question is: should we be using D&D style turn order in RQ:Q - where basically we just decide who acts in what order, and each person in turn takes their complete action? Or are we supposed to be counting off strike ranks? Each approach seems to have issues. Somehow we didn't seem to have this issue 25-30 years ago when playing RQ3, but maybe that's just because we didn't try to apply the rules too closely.

I ran my first RQ game in ~20 years yesterday and I have the distinct feeling that I am totally misusing the strike rank system. The mix between move (one strike rank per Movement Unit) and other actions turned the whole thing into some sort of strike rank-based chess match. Is there a writeup or actual play somewhere of how this is supposed to work?

Debates on RQ3 vs RQ:G and the relative merits of random vs assigned characteristics aside, I’d welcome any comments on assigned characteristic methods. It occurs to me that my method ends up higher than the rolled method (average 12 ignoring SIZ/INT effect vs average 10.5 randomly), and also doesn’t fully reflect the diversity of rolls you’re going to get randomly, so here’s a revision: 1) Assign these 7 stats: 6, 8, 10, 11,12, 13, 15 2) Add 3 to one of SIZ or INT, add 2 to the other (max 18 after these) 3) Add 3 points anywhere as per normal rules for being 92 or below 4) Add Rune and Homeland effects as per normal rules (I didn’t get a chance to look at the RQ6 rules over the weekend) (Also - I’m picking this array based on the probabilities shown here: http://www.thedarkfortress.co.uk/tech_reports/3_dice_rolls.htm#.W8TGYBZlDDs)

@MOB my 6 year old loves Khan of Khans, which she calls “the Enemy Magic game”. I was making an RQ:G character in front of her yesterday and she understood it as “a longer Enemy Magic book”, which is about right.

@soltakss - thanks to the reference to Mythras - I have RQ6 and I’ll look at it. I’ll think about the “giant dice pool” idea discussed by several people as well. I don’t think it’s particularly fruitful to debate methods - it’s personal preference - but just to explain my thoughts... My issue with the random method is inspired in part by making my first two characters. Both ended up with decidedly average characteristics, lots of 11’s. Also character balance is definitely a thing - not because the players are competing but because it’s almost impossible to change most of the stats over a campaign.

I would like to join the Berkeley one and would volunteer to help however possible. Let me know if I can help organize space, etc.

In the absence of an official preview I’m interested in feedback in this option (like the D&D “array”): 1 each of 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 After assigning all stats, add 3 to one of SIZ or INT, 2 to the other Assign Rune bonii (bonuses) as normal

I have a particular hatred of random characteristics generation. RQ:G page 53 says the GAMEMASTER GUIDE will have optional methods. Could we get a preview / playtest?

Nick - thanks for this loving and honest complete discussion.

It’s so moving to read this thread and see all the names I know commenting, whether designers like MOB, Steve, Shannon, Ken, etc, or fellow players that I’ve gotten to know worldwide. I think of Glorantha as a reflection of Greg: he contained multitudes. He was Great Sister, Argrath, and Arkat. The world - with it’s humane view that everyone is right in their own mind - is a reflection of his spirit. Without Greg we wouldn’t have this global tribe. We Are All Us, indeed.

Thanks, @JonL!

Thanks. And having read some of the Feats in the in the intervening time - it looks like most of them are quite broadly defined, almost a version of heroforming. For example the example character has the active ability 'lightning bolts' (an initiate level breakout) but then has the feat 'The Thunderer' which from it's description is basically heroforming Orlanth.

second question - what’s the difference between a breakout ability and a feat? Eg Vargast the sample character has “a magical lightning spear (a breakout ability of the Air Rune); and a breakout feat from the Air Rune.”