Brootse

On 5/22/2021 at 12:08 PM, French Desperate WindChild said:

I am afraid about the three very uncommon runes: W I P 😛

 

😛

Re: realism and Gloranthan mounts, I've found it simplest to think of them like the Gloranthan metals, ie. they only share a common name with Earth's equivalent. They are as fantastical beings as dragons. Eg. an impala warrior's mass is about 70% of impala's mass, while Earth's cavalry horses carried only about 25% of their mass, so impala cavalry is as realistic as a flying dragon. But since this is a fantasy game, you can just say that a wizard deity did it.

On 5/27/2021 at 11:09 AM, PhilHibbs said:

In case anyone missed the joke I was referencing, which I thought was bang on topic for a Praxian mounts realism thread:

https://www.chaosium.com/blogrunequest-update-recently-discovered-early-writings-of-greg-stafford-prompt-revision-for-famous-praxian-tribe/

In one Finnish translation, maybe a line in the Glorantha box, the sables were translated into that kind of sables.

On 5/28/2021 at 4:57 AM, MOB said:

Other than the dozen or so copies that were run off for the Australian convention it ran at for the first (and only) time, In Darklight's Shadow is not available in English. 

Thanks for finding and answering my question. I had completely forgotten about this 😄

On 4/10/2021 at 2:51 AM, icebrand said:

Hi guys, i have a question:

Has any of your PCs, ever, spent pow in making a spirit magic matrix?

If so, why? 

Also, I'd like to hear about your PCs self-made enchants, please share!

In RQ3 with its weekly POW increases it was quite common. And sometimes it was even done just for money to pay for training.

3 minutes ago, icebrand said:

We used that rules back in the 90s (for rune levels only) but i must admit it was a totally murder hobo campaign and we glossed over cult time requirements. Heck the group didnt even have a community until the campaign was like 10 years on. Cult stuff happened offscreen and maybe there was a ceremony roll or something.

Still had the fun of my life btw.

Anyway, you just changed the way i play Runequest!! 💕 Thank thee *so friggin much* i guess I'll scrap the travels and just let them train and do social stuff at the fort while i come up with some duck stuff and foreshadow the kidnapping and maybe the broos

When I ran that campaign in RQ3 my group had similar problems wrt. attending seasonal worship ceremonies. This is a big change for many campaigns.

33 minutes ago, David Scott said:

Your adventurers don't have to specifically go to a holy place to worship unless it specifically says so (Yelorna & Humakt don't). Just cast Sanctify on an appropriate place. Replenishing Rune Points (page 315) says:

This is a very helpful in games as adventurers are then not tied to returning to a fixed point in the middle of an adventure. My players always plan to keep a rune point back for this if there is a seasonal holy day going to occur in the adventure.

These are minor holy days. I view these as optional, otherwise the average Sartarite will get into the situation of attending an Orlanth and Ernalda minor holy day every week (as initiate or lay members).

Thanks, this is a nice clarification. I didn't know that initiates could hold their own worship ceremonies.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Ummm, this might seem to be a silly question - but why do they need to travel all that way just for one Holy Day?

Because initiates need to worship on every holy day if they want to keep on being initiated. Eg. Ernaldans have to spend a day every week on worship ceremonies in their temple.

1 hour ago, Lurking Grue said:

Ah, a topic close to my heart! I too have been doing my own translations since the late 80's. As I didn't have the then-published Finnish versions (only English ones), I had to forge my own path, so to speak. Some of them I've later changed to the published Finnish ones, but others, like "Kotkanpesä" for Boldhome, I have not. I really don't like that translation, because of its connotations to the real world and because what does Boldhome have to do with eagles anyway? I've used "Urhola" for it and am sticking to it.

Don't be too harsh on yourself, Hannu, there are very good translations in there. Curious that you used the names of Jonstown and Swenstown as is, not translating then at all. I just went with "Joninkylä" and "Sweninkylä". Also, I didn't usually translate any of the names ending in -ford as "kahlaamo", even if it is the literal meaning. Mostly because it doesn't really flow, pardon the pun. I just changed them to use the common place name suffix in Finnish, "-la". For example, Dangerford is "Vaarala". But it is a matter of taste if it is better or not, for sure.

Reading my old notes, I seem to have considered somewhat whimsical translations for e.g. Paps as "Ryntäät", Bagnot as "Laukuton" (I didn't know that the name has a different meaning and was not what it seemed in English), and the best of all Talfort as "Tallinna" (it *is* the literal translation, but would look really out of place in Glorantha, heh). Oh well, whimsy isn't exactly out of place in Glorantha, though. 😉

What have you guys used as a translation for Cragspider? That's something that's been bothering me for years (literally). So far, I've settled on "Rosolukki", but would like to hear your versions.

EDIT: Just to add two, that I just found that I have to share. I quite like Beatpot Aelwrin as "Patakattila Aelwrin". And for something really out there in whimsyland, Gemborg as "Juvelinpori" or "Juvelipori". Must have been drunk when I came up with that. 😄 (Alternatively, it could be "Timanttila" or "Timanttilinna", as well, but where's the fun in that. 😉)

Rosolukki is a great one! What was Bagnot's etymology?

Here's the official answer:

tldr: If you get +30% to a new passion, it will end up ranging from 60% to 90%.

4 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I extends the family history rule (p29) :

 

Ah, I see.

18 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I use 80 ( +10 from nothing is 60 by raw, so +30 from nothing = 80)

and yes, that is not what I prefer, but you are right that is a two-way street. Daraval has a big "debt" to the characters. If pc want something (something reasonable)  roll vs 80 and Daraval would accept (of course, add role play, etc...)

I've understood that Passions start from 60, and if you get some added, it gets added to the 60. Where does it state otherwise? I must have missed it.

2 minutes ago, claycle said:

I will quote a response from a player in response to your last question:

We fumble a lot on roll 20, I would say. The fumbles are pretty bad. It is definitely mathematically advantageous, but it is psychologically very difficult.
A fumbled passion basically takes you out of the combat. A fumbled rune kind of jacks your magic over for a while and arguably affects a class of skills and weapons if you have the rune affect all relevant skills and not just the one used for the attempt.

😅

So, yes, the threat of the disability from a fumble is quite enough to deter them from invoking their Passions, even if it is all perception and not factually accurate (ie, they fumble a lot).

They should propitiate the Machine God.

18 minutes ago, claycle said:

In the Smoking Ruin, it is possible for the players to gain Loyalty with some notable characters. These awards are on page 109 of the scenario book.

As these are probably new Passions, and according to RAW (pg 237):

The starting value must be agreed upon by both player and gamemaster, but a new Passion should generally start at least at 60%.

And in the Smoking Ruin (pg 109), the first Loyalty award listed is +30% Loyalty (Personage).

Mull that over for a bit while I explain how we see Passions at the table.

In our understanding, new Passions start at 60, because otherwise, an unlisted Passion is just a coin toss (50/50). If I don't have Loyalty (Queen Leika), then the implied Loyalty is not ZERO but 50 - I have a 50/50 chance of working for or against Leika's interests.

Passions below 50, therefore, represent sort of an anti-Passion, or negative animus. If I have Loyalty (Queen Leika) 40, I have less Loyalty than the average Joe Colymar towards her. I am, in effect, Disloyal, as I am more likely to working against my Loyalty than towards it.

Which brings me back to the +30% Loyalty (Personage) award in The Smoking Ruin (pg 109).

Taking the RAW at their face value (that notable Passions something begin at 60 because otherwise it's a coin-toss), this means the effect becomes Loyalty (Personage) 90 (or 80 if you want to base from 50). That's a whopping amount of Loyalty to generate suddenly, is it not?

On the other hand, if we base the Loyalty from 0, the award becomes Loyalty (Personage) 30, which implies a distinct disinclination to be Loyal to this person, as you are less likely to act in a Loyal manner than a person who neither especially for or against said Personage (50/50 coin toss).

Or is it another thing altogether? Are Passions a two-way street?

Is it that, yes, Loyalty (Personage) 90 (or 80) is the right answer because this represents not only the character's outgoing Loyalty, but the reciprocal Loyalty of the Personage (who, if the players received this reward, would indeed be greatly indebted to the characters)?

 

90 is the right answer, and yes, it's quite a lot. And loyalty is a two way street, but the target of your loyalty is your lord.

41 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

 

Yes -- I originally was on the fence about the augment rules because they seemed harsh in some places... but a more careful review of the rules shows that none of the 3 augment mechanics (skills, Runes, Passions) work the same! Argh! I really don't like that we need to internalize many more things than we should (it's a general problem with RQG), but it does mean that things aren't maybe as bad @claycle's players think?

As @PhilHibbs says, it's not all bad:

• Augmenting with a skill is a simple, one-roll only, modifier on the scale of +50/+30/+20/-20/-50. Fire and forget.
  • The rules say that you can augment anything with anything using these rules, but in practice I think this rule only applies to a skill augmenting something else... (unless you want to add even more complexity at the table where a player has to clearly specify if they are "augmenting" with a Rune or "getting inspired" by a Rune, because the two are different, but that just seems tedious to me).
• Runic inspiration, in theory, augments one ability only (pick a skill or a stat or something) with +50/+30/+20 for the whole scene (instead of just for one roll). However, on a failure, the -20 only applies to further rolls on that Rune! Only on a fumble do really bad things happen.
  • A normal failure is only annoying if you wanted to cast Rune magic using that Rune a bit later in the same scene. So it's pretty safe in the end, I think. Cast your Rune Magic buffs first before getting inspired by that Rune if you must.
  • In practice, because the positive bonuses last the whole scene, and many things could happen during the scene, I tend to be generous and say that the successful Runic Inspiration affects everything that the Rune can affect. So with a successful Darkness Inspiration, I give both bonuses to smashing things with a mace, and to stealth rolls, instead of (per RAW) only a specific ability (for example, by RAW, if the player used Runic Inspiration to augment a hammer skill, it doesn't work if they later swing a club or mace because those are different skills).
• Passions also augment one given ability (pick a skill or stat or something) with +50/+30/+20 to that ability for the duration of the scene. Unlike Runes, the penalty however applies to all rolls in the scene! It's -10 only: definitely annoying but not discouraging, IMHO. Thankfully, Passions tend to be quite high anyway.
  • Just like Runic Inspiration, I tend to be more generous than RAW here. If the Passion is "Love (family)" and you're trying to protect a loved one, I'll give bonuses to whatever action directly fulfills that goal (hiding, running, convincing someone to not attack, etc.). If the Passion is "Hate (trolls)" and some trolls attack you, I give the bonus to whatever will hurt the trolls (both slashing with a sword or bashing with a shield). Per RAW, only one ability would get the bonus.

So in order of risk/reward, I would say that, from best to less good, we have: Runic Inspiration, skill augments, Passions.  I also think that my small modifications make augments/inspirations a bit more advantageous to use.

This is where it looks to me like Passions need the most care from the GM, as in : make sure they go up every couple adventures if appropriate, and if the player wants to. It feel a lot safer to roll under a >75% Passion than a 60% Passion that hasn't moved since character creation. Remember, for instance, that the Loyalty Passion is a two-way street: when you do stuff for your clan or tribe, that Passion will probably go up. You can interpret it as the character becoming increasingly loyal to the people they serve, but you can also interpret it as these people being increasing indebted to the character, because this kind of Passion is also what you use to get support from your community! So it makes sense to augment it. It's kinda weird, at least at first, that it works both ways like this, but it kind of makes sense after a while.

On an anecdotal level, though, most players I've played with enjoy rolling Passions and screaming "death to the Lunars!" or something equally appropriate. It gets them pumped up as much as it gets their character pumped up. Of course, sometimes it's quickly followed by an "oh shit...", but they still enjoy the mechanic's intent.

Yeah, I hadn't realized before this thread that the rule wasn't the "one-roll only, modifier on the scale of +50/+30/+20/-20/-50. Fire and forget.", but that there were differencies in normal failures.

7 hours ago, claycle said:

In our downtime "how we can make our game better" discussion, I mentioned that I felt like I'd done a poor job (as GM) encouraging the players to leverage their Passions and Runes to augment their skill rolls (or even replace them in some circumstances).

I was surprised when the players responded along the lines of "Oh, no, it's not you. We don't want to use our Runes or Passions to augment because the penalties for failure are too dire."

Here is a direct quote from our Discord:

"To me the risk/reward for using a passion seemed "a poor investment". The potential bonus is nice, but the potential downside is way worse."

Has anyone else experienced this: players so aware of the meta they won't risk using their Runes or Passions even if it could help them?

In my group we have kind of the opposite problem. Many times the action stops because the players start pondering/talking if a passion or a Rune is suitable for the skill check. It used to be a bigger problem, but now it's mostly under control.

3 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

However well you want them to! 😉

Good example is the talking fish (river priest of Zola Fel) from the RQ2 Pavis set (Temple of Feroda scenario).

I think if they've got anything above 10% they can talk well enough to be understood. 

Yeah, but isn't that fish a fully sapient creature, who can speak also normal human languages?

Firespeech, Beastspeech etc. are also languages of certain animals. But how well can the animals speak the languages?

16 hours ago, Joerg said:

Why Heartland (sydänmaa) for Heortland?

Hah, this is something that I had wondered about too. It was also used in the official translation for the Genertela box. I guess that Heort wasn't mentioned in book sources.

15 hours ago, hkokko said:

Well, like I said - my knowledge of Glorantha and English is probably larger now than in the student times more than 30 years ago. Cannot recall why I made that decision then, could have been because there were many namebased things. Jonstown could be Jussila , Svenstown could be Svennilä 🙂 if one would go for  real translation but perhaps feeling would be lost. i would do things differently now. Heortinmaa could be one translation that would be quite direct Sydänmaa could be more poetic. Whether you go for direct translation, whimsical or staying true to original text’s atmosphere and tone is a decision one should make. Several years later I took as my last course at University theory of translation and it would have been useful. Even professional translators can do things in very different tactics - this is evident in the first translation of Hobbit and later translation by a different translator. Even more evident in translation of Lorca’s poems from spanish to finnish - two different translators of which only one succeeded in bringing the feeling, evocativeness and tonality of original even somewhere close to original
 

Swenstown was translated in the Snakepipe Hollow book's map as Ventola. And Jonstown was Joutola, which could perhaps be translated to Slackerville. Iirc Boldhome was Urhola, which would be quite literally Boldhome. The map from the Trollpak was sold separately in Finland, and in it Boldhome was Kotkanpesä, ie. Eagle's Nest. Iirc that was used in the Genertela box too. Eagle's Nest is a somewhat fitting name too, but it carries an unfortunate connotation.

The first translation of The Hobbit has been a source of great mirth in my group, and when we found about it, we started to refer all hobbits and kenders etc. as hoppelit. Jansson's illustrations were great though. https://imgur.com/gallery/njtkL

(click for gallery)

Of particular interest is Gollum's drawing. Iirc his size wasn't specified in The Hobbit, and Jansson drew him rather large.

On 2/17/2021 at 4:28 PM, Bill the barbarian said:

Thanks for sharing RB, those are great!I I suppose it could/must be said that Lodril is a bit “cheeky”! I guess it comes with the disorder rune!

It reminds me of the Vulcan statue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_statue

On 2/20/2021 at 9:51 AM, Manimati said:

Wow! Gorgeous! 

How will it fit in the book, given the very wide format? Will there be a folded panel in the book, or just a poster inserted in it ?

Also, make sure that it is available on Redbubble.

the book will be one long scroll

3 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes I can see now flicking through the RQG bestiary, the main design issue with the RQG  Bestiary is that it’s missing quite a few of the combat notes for creatures, that were originally included with creatures in previous editions (mostly the RQ3 ones)
 

For example the Lesser Hydra is missing it’s combat notes, as is the Dream Dragon. I haven’t checked the whole book but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a few more missing. I feel that’s a shame as those kind of notes are really helpful for new comers to RuneQuest. We shouldn’t presume that new gamers know how a lesser hydra attacks with its many heads. Not everyone knows the story of the hydra, or has the previous knowledge of past RuneQuest editions. 
 

Sometimes a prompt like the combat notes is the spur newcomers need to grasp the concept of the creature, particularly with a crunchy game like RuneQuest. Be good if Chaosium could print future editions with all the combat notes included, particularly with the spirit of opening up the game to new comers (think starter set). Feel the absence of some combat notes in the bestiary are a presumption which isn’t helpful to newcomers. 

I may have to start a separate thread to note which creatures are missing combat notes, which could serve the basis of an errata. 

yeah, and it's a problem for older players too

14 hours ago, lordabdul said:

I never played the previous editions but one thing I can say is that I've been using, on occasion, this short spell duration as a tactic. Basically, combats generally last less than 10 melee rounds, but sometimes I just drop out of combat-time and back to narrative time for a bit. For instance, some trollkin might attack the PCs, realize that they're vastly outmatched by spirit magic buffs, and retreat for a while. They wait it out while hidden in tunnels or behind cover or whatever, and then carefully attack from a distance (throwing rocks and such) to test whether the PCs have more MPs to spend to keep the spells up. Players will of course realize what they're doing and a chase will ensue. Which is all fine, it makes combat dynamic... some melee over here, then some running, then some more melee over there, etc. Of course you can also ignore the spell duration completely, keep it simple, and roll attack/parry until one side surrenders or flees, even if it goes over 10 rounds. Depends on how important the scene is.

The spell lengths are an important part of Gloranthan tactics, and NPCs in my campaign also pre-RQG used these same tactics.

15 hours ago, resurrected duck said:

 I am wondering, how does it affect gameplay?

Spirit magic gets used less. The character without allied spirits go to combat usually with only one spell on.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think the quirky variety of spells, and the lack of consistency in effect-per-point, is part of RuneQuest's charm. I am aware that it is one of the reasons that RuneQuest, and also Glorantha, is not everyone's cup of tea.

It is also one of the reasons that HW/HQ/QW never really clicked with me, everything was hard coded to be equivalent to everything else.

Agreed.

37 minutes ago, RogerDee said:

Shield though could literally be anything. Shield of fire, ice, light, scorpions. Literally anything.

Yeah, eg. my group's humakti uses a Shield of Truth and the orlanthis have Shields of Storm.