Mankcam

I get the impression that 'Rune Magic' is a term in the upcoming CRQ4. Back in RQ2 we had two forms of magic, Basic Magic ('Battle Magic') and Rune Magic (which was the 'high magic'). It made sense to call it Rune Magic in this context. Then RQ3 comes along and Basic Magic is called Spirit Magic, and Rune Magic ports across to Divine Magic; and we also have Sorcery. So whilst it wasn't implicitly stated in RQ3, I assumed that both Divine Magic and Sorcery were different forms of high magic that directly accessed the Runes; one with a faith-driven approach, and the other with a scholarly-driven approach. So in a sense they both felt like they were Rune Magic to me. Then HW/HQ uses the terms Theism and Sorcery, which I assume portrayed the RQ3 Divine Magic and Sorcery. So I'm confused at present whether Rune Magic is being used in CRQ4 as a term purely for the faith-driven high magic (Divine Magic, Theism) like it was in RQ2 , or whether it is a broad umbrella term which includes both Theism and Sorcery? I would prefer the later, as it doesn't make sense to specifically refer to the faith-driven form of magic as 'Rune Magic', considering that Runes are also firmly entrenched in the Sorcery system. Isn't it all Rune Magic?

I always felt that even though Grey Sages had Rune Magic in RQ2, the cult description presented them as lore masters and such, and I always envisioned them as a keepers of wizardry as well as general lore. When RQ3 came out with Divine Magic and Sorcery Magic, it kinda felt wrong to me that Grey Sages were not involved in Sorcery. I always felt that they may have known one or two Divine Magic spells based purely around worshiping Lhankor Mhy, but would specialise in Spirit Magic and Sorcery. The Grey Sages being the 'wizards' of Orlnthi culture feels more in keeping with the cult presentation, and I always felt that they would take an academic approach to their magic rather than a faith driven approach; so I'm glad it's gone down this path.

It does help to know where you are coming from with this, and I can see a big rationale for ensuring one magic system does not eclipse another. I do note that free form sorcery isn't entirely ruled out, but it's not the default option being modelled. Makes me think that Brithini may know a trick or two about this, or possibly some exotic sorcery from the Pamatelan continent may have some concepts like his. I do like the sorcery system you are modelling, it feels deeply entrenched in Glorantha, and not just additional system for the sake of novelty. I can pretty much live with this. Thanks for sharing these insights Jeff, it all sounds pretty good to me!

The template above sounds excellent - go with that!

The idea of Sorcery having some form of free-form Magic seems to fit, especially as a backup to their easier performed formulaic spells. It appears nowhere in canon, but given the small canon we have (in comparison to the Orlanthi vs Lunars focus), then it seems like something the God Learners would have stumbled upon in their experimentation. So yes of course many people may have been hoping to see some form of that, especially now that the building blocks for such a system are in place (ie: Rune + Technique). I cannot see how it would harm the setting, especially if free-forming Magic was much more difficult to perform or empower ( eg: usual MP cost x3 or x4 perhaps), or even a detrimental risk to the caster ( increased fumble chance perhaps), a trade-off for not worshipping a deity to receive the magical benefits. So I guess it's only natural that good influences from other systems have crept into people's minds since the mid 1980s when RQ3 Sorcery came out, and games like 'Ars Magica'and 'Mage: The Ascension' do influence any thoughts on the subject. Even Stormbringer's 'Unknown East' magic which was redesigned as MagicWorld's 'Deep Magic' was a good example of free-form Magic. I don't see how it will affect the setting just as long as it remains difficult to perform, thus providing a reason to learn formulaic spells through the Schools. However it's not a big issue for me, as I suspect I can easily house-rule it if I want to go down such a path in my Gloranthan games. From the disclosed design notes it does sound like a very Gloranthan version of Sorcery and I am willing to give it a shot, as pretty much all the recent Gloranthan supplements have been great. I really feel that the current design team has been the best thing for the setting since the RQ2 Gloranthan material and RQ3 'RQ renaissance' material. So with that in mind I'll reserve judgement until I have the CRQ4 books in my hands, but overall I am pretty optimistic about all this

I have always presumed that armour absorbs its full rating against each multiple strike to a single location. I'm more familiar with RQ3/BGB to discuss the other finer points of RQ2, sorry. However there are many RQ2 diehards among us here who will know these answers off the tops of their heads, so I expect you'll get a better response soon

I like it that thd Grey Sages of Lhankor Mhy are now Sorcerers. RQ2 presented them very well as being a collective of loremasters, and I always felt that they must of had a scholarly-driven approach to Rune Magic, as opposed to a faith-driven approach. RQ2 Rune Magic was broad enough to encompass several approaches to the magic. Most was faith-driven, but it could also conceivably be scholarly-driven (ie: Grey Sages,, Dormali, Goldentongue Merchants, Mostali etc), and also perhaps even intution-driven ( eg: Eurmali, Telmori, Dondandi Performers, Aldryami etc). It was not written like this, but open enough to interpret like this. When I purchased RQ3 I discovered that a scholarly magic system (Sorcery) exists separately from Divine Magic; yet no indication that the Grey Sages used Sorcery. Then the RQ3 GoG Box confirmed that Grey Sages used Divine Magic, which kinda felt wrong to me. I'm glad CRQ4 looks like correcting this

I personally don't mind how the spell powers are capped, just as long as some mechanic is in place. Basing it on the skill is a good idea, but also basing it on the Free INT is just as good, and I'm happy with that as well. I would prefer a more arcane sounding term than Free INT if possible, as that feels exceptionally bland to me, but the concept itself works. After 30yrs + of involvement with BRP systems, I know I would prefer modifiers to be meaningful, and I think even if RQ is a granular system it still needs to have less fiddlly modifiers. Whilst I am very happy that the flat modifier approach has won over variable dice %, I feel that +/- 5% modifiers are just too nit-picky. I have preferred the broader modifiers like in MRQ/RQ6, OQ/Renaissance, and even the Bonus/Penalty Dice from CoC 7E. If RQ is going to be more granular, then I think that modifiers should always be at least +/- 10%, otherwise there's not much point. So I really hope this is considered before final publication. In regards to bland spell titles, I am all for it. They are functional, and quite useful in that respect. However what may be nice in CRQ4 if each Spell also has some example colourful names and trappings for different versions of the Spell. This would reinforce that the spells are known quite differently in-game setting to what is written in the rule book, and some of the HQ spell names could be used for consistency. This goes for all magic, not just Sorcery. For example, a Heal spell could also have a few example titles such as Chalarna Arroy's Touch, Spirit of Orlanth, Rousing Song of Donander, Recuperation Formulae of Xemela, etc etc. I have always felt that Sorcery would be the perfect spot for some approach to free-form magic casting in Glorantha. I would not want it overused, but I think the idea works for this kind of magic, especially after the Second Age when God Learner scholarship studied everything down to core elements, including magic. It just feels like something they would of developed. It would not supplant that the primary way to perform this magic is through formulaic rote spell casting, but it would be a nice secondary approach to magic that the other forms of magic are unable to do. Free-form magic would have to be more difficult to perform, perhaps much more magically draining ( normal MP cost x3 perhaps?), but the structure of Rune + Technique cries out to be used for free-form magic as well as rote spell casting. This would certainly make Sorcery very interesting, and I strongly feel that this will really end up being a missed opportunity if it isn't considered. All in all I think I am quite interested in the CRQ4 Sorcery rules. It feels like RQ3 Sorcery as a core, but with better bells and whistles. Building in the Runes is a great idea, as is runic elements such as location, time of day, etc that feels quite arcane. Many of us already had house rules for things like that, but it's good that these elements are now officially built into the system. I am not totally sold on how Techniques are presented, but a least they are there, as this is a move to present CRQ4 Sorcery as being somewhat consistent with HQ Sorcery, which sounds reasonable considering it is the same setting. The difficulty with all this is reinterpreting RQ3 Sorcery through what has evolved to be Gloranthan Sorcery as described in HQ Glorantha and the G2G. I think it must be a tough job for Jeff actually. So far, so good...

I dont mind RQ3 Sorcery, but it does not feel terribly Gloranthan, and there are bits that need to be streamlined. Hopefully this revision in CRQ4 does the trick. As far as 'blasting' things go, we had a lot of fun Forming Fire/Earth/Water etc and using Animate at top speeds, and although costly, that certainly did the trick!

The more I read about Sorcery, the more I like how it fits in with Glorantha as a setting. My only concern is not particulary about Sorcery, but about the modifiers that may be used in CRQ4. I am not sure in which thread to voice it, but a mention of it turned up here. A +/-10% and esp +/- d10% modifier just annoyingly fiddly for me, and barely worth rolling. I would prefer something like +/- 20% and +/-40%, or failing that, something like CoC7E's Bonus/Penalty Dice. But a +/- dx% may end up being a rule that is likely to be ignored, just like the Fatigue Points rules in RQ3...

The new ELRIC graphic novels by Titan Comics are exceptional, and even Morcock has stated that he feels this interpretation of his setting is a big improvement on his original material. They are very dark and cutting edge, and I could see HBO producing these versions in a high quality television series akin to Game Of Thrones. If something like this happens then rpg companies will be scrambling for the Young Kindoms copyrights again. However as it stands, I dont think the Elric novels are big with the Gen Y crowd at present. Given this, Chaosium may be better not spreading their resources too thin - the Gloranthan and Lovecraftian settings probably should remain the main focus at the moment.

Yeah rpgs were barely a cottage industry back then, so RQ2 holds up well compared to many contemporaries.

RQ3 was certainly organised much better than RQ2. RQ2 is really hodge-podgy at times compared to later editions of rpgs.

That art looks like it's from the Fronela chapter of the G2G...they are immortal Brithini Wizards (note the blue skin) at the Red Gates of the Brass Citadel, the elite walled district within Sog City.

I have BRP ROME, but I'll definately grab Mythic ROME pdf + printed book to support Design Mechanism. The previous version is extremely detailed in content, and the best rpg I have seen done for Rome. I was watching HBO ROME a few years ago and reading Pete's rules after this, and it was just amazing, so accurate to the setting. I think this is a great setting to bring out under the Mythras banner !!! I'll be grabbing the discounted Mythras pdf too, very nice. I don't think I'll get the printed book of Mythras at this stage, considering I have two copies of RQ6. But the discount is a nice carrot for me, just to see the difference in layout etc. I do think the idea of special effect cards are quite gamist and novel, and may be a good practical way to make the game have its own identity separate to RQ. Tracking Actions, and using Luck will be so much more easier to monitor from a GM perspective. I know the RQ6 combat mechanics have not dramatically changed, but the tactile feel of a player throwing down a card and saying 'Disarm!' will add alot of fun to a game of Mythras. What a cool idea! I could see a crowd funding project for an 'Exclusive' version of these cards with more evocative artwork, high quality materials etc In any case I am really happy that Design Mechanism looks like flourishing! Great work guys!

This feels like a more streamlined version of RQ3 Sorcery. Not radically new, but RQ3 Sorcery with some more thought thrown it to balance it with other Gloranthan magic. From the outset it is great that this now makes Sorcery consistent with the other forms of magic by emphasizing the Runes, and this adds a lot of flavour to the system. I have always liked the way that Sorcerers could alter the intensity of their spells by plowing more MP into them, and I like that we don't need an Intensity skill to do so like in RQ3, which is much better. Most of the other RQ3 Sorcery skills were widely ignored, much like the RQ3 Fatigue Points rules, so it looks like they are absent now, which is a good thing. I don't really see why Sorcerers need to have limits on how many spells they know. My notion of a Sorcerer as an academic 'wise person' suggests that that an individual is steeped in arcane lore, including a wide array of spells. The Grey Sages of Orlanthi culture feel like they would have a wide range of spells, or be able to temporarily skill up on a wide range of spells. The Zzurbari Wizards of Malkioni culture feel that they would definitely have a wide range of spells as well. I am unclear what the rationale to limit this would be. However if the concept is to be addressed, then I'm not sure if I like the return to Free INT, it feels very 'clunky' to me and I would urge exploring other ways to do this. I do like that there is no broad 'Grimoire' skill; this may work in the big brush strokes of HQ, but it would be too broad for RQ. It also raises issues regarding different spells inscribed in a grimoire, as it does not make sense from a RQ point of view that a caster would be proficient is all of those, particularly if some are very different to what she already knows. I don't mind having the Techniques, but I am unsure whether or not it may be better expressing the Techniques as percentile Skills, and not expressing individual Spells as skills % - you could either know a spell or your don't. Otherwise it takes much longer to become proficient in Sorcery than it does with other magic. However I can live with individual spells as Skills if that is what we have. I do like the notion of applying a Technique to a Rune to achieve an effect, and that Spells are simply formulae on how to do this efficiently. In addition to this, what I would like to see if there was also some way to do variable 'on-the-spot' effects this way - obviously the success chance would need to be greatly reduced than what it would be if a rote spell is cast, or perhaps the effect requires far greater MP expenditure than a spell formula would cost. In any case it would be good if such a notion could be explored; this would really make Sorcery stand out to me.

Safelster in particular sits well for me as a Fritz Leiber-inspired setting; I can see the urban regions as a various hodge-podge of cultures filling in nicely for settings similar to Lhankmar. The G2G really does a great job dispelling the previous medieval flavour which scantily portrayed The West, and it whets the appetite for more material. I'm kinda thinking of portraying the Malkioni by using early Byzantium Empire and ancient Iberian cultures as a foundation, and mixing in Babylonian, Palmyrene, and some very weighty Vedic influences. The Vedic influences of caste structure and aesthetic seeking of knowledge are definitely major influences for understanding the Malkioni. I'm also taking some cues from Yiddish, Kabbalah, and Neoplatonism (specifically for the Zzurbari caste), but I'm eager to see some more official depictions that I can use. I would certainly buy a campaign set in Safelster, perhaps over one set in Prax or Dragon Pass, as I have a fair bit of those already. I think The West really needs to be elaborated upon in one or two large campaigns so we can get a feel for the region and cultures much better. I'm also very interested to see how Sorcery is presented in CRQ4, as this will influence my own Malkioni games. In The West, obviously the magic of Sorcery is the specialty of the Zzurbari, but also known to a degree by the Talori and Horali castes. However I really want to know how the Dronari enact their magic. Given that Sorcery requires a certain amount of literacy, then many in the Dronari caste may have practical difficulties even learning the magic. I have read somewhere that due to illiteracy, many Dronari may also worship neighbouring deities for Theistic magic, especially those of more agricultural origins. I could see this happening in a region like Safelster, given it's honotheistic philosophy, although I am less certain if this would happen in Seshnela for instance. Although CRQ4 will likely have a focus on the Dragon Pass/Prax cultures, I hope the Sorcery rules are enough to elaborate upon for different cultures. I'll also be interested in seeing the difference in Sorcery between Lunar Sorcerors, Theylan Grey Sages, and Malkioni Wizards. (BTW my earliest notions of Rune Magic from RQ2 were quite vague, and I developed the concept that most Rune Magic was faith-driven, some perhaps intuition-driven, whereas other forms could perhaps be scholarly-driven, more like Sorcery in nature. I envisioned that the majority of Priests used faith-driven Rune Magic, although the occasional few could have intuition-driven Rune Magic, such as Yinkini or Eurmali perhaps; whereas others may be use more scholarly-driven Rune magic, such as Goldentongues or Grey Sages. I presumed that Delecti's necromantic magic was another example of an ancient scholarly-driven form of Rune Magic. RQ3 blew all these notions away however, with presenting Divine Magic and Sorcery as very different forms of magic. In some ways I still find my original perception of 'Rune Magic being the 'high magic' which can take different forms" as being an easier way to view magic in Glorantha.)

yeah its a good one - i used quite a few of those sheets - i am very grateful you uploaded it almost a decade ago

The RQ3 character sheets were one of the biggest improvements over RQ2! Pity that the entire RQ3 line used garish colour schemes that date them. You are better off getting ones on a white background. However I always liked the RQ3 sheets. I cannot take credit for this, and I'm not even sure where I found this unoffical RQ3 character sheet, but it may also be of use to you: RQ3 Character Sheet unoffical.pdf

That's a shame, as his enthusiasm was quite infectious at times. Best of luck to his pursuits, I'll check that thread out.

Lots of things in the works at present, things are much more focused than a year ago, so it all sounds good.

Excellent news! I wonder if it will be closer to RQ or to CoC in mechanics? It does lend itself to strike-by-strike combat and to rolling Hit Locations, so it should play more similar to RQ I would fhink.

I am more RQ and CoC, so I'm happy that these two lines are the priority. However MW does have its merits, and there are those who greatly prefer it. I wonder if Ben Monroe is in a position to be involved with a licencee.. ?

Choasium just needs to get the right format for their novelties. I don't need any plush Cthulhus, but I'ld buy any of this Lovecraftian or Gloranthan stuff if it's on a coffee mug

I ended up cross-posting this on the Yoggie site, and the general consensus on that site is very similar to here: A Critical Success attack roll is an Extreme Success with some extra cool contextual narrative effect and consequence. So its pretty loose and handwavey, which suits CoC 7E, as it allows GM to have alot of creativity describing the consequence, much like what happens when 'pushing' a roll, except the consequence is for the opponent. So that is pretty much clarified. Thanks for everyone's advice, its always greatly appreciated!