Zit

and nothing indicates it is not, neither in GM nor in the rules. In GM, nothing mentions that the wagons must be static. It is mentioned that the Jack o' Bears avoid the wagons but without specifying "while static" in any way. The whole wagons glow when a detect magic is cast, and since the spell can be cast to protect "an area or an object" (RQ classic), I strongly tend to consider that the wagons can move while the warding remains on. So nothing in the rules forbids it, and it is too much game fun to go without it.

Gondo Holst has a cart protected with a warding spell. It moves, so why not a ring. I think this is a brilliant idea.

Stamina ?

Life Breath ? Trunk works in French as well (tronc).

The question may already have been addressed somewhere else, I'm sorry if it is the case. The rules for augments on page 2 are not the same as later for Runes and Passions, although it is said on page 2 that "Where appropriate, abilities—whether Runes, skills, or passions— may be combined to augment one another". Page 2: • Failure: Subtract –20% from the desired ability. • Fumble: Subtract –50% from the desired ability. Page 8 & 10 • Failure: Subtract –10% from all rolls using that Rune/passion etc. • Fumble: Immediately lose –1D10% from the Rune/passion etc. I know the Quickstart is only a draft and I guess this has already been spotted and will be corrected, but I'm wondering if, the definitive rules, there will be a difference when augmenting with skills or with runes/passions, and if yes, why ?

There should be one in the Scorpions' Hall Soloquest as well, if I remember well.

I'm not sure. Citing the rules : "A Motivation is a short phrase that expresses what your character believes in, wants to achieve, what is important, what haunts his or her dreams." And "“Addicted to alcohol” is not a good Motivation". I understand a Motivation as something which shall drive you doing voluntary something (this is what I mean with "positive"), not prevent you or force you doing something, which is in terms of mechanics the opposite and like would be an addiction or a phobia. So it should be "despite blablabla..." or "tries to overcome blablabla..." instead. And what would mean "activating a Motivation" ? Getting drunk for an alcoholic ? (and gaining Fate Points, as everybody knows that there are guardian angels for alcoholics )

Well, I understand Motivation is something positive, which "drives you to improve your situation", like trying to overcome a weakness. As the rule says, "addicted to alcohol" is not a good motivation, but "tries to overcome his addiction" is a good one. In this case, the player wanted a true impairment, like a passion, an addiction, a phobia. A kind of HQ flaw. What about giving a permanent Consequence ?

sorry if it already has been mentioned: p. 93, side block "spell singing", there is a reference to POW instead of WIL. At many other places, WIL is written Will.

My (late) HR was that you were able to attack and parry if holding one single weapon, whatever it was (1H or 2H). It is another combat style than having two weapons, with different stances and tactics. Not perfect but more balanced and not so unrealistic I think.

One of my players wants to give a personality Trait, like "can hardly resist a [temptation]". How do you manage this ?

Do you mean a Three Feathered Rivals Contest ? Fist = Darkness, 2 fingers = wind or lightning, hand = sky dome

Very broo-ish, it perfectly suits to Dorastor. And a very successful game : led by very inventive players enjoying the game with the GM as spectator. Perfect.

YSFWV

Well, I think it depends on the game. If you play in kind of Star Wars game, planets with one single biome, one single land and even one single town is not so much of a concern

A big difference is that in RW, the men made the gods and adapted them to their convenience/influences/conquests/culture/whatever. Syncretism is common, especially with polytheistic religions which easily adopted gods from other pantheons. In Glorantha, as well as in most of the fantasy worlds, the gods exist on their own and may not be so flexible! Comparing both does therefore not make 100% sense. Except if in Glorantha, the Mortals shape the gods as well (question for the Glorantha subforum). At a shrine dedicated to one aspect, you are still in contact with the god, so why shouldn't you be able to contact his other aspects ? The other attendants may not be able to because of their particular ties with the deity, but you may. Or does a shrine create a particular channel to the god which only initiates to this channel can follow? But this can be left to the Referee (), indeed.

So did I. But since the rules are currently being rewritten, it is a chance to bring clarity.

But still to be the canon. We are speaking about two different things: - Glorantha as a work if literature. It is great and plays with complex intellectual concepts, discussed in the Glorantha subforum. - Glorantha as a game setting. This what it is about here, since we are in the Runequest subforum. I’m not found of simplistic settings, otherwise I wouldn’t be posting in these forums, and as I already said somewhere else, I like Glorantha for its complexity. Saying that it may go too far in complexity AS A GAME does not mean that one prefer simplistic settings: pretending this is an excessive reaction. All is not black or white (very gloranthian, isn’t it ? ). It's also not despising Greg's work. We could of course argue about where to put the limit of complexity for the game. It is here a question of playability. In my opinion, as a general thought, in a game setting, you shall at some point stop exploring and start providing answers. And players are free to change them if they don't agree. It is just like writing a historical game (since you are mentioning RW religions): in RW, myths and beliefs don’t have influence on the world mechanics, but they will in the game, so you have at some time to stop scholarly discussions and provide a playable solution "a minima". In RuneQuest for instance, magic exists through the runes, and there are rule mechanics for it. Of course, we could decide that RuneQuest is a game of exploration of intellectual concepts through role playing. But I would keep this as an option only. It may also be that variable runes are very playable, but it should be clearly stated, explained and somehow come with at least guidelines and consequences (game wise), since in a gloranthan based game, it is not just a detail. The Guide to Glorantha has been presented several times as the canon, so hearing two years later that it is only a relative point of view is kind of weird, but ok, we'll go ahead with it. But when players get confused, it shows that something is wrong either in the concept or simply in the way it has been introduced or explained.

Glorantha is great and I love it, and I praise the job made by Chaosium's team, but it is in my opinion sometime going too far in obscure metaphysical concepts, which at the end can be seen as trying to cope with inconsistencies in the setting. Sorry, but we don't need quantum mechanics for Glorantha to enjoy it. It is up to the players to make it vary, but the publisher shall provide solid references. Game designers shall first design...a game, and not get lost in intellectual masturbation, as the French say. Qui bene amat bene castigat, I still love playing in Glorantha.

ww2 English is not my mother tongue, but it can be also understood as a general statement that it is also possible to parry with a weapon. It does not say you can do both in the same MR. Moreover: 1- When using 2 weapons, it is explicitly and clearly explained that you can only do one single action with each for 2 attacks, 2 parries or 1 attack and one parry. 2- in the Basic Role Playing booklet which was in the boxed '81 RQ2, presented as "Basic Role-Playing, an introductory guide", it is said on p.12 "Using a weapon: weapons do have two uses, attacking and parrying. Each weapon can only do one of these actions in a particular melee round". Which is the rule I applied when I switched to RQ, which I hold for a kind of advanced version of the 1981 BRP. 3- it was apparently the case in RQ3 as well (but I never played RQ3). 4- it is also the case in the brand new Quick Start for shields So you may be right, but you'll admit that it is quite confusing, could be understood the other way and shall be clarified.

it is not, that's the problem, and it has caused endless discussions which I don't want to start here again. That's why I'd like the game designer to at last, after 40 years, explicitly clarify it. I'd like to read somewhere from them that "it is possible/not possible to attack and parry with the same weapon in the same MR" Note that it is explicit for shields in the Quick Start (no attack and parry in the same MR), but still not for other weapons. BTW, it is also written in the Quick Start that 2 weapons "can be used for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry", while it is possible to make several parries with the same weapon, so I think the text needs some rewording here.

And from my side, I would like to know what the rules actually say.

In RL, yes. Parade-riposte. At least with a light fencing weapon. But in the rules ? Of course, an opposed roll would solve this at once, but there are no opposed rolls for combat.

I like this.

BTW, the Quick start says "When attacking with a shield, the attacker gives up all chance of parrying that round with the shield." It logically means that if I parry, I cannot attack anymore. But the quick rules say nothing like this for other weapons So does this work for all the melee weapons ? This how I always played, but after 40 years, this is still not clearly stated in the rules (or I missed it or it will be in the full rules) and many are still debating this. I'd like the authors to at last definitely and for once clarify this point.