Jump to content

lordabdul

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1,745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by lordabdul

  1. Thanks for the info! What's the deal between this personal responsibility of paying ransoms/wergilds and the fact that AFAIK most Orlanthi don't actually own much? That is: their lands and their herd of cattle or sheep are assigned by the clan or tribe to them, so they're probably not theirs to use as payment? It seems like they don't have much to pay with besides whatever few weapons they have that probably got passed down from a few generations (and selling them might mean leaving the militia and losing voting rights in tribal assemblies and such). Maybe that's why there's incentive to
  2. For serious enough inter-clan or inter-tribe feuds and conflicts, this is actually what would be negotiated, I think. There are multiple clans and tribes around Dragon Pass who get a regular tribute from somebody, and owe a tribute themselves to somebody else. A few years or couple generations later, someone will stand up and contest the tribute, and maybe the community gets out of it. Other times, someone tries to justify bringing back an old tribute from their grandparents' time. At least that's the impression I get from reading Dragon Pass history and HQG-era stuff... I'm not sure how
  3. Even if this "treasury" is less a room full of coins and jewels and spare magic items, and more a mix of a herds of cattle or sheep, a bunch of temple regalia and sacred artifacts, and other such things, there might still be a conscious decision on the chieftain and/or king's part to keep a certain amount of it in a "liquidity" state. For instance, they might make sure they can always sacrifice or give away, say, 10% of their herds at any given time for unforeseen circumstances, allocating heads of cattle accordingly. I imagine it all just depends on the past couple chieftains and kings, and t
  4. Ah yes, the reverse of the first option from my OP. I have done that a couple times, good point, thanks!
  5. To be clear: *I* wouldn't nominate a leader -- the players would (when it's an activity that justifies having a leader). Thanks for the suggestions! Even during the sneak I could see it happening: the "leader" is first and makes hand gestures and such to point out things to watch out for ("Oh shit, I didn't see that branch there, good thing you pointed it out"), coordinate segments of the path (make signs to the others for when it's appropriate to go from one cover to another, one by one), choosing the most optimal path (picking the right covers to begin with), etc.
  6. Yep so that's my 1st option. Any feedback on how it plays in practice? Yeah but like I said, because of how RQ experience works, it means people who are good in a skill are the only ones getting a check in that skill. So the other people never learn from it -- unless you allow for check to anybody witnessing the "master at work" during that scene?
  7. Hey there, I'm curious how y'all handle group rolls in RuneQuest? The Issue: I find that one common issue about asking for everyone to roll for Scan or Move Quietly means that, inevitably, someone will succeed with Scan (and will inform the others) and someone will fail Move Quietly (and will blow everyone's cover). Which means that things almost always get spotted, and stealth almost always fails. A typical thing in other RPGs is to just get one person in the group to roll (usually the one with the highest score) but RQ needs you to roll and succeed at a skill to get better at it, s
  8. Way back in Wyrms Footnotes #5, there was information on how villages "near Alone" (and in the Far Place in general) would include big sharpened and poisonous tree trunks sticking out of buildings' rooftops (pictured below). The reason for that was supposedly that the Far Place is near the "Giants' Path", a route that Giants frequently take coming down from the mountains to go to Snakepipe Hollow. Giants would be less inclined to stomp on those houses. Here's the map of the area from Snakepipe Hollow.... the Giants' Path is the dotted line along the Vale of Flowers. As you can s
  9. You mean: offset the failures by one? So fail = nothing happens, and fumble = -10% to all rolls (for a Passion) or -20% to the Rune (for Runic Inspiration) ? That's a possible house rule. My guess is that they modeled Runes/Passions on Pendragon, where inner turmoil and despair is both a mechanic and a trope of the genre. Whether this is a trope of Gloranthan stories (and therefore whether it should also be a mechanic) is up to interpretation.
  10. ....says the new boss.... 😄
  11. Yeah I'm wondering that too. I could be wrong but this is not even their High Holy Day so there's not so much incentive to go to a truly sacred/important place. I think they could both go to New Pavis and find some shrines or temples for both their cults there.
  12. Good to know, thanks! (I'm out of reactions for today so I can't just "like" your post 😉 )
  13. That tends to be my view on this as well, but I can't speak for my players. Most of them do use augments pretty often like I said though so I guess they like it. Different people will have different tastes -- some will be more or less combative, some will be more or less often looking at diplomatic solutions, and some will be using more or less Passions. It's interesting that you're arguing for the case of (1) failing a Passion roll, followed by (2) a failed roll that fell inside the 10% margin that makes you regret having roll a Passion. The probability for that is pretty small
  14. AFAIK the intent of the mechanic in RQG is pretty similar to Pendragon. I agree that Passions are tracking behind the actions -- not leading them. When the player keeps acting in a way that aligns with their character's Passions, these Passions can go up. In return, the player gets to use these Passions to get bonuses in play, get support from their community, and have powerful NPCs helping them. On the other hand, players can always go in other directions, but after a while it will lead to the GM lowering some Passions, and the player losing some of the Passion's perks. It's all sup
  15. Ultimately, RQG's main advice is "use common sense, work with your GM, do what feels right". Determining and managing Passions is really more like alchemy than science, because they depend so much on situation. Only using them (augments/inspiration) is driven by rules. So for instance, losing a 60% Passion "naturally" takes a long time -- it's about growing apart from the other person, or from your community, and realizing that you don't care so much about them years later. Maybe you lose 2D6% every year if you haven't interacted with the Passion's target or something. Just make it up. On
  16. My understanding is that Passions start at zero. The thing about starting new Passions at 60% is mainly for the Family History and (more generally speaking) for character creation: you have Love (Family) or Loyalty (Tribe) at 60% because you literally spent most of your life loving or being part of this or that group. And you get Hate (Lunar Empire) at 60% when your grandpa got killed by their sorcerers because you literally heard that story (along with witnessing all the casual bigotry your family exhibits as a result) most of your life too. So I wouldn't expect a 2 weeks adventure to similar
  17. Technically, at best, the rules contradict each other : the "-10% to all actions" on p202 is contradicted by the chapter about Runes and Runic Inspiration, and by the GM screen's summary of augment rules. I agree with Phil here: @Scotty this should be maybe fixed in further printings, and/or clarified in the Well of Daliath?
  18. Do they have any Passions higher than 60? (unless they were unlucky during Family History, they should have at least one or two at 70, no?). Did you let them improve their Passions after completing the first couple adventures? (especially if they did something for the clan/tribe, such as defending Apple Lane as per the GM Adventures booklet) What about Runes which, as per RAW, don't give a penalty (except to the Rune itself)? Or are they also afraid of getting into Runic Turmoil with a fumble? I agree with @French Desperate WindChild -- feel free to roleplay and rollplay NPCs usin
  19. 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 r
  20. I'll add some other proposals that make your Glorantha vary a bit more: The Dundealos have completely collapsed years ago and are not coming back (or at least not in numbers big enough to make a clan, let alone a tribe)... so after the Dragonrise, when the occupiers on their lands are in disarray, it's all up for grabs. Pick a clan, any clan. Declare that they were a bit too cozy with the Lunars, and that after 1625 their neighbours attacked them and ran them out of their lands. Serves them right! Your refugees, on the other hand, have deals (old or recent) with someone in power (K
  21. You don't think we have enough magic systems and rules already? 😅 I'd vastly prefer if Rightness was something that improved magical abilities within the existing rules. The most obvious (pointed out by others already) is that Rightness might add to Free INT, or reduce manipulation costs (which also kinda reduces Free INT in a workaround way), or something like that. It's simple, can work with different Malkioni societies (you might associate your pool of Rightness points to a specific school of thought, like Rokarism or Hrestolism), and still gives Malkioni a leg up over other sorcerers
  22. Yeah I think your alarm bells are calibrated ok and it was just a false positive. There is a few precedents for old editions' text making it into the new one. Yeah that's what I was thinking when I was checking the first half of the book. It would have been simpler to state special attack abilities in each creature. It doesn't seem to me like it would add much text to the book because the number of entries that fall under the general rule p8 seem pretty small.
  23. Yes it might be late 🙂 As per my original comment: the "multiple attacks happen simultaneously" is only, I think, for creatures that are already specified as having multiple attacks per round. So the way I understand it: No combat notes: the creature follows the usual rules. Combat note about having multiple attacks per round: these multiple attacks are simultaneous (the "if so..." of the rule p8). Combat note about having multiple attacks per round but with a specific rule for how to play those attacks: just follow the combat note (the "unless specified otherwise" of the rul
×
×
  • Create New...