Lordabdul

I guess I should have picked "Heortling king" instead of "Vingkotling king", or something else that happened during Time. Or maybe something much simpler, like Gringle's Pawnshop or Apple Lane, where Book A features the destruction of Apple Lane and the Death Of Gringle, while Book B, set in a later year, features both alive and well. I can deal with it (I'm not a totally lazy GM) but I would be annoyed if Chaosium did that.

Sounds good. My point being that this whole "YGWV" sounds like a given, really. I mean, what happens at the table happens at the table. Players will change (or at least nudge) history, they will fuck things up by breaking Leika's Black Spear or something, the GM will make shit up on the spot which will then inevitably snowball into a Big Thing, etc. So yeah, YGWV. If making it "official" helps deal with GMs/players who want to treat Glorantha as a unique shiny precious toy that should be kept in shrink wrap, or with GMs/players who are afraid of "getting it wrong" then that's all fine. While I agree with the OP 99%, I just disagree with that bit : "I would be happy to see Glorantha supplements that ignore each other, if they need to". For the Jonstown Compendium? Sure, go crazy. For Chaosium supplements? Nah. This is not because of some desire to adhere to a "canon" or whatever -- it's really just practicality. If Chaosium was to release Big Campaign Book A and Big Campaign Book B, I'd like to know that they are decently compatible. I don't want to have to check that book A has the Vingkotling king imprisoned in the cairn in scenario 3 page 238 as an NPC you can get clues from, but dead in the Underworld in book B on page 132 as someone who might show up in a heroquest or something... because then I need to change one, or somehow address it if I run both campaigns. Sure, it's not impossible... and book B could actually offer a boxed text "If you ran book A..." with some possible explanations (after all, stuff might have happened between the 2 campaigns), but even having this boxed text actually does make it happen in the same Glorantha anyway. I think Ian's diatribe really comes from his place as a writer -- and any GM who writes their own stories should feel free to do whatever they want indeed. For GMs who don't write their own stories, it would be a lot more practical and welcoming to know that they can grab any Chaosium product and run with it with minimum checking/editing. Grabbing other people's stories from their blog or from the Jonstown Compendium, would understandably involve more work as you need to check for any changes to keep your Glorantha more or less consistent.

Within your own Glorantha (i.e. inside a given campaign at your table) do you strive to keep it all consistent, or do you also make it vary in itself? For instance, it's one thing to have someone's Glorantha where a given big rock is the finger of the fallen Ugelbalg The Giant (made up name, don't look it up), and someone else's Glorantha where that same big rock is the tooth of a Great Dragon that went flying off when he fought some Chaos creature or whatever. But would you actually make those 2 myths co-exist in the same Glorantha? Like, the PCs' tribe knows it as the finger, but the GM later finds some cool scenario where it's a dragon tooth and there's a whole thing with Dragonewts doing rituals around it and so she just rules that both stories are true and starts this new adventure around it? Or a similar situation with some Vingkotling king being, say, both imprisoned in some old magic cairn and also dead in the Underworld?

Since my group does like GURPS I have been considering making that on and off -- I'm still flip-flopping between "oh yeah that will be the best thing ever" and "wtf are you crazy, it's the stupidest thing ever".

I can see your rationale but I don't really like how reloading/readying a weapon sometimes gets DEX SR applied and sometimes doesn't... it sounds like you avoid the DEX SR modifier if the reloading/readying is part of another action that already includes it or something? I imagine this might lead to some exception situation(s) eventually, but as long as you're consistent, that's fine. By the way, I was incorrect in saying that a "Wait" maneuver wasn't addressed in the rules, there's a small bit of text at the bottom of p192 that say: "Any combatant can delay an action and go on a later strike rank, if desired.".

SRs are reset but she still starts the round with an unloaded sling -- so I think she would need an extra 5 SRs to reload. I wouldn't make reloads "free" between rounds. Sure but there are some situations where that wasn't the case. For instance in Round 4, Estavos drops his bow, readies his short spear, and moves -- there's no attack. So I think the spear should be ready on SR 5 (no DEX SR modifier included, just a flat +5 SR), and the move be done on SR 7 (by the way, I think it takes SR +2 for Estavos to move 5 meters? I think in the write-up it only takes him SR +1). To be clear, my rationale for making weapon changes (sheathing, drawing, etc.) a flat +5 is that attacking with a ready weapon in DEX SR + Weapon SR, attacking with an unready weapon is DEX SR + Weapon SR + 5, so I figure that just readying the weapon without attacking must be +5. Right, thanks.

LOL what kind of an expression is that?

Yeah it's already confusing enough with just the RQG rules that we don't need to reference previous editions (this is where I really realize combat rules are the weak point of RQG). Thanks for the write-up, @Sumath! Here are my comments: Statement of Intent (SoI) happens before players proceed with the round. As such, the Greydogs couldn't possibly have planned to cast healing magic or whatever this turn... or maybe they did? But I think they probably declared something like "I patrol along the path and if there's anything funky, I either attack or get behind cover, depending on the funkiness". It's really surprising that there's no rule for changing your SoI... between +3 and +5 SR seems appropriate to me, because if there was no penalty, then ambushing somebody effectively only gives a penalty of +1 or +3 SR for "Surprise", and that feels not very, err, penalizing, especially when other RPGs typically make you skip your entire first round. The Greydogs' SoI effectively amounts to a "Wait" maneuver for their round, and there's no rule for that either! Even though the actual example for SoI in the book is such a maneuver! It gets especially hairy when a slow character attacks a fast one. What if the attack SR was, say, 10? Angtyr's Broadsword, with element of surprise, is SR 7+1=8. This means he could see a bunch of n00bs trying to ambush him, but he's so much better than them that he actually injures them first! I can certainly see this happening, but I would have imagined it happening for bigger differences in combat levels -- not just a mere +1 SR difference in the base SR! This means ambush is actually only helping a little bit in getting the upper hand, but not much? You wouldn't want to ambush spear-equipped Lunar soldiers with your Broadsword, then? Seems harsh! I would rule that Bodran can drop his sword to cast magic, and then pick it back up for +5 SR after the spell was cast. I would allow holding the weapon with the shield hand temporarily, but Bodran wants to use his shield to protect himself so that's not possible IMO. It might all be +5 SR anyway for any kind of grip change or whatever (not just dropping/picking up). If he didn't have any shield, he would have a free hand and would be able to cast right away, I think. Ultimately, it doesn't make much difference -- dropping the sword (and saving 5 SR) doesn't free up enough time to cast Protection 2 in the same round anyway, so either way, Bodran still has to take 2 rounds spell-casting and then 5 SR to draw/pick up his sword somehow. I'm not sure why Bodran casts Heal on SR 9? The SR for the spell should be (assuming sheathing the sword as written) 5+3+1+2=11? (+5 for the sheathing, +3 for DEX, +1 for Surprise, +2 for additional magic points). Oh I actually see that he rolls on SR 9 and the spell takes effect on SR 11... why the distinction? I can't find anything about that in the rules. I would just roll and take effect on SR 11. I like the idea of asking players ahead of time where their foci for their various spells is. Maybe they'll say their Heal spell focus is on their sword (so they can heal without sheathing/dropping the sword) but of course that means they can't use the spell quickly when their weapon is confiscated, or broken, or dropped, or whatever... I think they'll soon agree to put some of those spells on tattoos and jewellery. On Round 2, I don't think Chadestra can use her sling on SR 3... she threw a stone last round on SR 11, so she has to reload the sling before firing, so that would be resolved on SR 8? Same think for Drogarsi, who needs to reload an arrow? (this would mean they can't fire again on SR 11). Why does Drogarsi cast Bladesharp only on SR 12? Shouldn't it be SR 5+3+1=9? (+5 for switching weapons, +3 for DEX, +1 for additional magic points) It looks like it was written with the thought that changing weapons is DEX SR + 5, but I think it's a flat +5 SR... otherwise, changing weapons and attacking would result in twice the DEX SR modifier applied, when that's not the case (changing weapon and attacking is just normal DEX and weapon SR plus 5... so it makes sense to me that changing weapons without attacking would be a flat +5 SR). If I'm right, that would change a bunch of other rounds where there was also, IMO, double-dipping of DEX SR modifiers for picking up weapons/shields/etc. Any reason Bodran can re-attempt to remove the arrow only on SR 11? Doing multiple actions is usually a +5 SR affair, so why not on SR 8? Thanks again!

True.... I actually wondered about his avatar for a certain time, until I eventually got the book (was it Storm Tribe or something?) where it comes from and I was like "oh ok, so yeah, that was definitely what I thought it was then".

Haha wow, I've had this profile picture for, err, pretty much 20 years now, and it never occurred to me it could be interpreted as a facepalm! I guess the internet was a much simpler place in 1999.

I'm not a fan of the nails (or, generally speaking, the illustration in CoC 7e) but I do like the bits of bone and other explorations of what "ghoul jewellery" might look like. Remember that ghouls have pretty much human-level intelligence, and that they have social behaviour. They're much more likely to be found in underground communities than as lone monsters. As such, they are surely developing ways to show status, individuality, accomplishments, or whatever (unless your version of ghouls have a "hive mentality" or other variation from canon). Plus, depending on their age, they might be more likely to still have old habits from their past human life. As such, although the "naked dog-faced monster" is probably not uncommon, I imagine it's much more common to find ghouls with random bits of clothing (full or partial, human-inspired from various historical eras or ghoul specific, etc.), various decorations, tattoos, scarification, whatever. Plus, maybe visible injuries from inter-ghoul fighting or a previous brush up against investigators. I personally like how the ghouls in Delta Green have different "styles" and societal structures (Keepers of the Faith vs. Heretics). Urban ghouls vs. country ghouls might also be a lot different.

What about conversions of old RQ2 adventures for RQG? (converted NPC stats, general notes and remarks, etc.)

Well said indeed -- I'm just going to add a couple comments here: Narrative/rules-light systems are "high trust" not only in terms of players being able to trust and go with the GM's decisions, but also in terms of the GM trusting him/herself with making the correct decisions in the first place. In my experience, players who like "crunchier" rules are not necessarily of the "winning against the GM" type (a type of player I actually try to avoid in the first place anyway). Generally, I find it's either because they enjoy a little session of board gaming every now and then ("let's break out the miniatures and do tactical stuff for 2 hours!", a.k.a the players who like board games as much as RPGs), or simply because they want more detail and choice to their actions (the players that have a disappointed look when we "skip" a whole scene in one roll but they really wanted to play it beat by beat because they wanted an interactive experience instead of an ellipsis). Yep. Given how HQ take very little space, I wonder if it would be possible to release most Gloranthan scenarios with dual stats? I'm still undecided myself about whether to pick RQ or HQ for my next campaign... I might just start 2 campaigns instead

That's my opinion also... we can do better than the cliche of the impatient (or, worse, entitled) fans asking for things to go faster than they should realistically go. I'm surprised to see the Starter Set and GM Guide come after the 2 scenario books -- I thought (based on some previous staff comments on the forums) that they had a higher priority. It's also interesting to see that Cults of Glorantha is after the Campaign Guide (since it sounded like Jeff was mostly working on the cults lately... does that mean the Campaign Guide first draft is pretty complete already?). No mention of the new Pavis book so I assume Robin is still hard at work on the manuscript -- he was recently mentioning some interesting "archeological loot" approach to Big Rubble treasures in his podcast.

I think it would be a Good Thing. First, big campaigns always run the risk of the PCs completely derailing it. They usually give enough background info on NPCs and factions for the GM to be able to extrapolate what happens next. Second, if anybody can pull it off, it's Chaosium. It worked for the Great Pendragon Campaign, it worked for Masks of Nyarlathotep, it worked for Horror on the Orient Express... I mean, I don't know if any one game company has as many Big Giant-Ass Campaign Books as Chaosium under the same roof. Third, there are many ways to go about it... they could put the PCs at the forefront of the Sartarite rebellion, and only talk about Argrath in boxed text ("Argrath's Saga", similar to "Vasana's Saga" and all the other "Sagas" that flavoured every RQ book), effectively making him an "example PC". They could show in detail how the "canon" timeline goes, but actually spend most of the book's real estate on info on armies, alliances, tactics, and so on, so that you could play it from any given faction (you can join the Lunars and make them win?). Last, they could just frame it in a way that still gives players a feeling of accomplishment -- I really don't see how not being "the main guy" is a problem. There are plenty of missions that Argrath might give the PCs that can change the war, from leading an important flanking battalion to going behind enemy lines to assassinate an important figure to being spies or recovering magical artefacts or securing alliances and what not. I think that could be immensely fun to play. After all, I don't think anybody would oppose playing games set during WW2 just because "you know how it turns out" and you can't play Churchill, no?

I always feel a bit bad for my players when I have the most basic (lazy?) setup for gaming, but then I see pictures like these where I realize that, hey, the creators of those games also play on shabby picnic tables in a garage with a simple battlemat and some scribbled lines and paper tokens! I can't be that bad! 😅 (then of course a second later I feel bad thinking they probably have better adventures, but hey, whatever, I'll throw more Broos at my party if they complain)

You become associate member by volunteering to put up lots of flyers around the clan's lands, bringing your famous "dried boar and potatoes" salad to all the cult's potlucks, and singing in the cult's choir for all the Holy Day special concerts.

Haha I can't believe that's Lynne's first post on the forums?! Welcome, newbie 😂

Don't worry, I think we all appreciate you doing this -- and frankly most of us are as confused (at least at first) as you so that's very helpful.

Is that the Garhound Contest scenario from RQ3/HW?

(you know someone had to do it)

That's pretty cool, thanks for sharing! It sounds however that Jeff's approach goes a step further, where the players build the myth as they go through it, instead of Andrew's approach that gets the players to build the myth (instead of the GM) but they still have to do it before-hand? I don't know if Jeff figured out how to eliminate that, or compress it down to a minimum... Arguably, even with Andrew's method, this player-driven preparation can be pretty quick (they just determine the goal/boon/gift, pick how many stations of which type, and a one sentence description of each station). You could potentially play it with players coming up with stations as they go.... as in: they design the next station only as they exit the previous one... you evaluate the "difficulty" of each station on the spot, and you sum that up at the end to figure out how grandiose and effective the heroquest was, and therefore how good the reward is at the end. Maybe with some bonuses/penalties based on whether the players committed to a specific number of stations up-front, or not. Other random thought: I was reminded of TimeWatch and its rules for Chronal Stability, where you can do whatever crazy time-travelling shenanigans you want, but the GM assigns a certain risk to each stunt and you need to roll against a stat that goes down as you fail (kind of like SAN in CoC) and might eventually spiral down into you erasing yourself from the timeline. I figure some similar mechanics could be used for staying "on script" for the heroquest, with that stat going down if you have the wrong avatars, or the wrong station, or the wrong outcome, or whatever, and eventually possibly having disastrous results if you fail the heroquest, or, worse, mess up the myth itself.

Welcome @pointyman2000 and thanks for the write up! Of course, I have questions Round 1, it is said the Broo is readying his spear while running towards Vasana, and that should combine a SR 3 and SR 5, so the Broo should be engaged in melee and ready to fight by SR 5. He's got SR 7 for the Spear so he should be able to attack on SR 12 (the very last possible SR), no? (It looks like the author thought that the Broo couldn't start doing anything until after its Base SR of 5? I don't think that's correct?) Round 2, SR 7, as mentioned previously, it should only inflict -1HP to the Broo's spear. I should also run a few solo fights, I'm pretty sure I'm going to mess up my first game... or I can just wait for the upcoming Starter Set, with any luck it will include a solo intro adventure like the CoC one! It's super useful to learn the rules.

Oh interesting -- I was looking at the re-released PDF version and he does have Protection 2. I guess that's why those PDF re-releases are often taking a long time: they're not half-assed scan+OCR jobs, they might actually re-read and fix some stuff (unless maybe that specific thing was already fixed in a later printing of the original Apple Lane, I don't know). In my copy of Bestiary, it says SR2 for the Baboons' sling. I'm not sure if that includes the DEX SR or not (if it doesn't then yeah it would be SR 4 loaded, SR 9 unloaded). But I'm going to assume all the stats in Bestiary do indeed include DEX/SIZ because, well, first, it would just be so much nicer for GMs, and, second, it would be consistent with, say, ducks having SR 8 for their Shortsword (Base SR 5 + Shortsword SR 3). Thanks for the updates!

Do you find that the type of stories and adventures differ between the 2 groups?