EpicureanDM

Agreed. My interest lies in running in the RQ2/3 mode rather than the Red Cow mode, so I'm less interested in putting mechanical weight behind the cultural stuff.

Oh, I realize that I used some imprecise terminology. I haven't played Pendragon in a long time and was referring to Pendragon's Traits, e.g. Chaste/Lustful, when explaining why I think Runes and "Passions" would be redundant in my Cortex game. Maybe the Chaste/Lustful pairings were called passions in an earlier edition? Anyway, I consider Runes and Pendragon-style Traits (what Cortex would probably call Values) to be redundant.

Passions are one of the few Prime Sets I haven't shoehorned into my hack. They feel redundant with Runes. RQG's current implementation of Runes takes its inspiration from Pendragon's Passions, so why include Passions on top of Passions?

It was harder settling on them that it will be to list them. 😉 Remember that I'm trying to get close to an RQ-type experience. So I settled on Attributes, Runes (instead of Skills), and Distinctions (required by the Cortex rules). The Attributes are Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Power, and Charisma. Runes use the die distribution of Skills, the 6-die pyramid provided in the book. If a Rune's at d10 or d12, it can be used to Hinder a PC. (That's meant to model how powerful Runes in RQG can cause problems for a character.) As for Distinctions, characters must have one to represent their cult, one to represent their homeland and profession combined, e.g. Sartarite Thane, and one for a strong belief or personality trait. I also avoid using Cortex's rules to model mundane weapons or armor. If someone picks up an important, legendary weapon or set of armor, then that can be modeled as something special. Otherwise, they're narrative details that can be made temporarily significant in the scene via a Stunt or PP or some other expenditure. (Where I do use the Asset/Signature Asset rules is with animism and bound spirits.) I'm also using a Life Point system rather than the more standard, Fate-like conflict resolution, but I'm using the Life Point system from Terraverse, a mini-setting that Kickstarter backers received. As I've said, I'm going for a more RQ feel, so Life Points makes sense for me. But that's entirely optional and I'd still not bother accounting for mundane weapons and armor if I were using the base conflict rules. If this were a more D&D-inspired game, that might make sense. A Gloranthan game's supposed to be a little more heroic.

It's not quite in a shareable spot yet, but I'd be happy to answer some questions about the choices I've made so far. 😉

I've played RQ3, RQG, Heroquest, Fate, and Cortex. Like you, I want to play a Gloranthan game that's a little different from its official game systems: RQ and Heroquest. Fate's design and pattern of play is too close to Heroquest to feel like enough of a break from it. You can see that in some of the responses here. Cortex's design provides a little more mechanical traction and depth than Heroquest or Fate. You said in your original post that you were burned out on HQ and Fate seems like you'd be playing the same way with different rules. So I suggested Cortex, which shares the same feel as HQ and Fate, but plays differently enough that it could feel new. The current version, Cortex Prime, incorporates lessons learned from Cortex games published after Firefly. Maybe it would be more palatable to you. Cortex Prime requires you to build a custom set of rules from the pieces it gives you. That's what's going on in this thread. Many people bounce off of Cortex Prime because they aren't in the mood to put together a custom set of rules. You seem up for that, so Cortex Prime might be more interesting to you. In figuring out what pieces you want to use, you'll understand how the game works a little better. (As well as you can from reading it instead of playing it, anyway.) By identifying the parts of Firefly that survived into Prime and choosing different parts, you might have a better experience. I found translating different RQ rules and HQ concepts into Cortex gave me a very good grasp of Cortex, which parts of it I wanted to use, and which I needed to discard in order to keep the rules feeling like Cortex.

I've got a similar project underway, but I chose Cortex rather than Fate as the system. Cortex provides the same general feel at the table as Fate, but has a lot more systemic granularity thanks to its intentions as a toolkit system. The whole point of Cortex is to build the game using its components, which is the project you've undertaken. For someone who is familiar with RuneQuest and wants to capture, as you say, Glorantha's famed granularity, Cortex's depth and modularity work to your advantage. For example, I've settled on using Attributes and Runes as the primary components of dice pools. I thought about using Cortex's Skills element since that would mirror RQ's Attributes + Skills design, but figured that Runes were a better thematic fit for Glorantha. The biggest advantage of using Cortex has been using different components to define different sorts of magic. So Rune Magic, Spirit Magic, and Sorcery will all use slightly different rules just like they do in RQ. I'm trying to match the rules granularity of RQ with the better sensibility that for Glorantha that Heroquest provides. I usually start by asking myself whether I can translate a piece of RQ design into Cortex's terms, but filtered through the ways that Heroquest's designers did this first. The most important thing has been deferring to Heroquest ideas and principles when I've struggled in the RQ -> Cortex conversion. That's why I chose Attributes + Runes rather than Attributes + Skills, for example. The design spirit animating Heroquest's approach to Glorantha is a better natural fit for Cortex. My approach is a little unique in that I'm trying to use as much of Cortex's rules as I can, so I'm getting a bit exotic. You could easily make your life much simpler by using fewer Cortex components in your design, as the game's own designers encourage you to do when building in Cortex.

Sure, but there's no need to revive a rules system that makes very large demands upon your customers if you don't think your customers should actually honor those demands.

Agreed. My post on the warparty largely analyzed what they can do at the expense of focusing on what they should do. If I had more time, it would be more practical to take a second pass at that post and reframe it in terms of proper advice about what capabilities to use at what points in the battle. Yes, this advice is better than mine, since it's directly applicable during play. 😉 Point taken. Your reading's probably correct. Only one of those bound spirits would have been a proper threat (the one with Demoralize), but you're right that it knocks the Rune Lord down a peg.

I meant to call this out specifically as a small blunder in the text, too.

I will also assume a four-person party. Almost all of the RQ actual play videos I see on YouTube, including those involving Chaosium, have four players. Sometimes it's 3 combat specialists and 1 support characters, other times is 2 and 2. Even the support characters in RQ have decent combat skills, but often lack heavy armor and that makes them more fragile. Still, either the 3/1 or 2/2 ratio seems right to me as well. That's a good way of arranging things so that they're manageable. It's implied in the scenario text, but not clearly enough, especially if the idea is that the second encounter doesn't step on the first's toes in order to avoid overwhelming the PCs. An experienced RQ GM would know this, but should the scenario assume that experience? Not if Chaosium wants to grow the game's audience. If the attacks come from behind Darkwalls, a skilled archer or strong, ranged Rune magic won't be helpful if there's no light magic. It's weird that the scenario's drenched in Light Sons and Yelmalio initiates and one of them isn't assigned to the party as a helper, especially if trolls are expected at night. The part of the glade where the Light Son's fighting is probably quite bright. Good nuance. I think we disagree about how the warparty would split up for its melee waves, but the big benefit of this thread is seeing different angles on things. This is all solid gold. Couched very explicitly and specifically in the rules of the game itself, the rules that will be used at the table when this adventure is used by real people. Love in particular the idea of characterizing this as a "breakthrough battle." What I want to highlight is that I find it impossible to imagine any of the game's actual designers and publisherswriting in this way. I've never seen them do it and they go out of their way to avoid coming close to talking about the game they make this way. Analyses like the ones seen so far in this thread are just trying to use the game's published rules to run a fight that's in a published RuneQuest book. I can understand if RQ veterans are weary of the excesses of something like RQ3 sorcery, where Arlaten The Magus in Strangers In Prax spawned a gorp-like profusion of forum threads that they forced themselves to litigate back in the Usenet days. But the baby's been thrown out with the bath water at this point. The game's designers and the books they publish give me no indication that they particularly like or enjoy these rules they've published. But their books and scenarios are full of these rules! It feels like monks in the Dark Ages invoking Latin phrases without understanding them. EDIT: In a previous version of this post, I tagged members of Chaosium staff who, in hindsight, will have little interest in this post and don't want to be dragged into it. I should have exercised more restraint. I've edited my post to remove those direct mentions and apologize to the folks I tagged.

Here’s my take on the warparty. The Rune Lord’s a very powerful threat. Physically, it’s got at least 8 points of armor (or more) everywhere, and has a 120% chance to dish out 1d8+6+2d6 damage on SR3. It’s also got a maul at 85% that does 2d8+4+2d6 on SR1. (These figures include Bludgeon 4 adding +20% and +4 damage along with +10% plus an extra +1d6 STR damage die from Strength, both spells cast by one of the Rune Lord’s bound spirits.) Most importantly on the melee front, it’s using Sprout Arms, which gives it a free, extra attack and parry before penalties start to add up. I would put the Rune Lord’s mace and shield in its armored arms and the maul in its Sprouted arms. (The Sprouted arms are more vulnerable, so the Rune Lord would put its weakest weapon there in case something happens to the Sprouted arms.) Anyone who square’s off against the Rune Lord could be facing two attacks per round: the mace and the maul. That multiple parry penalty’s going to stack up. The Rune Lord’s probably smart enough to swing second with the maul, knowing their opponent will defend at a penalty. Magically, there’s a lot going on due to the allied and bound spirits. That effectively gives the Rune Lord three extra actions per turn, something that PCs without similar resources can’t equal. The Rune Lord’s basic benefits are obviously his ability to resist spells with POW 21 (his racial maximum) and the ability to obtain easy Divine Intervention. The text notes that the Rune Lord has already cast Carapace, Transform Head, and Sprout Arms. By my math, that’s 5 Rune points, not the 3 given in the text. So, the Rune Lord should be starting with 10 Gorakiki Rune points, not 12. That’s still plenty combined with the 3 Kyger points. Absorption’s not compatible with Countermagic, so he should start the fight with Absorption stacked 3 times. His allied spirit can cast Countermagic 3 on him once Absorption’s gone. If he sees a powerful threat, such as someone casting a powerful Rune spell, he’ll target them with a stacked Blinding 2. That gives him POW 21 in the Blinding resistance roll. He will have cast Silence and Shimmer on himself. Shimmer doesn’t stack with Countermagic, but it does stack with Absorption. The allied and bound spirits are a huge benefit. It will primarily use Disrupt Magic 7 to peel away the PCs Rune spells. It has access to Heal 6 and Slow from the Rune Lord. It can also use the Rune Lord’s Heal Wound. One bound spirit’s stronger than the other and it’s the stronger that has spells that may affect PCs, such as Demoralize. The other bound spirit’s main job is to cast Extinguish if circumstances warrant. Otherwise, it’s a bit of a dud. For the dark troll Kyger Litor initiates, they’re more straightforward. Heavy armor almost everywhere (8 points), along with a Mace (85%, 1d8+4+1d6, SR3) and perhaps a Maul (80%, 2d8+2+1d6, SR1). There are three initiates, so I’d give one a maul while the other two use mace and shield. (Weapon stats include Bludgeon 2.) Physical, they’re pretty strong, but perhaps not on par with a combat-focused PC. These are Kyger Litor initiates, not Zorak Zorani. But they’ve got heavy armor and high hit points, so they can take a couple of hits. Against non-combat-oriented PCs, these guys are dangerous. Their damage is very high and some PCs might only have light armor. An average hit with a mace is 11-12 damage. Unparried, that’s probably going to drop someone in lighter armor. One hit from the maul will almost certainly annihilate a lightly-armored PC. Magically, the initiates also have Blinding, but their POW is just 12. They won’t have as good a chance in the resistance roll as the Rune Lord does. With only 3 Rune points, they might spend 2 on Blinding 2 and leave 1 in reserve for Heal Wound. Blinding 2 gives them an effective POW 17, which is much better odds on the resistance table. It might be worth the gamble and Rune points if an initiate takes a strong hit and reconsiders their opponent’s mettle. On the spirit magic side, they all have Darkwall. Darkwall’s mobile, albeit at a slow pace. They probably all cast Darkwalls before the ambush and advanced behind them, screening their force from vision. The trollkin will probably launch their attacks from behind the initiates’ Darkwalls, making return fire from the PCs impossible without light magic or some other clever solution. The trollkin themselves are not effectual fighters, especially with their slings, but some do have Speedart. That boosts their pathetic Sling 35% to 50% and the damage to 1d8+3. The initial round of sling stones will have Speedart on them, if possible. That makes a couple of the shots more dangerous. Their weapon skills are 50%, which isn’t great, but it’s all about forcing extra parries from the PCs, so it’s mostly a numbers game. There are four trollkin, so each probably pairs up with an initiate once melee starts. The leader might move from engagement to engagement using Heal 2. The giant beetles are tough, but straightforward. Heavy armor, massive damage, but they attack late in the round. Still, that’s the point where some other parries might have already occurred, so the PC facing a giant beetle might be a little worried that it “only” has a 50% chance to hit. If a beetle does hit, its 1d10+2d6 damage is devastating. Sadly, the Rune Lord’s bound spirit has Ironhand rather than Ironbite, so it can’t boost the beetles’ melee attacks. Adding a giant beetle to an existing melee against an initiate adds greatly to the possible danger. That's an analysis of the enemies, but it's more important for people to describe the PCs who would face this Gorakiki war party in a fair fight. So often, and especially in The Smoking Ruin, we see advice to the GM about assessing the difficulty of a battle or warning players about when a battle might be too tough for them. On pg. 173 in the "Balancing The Encounter" sidebar, it says, "[This warparty] might be more than the adventurers can handle!" On pg. In the Runequest Bestiary, in a section titled "Game Balance and RuneQuest", the first bullet reads, "Give the players some warning of the deadliness of the encounter. They might not understand that a band of dark trolls backed up by a mob of trollkin and a great troll are more than a match for their adventurers, but their adventurers probably would!" How can a GM properly give this advice if they don't know how to compare a group of PCs to groups of enemies? If the players don't know how dangerous a fight might be, but their "adventurers" do, who at the table represents the "adventurers" in that moment? The GM! If the GM doesn't know how to compare their PCs abilities to a group of proposed enemies - because they haven't been exposed to the sort of rules explanations I'm pointing towards - then it's the blind leading the blind. My next post will tackle the first two bullets in the challenge I proposed: what does a party with a fair chance of defeating this warparty look like in terms of skills, spells, gear, etc. and what spells and tactics would they use to defeat the warparty. It's the other side of this equation and equally important if the community (and the game's publishers) are interested in developing new RQ GMs.

For anyone that's still uncertain, notice how this sounds like someone who's actually used the rules of the game. Contrast that with this from Jeff: Or this, from a different thread that spawned this one: These latter two responses sound like someone who didn't study for a test, so they give vague answers in the hope of earning partial credit. I can make this more concrete. There's a scenario in The Smoking Ruin book called, "The Grove of Green Rock." In it, there's a climactic battle involving a Gorakiki Rune Lord and his retinue. The "suggested number of foes" for this skirmish is: The Gorakiki Rune Lord plus his giant longhorn beetle (which also houses the Rune Lord's allied spirit) Two additional giant longhorn beetles Three dark troll initiates of Kyger Litor One trollkin veteran leader Three trollkin followers Their stats are all in the book. This skirmish is intended to take place at night. Here are some questions to chew on: What stats, spells, skills, equipment, etc. do you think a group of PCs would need to have for this to be a fair fight? Bonus question: is it fair to suggest that most parties of PCs would have that exact makeup? What if there's an Issaries or Ernalda initiate in the group? An Eurmali? Do the combat-focused PCs need to be stronger to compensate? What spells and tactics do you think your sample PCs would use to defeat these opponents? Be specific! Look at how Squaredeal Stan described things. What spells and tactics do you think the Rune Lord and his warband would use? Again, specifics count. Imagine you're the GM and you've actually got to make decisions and announce them to your players at the table. I don't think anyone needs to do a round-by-round breakdown of every participant's actions. But imagine what you'd be saying to the players as you announce the warparty's actions. You'd be speaking in terms of skills and spells, using numbers and figures that mean something in the rules. I'll do this myself. I'd be very grateful if @Jeff , the first credited designer of RQG, gave it a try.

As someone else said earlier, the question is not about "how do you organize battles", this is a more specific question about how to run powerful opponents with a great deal of resources, and doing so according to the rules.

That matches my experiences with RQG, but I suspect they've been less extensive than yours. Even at the relatively "low levels" we played at, the power of Heal spirit magic and, especially, Heal Wound as a common Rune spell made combats last often closer to 4-6 rounds. Given that you're playing at a "high level," that makes sense to me. My group never reached those heights. This is when I would expect there to be support casters on each side who're just trying to debuff their opponents. That could be a job for allied spirits.

This is exactly right. There's no value in drawing owls for new RQ GMs. The only person who's responded so far who sounds like they actually use RQG's rules when running combat is @Rodney Dangerduck. This goes to what @Eff(always) puts more eloquently than I do. This is too vague. This could also be a description or advice for running a D&D skirmish. Is that really something you can't grasp? Maybe it is.

Excellent analogy I hadn't heard before.

Slow down there. I didn't propose a fight of that size. Just a standard ZZ Rune Lord warband with a typical allied spirit and an appropriate number of trollkin or skeletons/zombies. Balance it against a group of four PCs of whatever power level feels appropriate. It should be a challenge for those four PCs, since I think it's fair to suggest that most RQ GMs want to challenge their players from time to time. I did mention that the fight should include examples of managing split attacks and parries, so the design of the participants should allow for demonstration of those rules. I'm ignoring the rest of your suggestions because as far as I can remember, they aren't included in the RQG corebook. And I'm not interested in you or me running this battle; I want to see Jeff or some other RQG designer do it.

At this point, I'd just settle for seeing you run a RuneQuest fight using the game's actual rules with minimal handwaving. Let's see you GM that Zorak Zorani Rune Lord fight, with trollkin or skeleton/zombie henchmen and an allied spirit, against a suitable group of PCs. Strike Ranks, tracking magic and Rune points, NPC allies providing magical support, paying attention to damage done to specific body locations, splitting attacks and parries, all according to Hoyle. You are the game's publisher! You control what the rules of the game look like and require! If you believe that 99.9% of your audience would prefer generic stat blocks like the ones Nick described, then publish rules that match the way you play the game! How does this need to be said to the people with authority over the rules themselves? Publish the shortcuts yourselves if you use them! It's ludicrous that you're telling your fans to play by rules that you don't use. Besides, I am not suggesting that a comprehensive, one-time publication of all possible tactical rules interactions needs to be published. All that's needed is a shift from describing opponents' or NPCs' tactics abstractly and without reference to the published rules describing those foes. New RQ GMs can learn durable, broad lessons from rules examples referencing a single, specific encounter. As they run more battles -and presumably have more fun running battles that use the rules they purchased - this knowledge will accrue and become second nature. They will start to learn the mindset that will allow them to create new, rules-based challenges on their own. It's how human beings learn how to do things: by watching others. But RQ veterans and many of RQG's scenario designers are too busy drawing owls. I didn't miss them. I left them out to avoid compounding your disingenuousness. Let's not pretend that "wargamey sim-people who populate munchkin threads" doesn't contain any value judgments. My advice is that new RQ GMs shouldn't listen to abstract advice about using the game's rules to construct interesting challenges from people who reject those rules.

We got here because the OP asked why there weren't more monsters available. The tenor of some replies was that RuneQuest doesn't necessarily need more monsters, since RQ GMs can create interesting battles using complex combinations of the published monsters. My point is that if no one can practically demonstrate how to create these battles using the game's rules, then maybe some more monsters are needed to create the variety and interest sought by the OP.

Why wasn't this part of your response to @General Ork, @Nick Brooke? This is right out of your Manifesto.

I've read almost everything you've published, including your old blog. It was reading Black Spear that helped me understand that many RQ veterans run the game like Heroquest. Your guidance in the Manifesto also applies almost entirely to running Heroquest, diluting its value as guidance for running RuneQuest, except, I suppose, in the parts where you tell the GM to ignore the rules of RuneQuest. You disdain people who have questions about how the game's published rules might be combined to have fun at the table: How do you expect new RuneQuest GMs to both "[take on] a Dark Troll warrior who’s a Death Lord of Zorak Zoran, with the full panoply of Rune spells, enchanted lead armour, zombie and skeleton hordes, etc., and a clan or warband backing them up (with specialists, healers, trained battle-insects, allies, and the like)" and also understand which of the rules in the 400+ page rulebook they just bought should be ignored when running this fight at the table? You're giving new RQ GMs advice on how to draw an owl. EDIT: It doesn't bother me that you play RuneQuest as if it was Heroquest. What bothers me is that you give advice to newcomers for a style of play that you dislike and don't use. You're disingenuous about it. Your responses to the OP disguise how you would handle their problem at your table. And that's a shame because you're one of the most effective communicators about Glorantha I've found. You're just not reliable about RuneQuest.

I don't think they enjoy that style of play, either, but they revived a forty-year-old game designed to support that sort of play. It's wild to me that the current Chaosium staff probably prefer to explore Glorantha in a Heroquest-style game, but have poured all this energy and money into RQ2.5.

Yes, of course through an actual play of such a complex battle at the very least. So many RQ and Glorantha veterans talk a big, abstract, high-level game on this forum about how to run these complex battles with multiple spirits on each side, support NPCs, and henchmen. But no one actually tries to explain how it works using the game's rules, round-by-round, as it would actually look if you were playing a game at a table with friends. New players are told that there are these rich game experiences available, but no one talks about them concretely, least of all the game's designers and publishers. What's the sample of guidance you're referring to in The Smoking Ruins? It does a newcomer little good to mention that GMs improvised and winged this thirty years ago. What parts of the current rules do veteran RQ GMs know to improvise around that aren't communicated to new players and GMs? RQG has been in print for five years, an edition that leans heavily on RQ2. Did anyone involved in the current edition actually play RQ2 at the level of complexity being referenced? If so, why are they hoarding the knowledge of how to run these amazing battles? I know that these tidbits are sometimes buried in old RQ2 books. Just recently, I found a reference in River of Cradles to using Countermagic to defeat Detect spells. I had a little difficulty managing the Detect Enemies spell in a recent game and it would have been nice to have this interaction in my GMing toolbox. It's obvious in hindsight, but newcomers don't know how to think in those terms yet. And I had to stumble across this reference deep in the text of Cradles. Only veterans steeped in Glorantha and RQ2 would miss the absurdity of telling your new RQG fans that they need to read books from a 20th century edition of the game to maybe figure out how to best use the edition they bought in the 21st century.