EpicureanDM

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Barring other mechanics (from the new-to-Glorantha system) that tie the character to their culture, their clan, their family, and their family-history, inspire and motivate characters those ways, it's those sorts of elements I'd find un-duplicated by Runes & worth preserving in the translation-effort.

 

I think RQG's Runes and Pendragon's Traits are indeed largely "identical" in function within their respective gamesystems, and wouldn't look to separately-import each of them into a new Gloranthan RPG.  I'm pretty sure Traits explicitly inspired the Chaosium crew in creating the new Rune mechanics.

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.

7 hours ago, g33k said:

RQG Passions usually link the PC's to other *people*...  Love (This Person), Hate (That Person), Fear (Entire Race of People), etc.

Narratively, I think the link to characters is often going to work better (or at least differently, for you as a GM (i.e. you aren't likely to need to rescue the Air Rune from some Tusk Riders)) than links to abstract & impersonal Runes.

As always:  YGWV.

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. 

17 hours ago, Mameluco said:

For Gloranthat, I thought of using Distintions + Runes (skills with other name) + Passions (Virtues with another name). With Specializations and Assets as secundary sets.

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?

19 hours ago, ZedAlpha said:

I forgot the exact Cortex terms for it, but how hard was it to come up with applicable character creation...adjectives? Templates? Package deals? The Cortex system character building thingy. Those.

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.

On 9/4/2023 at 3:19 AM, Mameluco said:

I thought of a Cortex Prime converstion of RQ too! At the end decided to wait till I finish my current Fate Glorantha campaign. (Probably around 2075.)

Can you share your drafts?

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.

9 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

I think that RQG system, which is, for better or worse, pretty fast and loose (or just plain fuzzy) about a lot of the rules, many of which get ignored, makes very large demands upon the GM in many many ways.  Don't have any real advice here other than "get used to it".

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. 

8 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

As for some of the tactics described, I agree with most.  Darkwall is nasty.  Dismissing the PCs' magic is dull and boring, I tend to avoid it as GM as "not fun", but it is very intelligent.

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.

8 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

At a minimum, Dismiss the obvious stuff - in my mind, True Sword, Sword Trance, and any Light spells!  Maybe leave up the Shield 4s, that costs a lot of MP, and will piss off your players, especially if you pick on one.  My Vingan PC had TWO separate Shield 3s dismissed and I felt "picked on".  Though I can't blame the GM, she was the best target...  But, anyway, some spells are overpowered, you know which ones, and must be dismissed as soon as "reasonable" by the GM.

Yes, this advice is better than mine, since it's directly applicable during play. 😉

6 hours ago, Dr. Devici said:

My reading of the RQG rules is that bound spirits cannot cast spells on their own, though the wording is a little vague. Pg. 366 has: "The binder of a spirit can use any spirit magic the spirit possesses and the magic points of the spirit to fuel spells." I wish the wording were more clear (it is in RQ2!), but I still comfortably interpret that as the binder casts the spell, using the MP and knowledge of the spirit. This would cut the Rune Lord's action economy in half.

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.

10 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

3) Remember that trolls have Darksense, so I don't know why the scenario says they waste RP on Darksee.

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

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

Using the default setup, there are 11 combatants, ranging from weak to strong. Some people (not me) do play with 8, but IME a party for a combat-heavy campaign like this requires 2 to 4 combat specialists and 0 to 3 support characters.  For the sake of the example, we will assume 2 and 2.

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.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

in the fight, there are, in jeff's terminology, two encounters. These may happen multiple times each, if not decisive.

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.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

In the first, the 8 enemies than can use missiles attack. 1d2 engaging each PC. the others are counted as out of position. The trolls have the numbers here, but this is unlikely to prove a decisive advantage as missile fire can be freely healed from. If light magic is available, facing a skilled archer, or one using ranged Rune magic, they will likely take losses. Meanwhile, the PCs, realising they are outnumbered, should call for help.

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.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

Combat starts with the PCs picking their foes; any who don't get selected then get to choose a PC to engage. it proceeds until one side gets a 2-man advantage. For those without allied spirits, healing is not available unless that side has an unengaged combatant with the right magic.  It also ends early if the troll rune lord is taken out, but that is unlikely as he does have an allied spirit.

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.

23 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Anyway, the only things I would add are:

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.

34 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

If it were my PCs, and it was outdoors, and they were visible, everyone would be hit by dual Thunderbolts on SR1 and virtually all taken out instantly...

(I nerfed Thunderbolt to be POW vs POW, but it's still absolutely, utterly vicious, with virtually no defence except pre-emptive Cloud Clear, which Trolls are kinda unlikely to use.)

So I would try to work with stealth and ambushes - a sensible tactic regardless - to make it something of a challenge.

Quote

What stats, spells, skills, equipment, etc. do you think a group of PCs would need to have for this to be a fair fight?

6 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

For a while the Humakti with god enhanced sword and Bladesharp had modified sword skill of 150+, so the opponent's parry is degraded 50% and the player  rolled for a mere 95 or less.  That tended to put a hole in the enemy line.  Then the Humakti player left, a sad loss.

Then my players got crafty; they started doing one huge attack Rune spell like Lightning 3 or 4  or Sleep, boosted by 4 to 10 MPs to smash through the Countermagic or Shield.  This is easier to do when a couple of Adventurers have storage crystals and high POW.  So now with a good POW vs. POW roll. the target has his abdomen cratered by lightning.  It speeds up the fight.

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:

Quote

[S]ome players might be casting spells or using missile weapons, others might be trying to double-team an enemy while defending against another.

Or this, from a different thread that spawned this one:

Quote

Your new adventurer may be battling grunt Trollkin, but a Rune Lord will be taking 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).

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.

33 minutes ago, ffilz said:

OK, how do I do it... Note that I run 1st edition RQ, but I couldn't imagine doing things any differently with any other edition...

Sometimes I will use resources like FOES or Trolls & Trollkin to provide quick sheets for the opposition. Note that I prefer the earlier form of each NPC is an individual as opposed to the later form (Borderlands for example) where all the opposition of the same type is identical.

Sometimes I'll note damage and stuff right in the module (blasphemy...)

Sometimes I'll take notes on scrap paper.

I track POW used and spells cast individually.

If I'm running RQ, I'm running it because I like this level of detail. If I want to track less detail about opposition, I'll run something different.

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.

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

What I don't see is fights being anywhere close to "decided" after a couple of rounds.  I'm not saying you all are lying or anything!  Not at all.  Just that something you do is very very different than what we do.

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.

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Our PCs are now pretty high level, so Shield 3 / Prot 4 is common, and Shield 5 / Prot 6 is not unheard of.  That could play a role too.  (And the baddies usually have up some Shield too).

Thoughts?  I'm really interested in what about your combats make them more decisive sooner, because ours take a long time.  Even a "minor" one.

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. 

23 minutes ago, Eff said:

So the initial question that led to this thread being created was: 

"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?"

with some additional clarification:

"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."

Which is to say, 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. With that in mind, there are two difficulties here. The first one is the "handling time" of the combat rules and the extent to which it increases nonlinearly. That is, if you have a group of five PCs against the same number of dark trolls (ten combatants), and you have a group of five PCs against a Death Lord, four skeletons, an allied spirit, and two NPC allies of the Death Lord providing magical aid, (thirteen combatants), does it take 1.3x as long to run each given round, or does it take longer? 

This leads into the second aspect, which is- how should GMs play someone like a Rune Lord in battle? Let's step away from ZZ for a second here and focus on, say, a Wind Lord, because I've spent more time thinking about what an Orlanth cultist can do. So by default a Rune Lord will have 90% in a relevant Rune, which is to say, they can cast their Rune magic at a 90% chance absent anything else. They will have 18 CHA and so will have access to up to 18 points of spirit magic. They will likely have high POW to cast said spirit magic with, and thus a plentiful reserve of MP. They have a 90% or better Passion related to their cult or deity. They also have a heightened chance to use Divine Intervention. Finally, they have 90% at a minimum in a relevant weapons skill, quite likely multiple of them. 

Their allied spirit will also be an initiate of the same cult and have their own pool of spirit magic, rune magic, and MP to work with. And we have NPC allies casting their own magic in support. 

Now, whatever goons or henchpersons are brought along probably aren't quite so kitted out with magic. But even on a basic level, within a given round, the GM does have to think about the combinatorial effects of having the Rune Lord, the allied spirit, and whatever allies are casting support magic interacting with one another. They also have to consider when the Rune Lord might call for divine intervention, because that's a far more practical option than for mere mooks, something which the Rune Lord would reasonably consider invoking. 

What, then, would people do to make this specific kind of combat, of PCs versus a Rune Lord in full kit, with some support casting and some goons, run smoothly without glossing over the things the Rune Lord can do? Even a spell like Leap, hardly the first to come in mind, offers the option for an expeditious retreat or a circumvention of PC defensive positioning. 

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. 

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

2. Loose skirmish. This is probably the most common - when the player characters fight a roughly equivalent group of opponents. Effectively it is a group of one on one combats, but some players might be casting spells or using missile weapons, others might be trying to double-team an enemy while defending against another. I tend to just print out a bunch of NPC stats if this is prepared, and if not I just do a table like:

Tusk Rider 1 ("Dave") 
Total Hit points
Injuries
Spells cast
Any other notes:

Tusker 1 ("Dave's Big Pig") 
Total Hit points
Injuries
Any notes:

And then reference the Bestiary or other source for stuff like attack %, etc. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

 

13 hours ago, radmonger said:

Character progression in RQ is also very different, in that a starting PC who is an initiate of a dedicated combat cult, and allocates everything to weapon skills, is within a shade of being as good at doing what they do as any mortal human is. Think of such PCs as 21 year old professional football players; they may have a small amount to still learn about football, but they have a massive amount to learn about life.

Excellent analogy I hadn't heard before.

4 hours ago, jajagappa said:

There are at least four ways you can run such a battle, plus additional approaches you can take.

1) Fight the whole battle. I've been there and done that (12 PC's rescuing group of trolls under assault by giant dragonsnail plus scorpionman horde). It took 12+ hours. It is doable but it is long. Would run faster in RQG with wider array of Rune Magic plus Rune/Passion/skill augments as you'll get more skills over 100+ to push down other rolls. If it's a climactic situation, maybe I'd consider running it that way again, but it is a long process (and what you're likely to remember is the long process than the outcome).

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.

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

This has already had over 2000 views, and I am always happy to record more material giving out specific advice or answering questions. 

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.

56 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

From the Gamemaster perspective, you usually cannot focus on NPCs to that level of detail. You have many more to potentially understand and deploy during a scenario, let alone a whole campaign. PCs learn and improve the nuances of their one character over many sessions, while the GM might only have a Zorak Zoran Rune Lord and entourage for use in one encounter/battle, so understanding every detail about them is a mighty big task. The main antagonist can be better understood if they survive longer over a story arc, but they are probably the exception. Thus, in the end, a GM can't stay on top of 20+ NPCs if they try to understand them and utilize each of them like a PC would their one character. That amount of homework would be beyond the time, and probably interest, of 99.9% of GMs. Thus, the use of shortcuts. Nick B. summarizes them quite well. 

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.

53 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

You lost the last words of my quote, @EpicureanDM, doubtless in an unfortunate cut’n’paste accident (as I’m sure you’d hate to be disingenuous). They were: “That’s OK, they still get to play RuneQuest their way.”

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.

1 hour ago, Nick Brooke said:

Your advice, apparently, is that they should worry, but that sadly there aren’t any resources to help them, and that in consequence no new GM can enjoy playing RuneQuest in Glorantha.

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.

4 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I’m not sure how we got from asking why there aren’t more monsters in the Bestiary to here, but let’s go back to the original point of the thread. From my perspective there aren’t too few or too many critters in the bestiary. I am curious what value is gained by having more?

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.

Quote

Generic Opponents

Don’t obsess over detailed statblocks: learn not to need them. Your players don’t get to audit your bad guys’ stats!

• A weak or non-combatant opponent has 10-12 hit points, 4 hit points per location (+1 chest / –1 arms), weak armour (1-2 points of light or tough leather?) and no damage bonus. Lower skills than your adventurers, one Strike Rank slower.

• An average opponent has 13-15 hit points, 5 per location (+1 chest / –1 arms), better armour (3 point linen or 4 point light scale?) and a +1D4 bonus. Similar skills and Strike Rank to your adventurers.

• A tough opponent has 16-18 hit points, 6 per location (+1 chest / –1 arms), best available armour (5 point heavy scale or 6 point plate?), and a +1D6 bonus. Higher skills than your adventurers, one Strike Rank quicker.

  Job done. Those are all the generic bandit, guard, soldier, warrior statblocks you will ever need. Season with a mix of functional and distinctive magic and they are good to go.

8 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

I’ve published guidance re: how I GM RuneQuest in my Gloranthan Manifesto, but maybe it doesn’t work for you? That’s fine, find something that works better for you and do it that way instead. Or wait for an official book, if that’s how you roll.

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:

Quote

And it’s probably anathema to wargamey sim-people who populate munchkin threads, compare the cost-effectiveness of different cults and cultures, work out efficient strategies for boosting offensive spells, or analyse new spell lists for discrepancies.

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.

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

Hopefully this will have a section on the how, why and whether of detailed tactical combat i get the impression few if any of the current Chaosium staff enjoy that style of play, so maybe it will be something they need to outsource.

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.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

How would such "support" have to look to satisfy your demand for guidance? An actual play of such a complex battle?

(Note that there is a sample of guidance in the third scenario of The Smoking Ruins, for the antagonists of the first year.)

In the past, GMs have improvised and winged this, e.g. in the Haunted Ruins module that got played by the Temple of the Wooden Sword cast of characters. The scenario is in RQ2 Troll Pak, an action report (though rather un-detailed) is in the Stafford Campaign notes. Both are available from Chaosium.

Especially these troll tactics have been explored in some detail, both in Troll Pak and in the Big Rubble.

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.