EpicureanDM

But remember that it's harder for them to win because they have to succeed on two Spirit Combat rolls in the same round in order to infect you or bump up the severity of the disease. So it's harder for them to inflict damage compared to other spirits and the reward for defeating them seems to be that you get POW increases from the lopsided fight in your favor.

I often see this well-intentioned, but misleading suggestion that books like The Gloranthan Sourcebook are "useful, but not necessary" for playing RuneQuest. That's technically true, but on the narrowest grounds. The Sourcebook or something like it is definitely required if you're interested in playing RuneQuest, especially the current edition. It's not required in the sense that you need the Sourcebook in order to figure out how to roll the dice. It's that there's no point in playing RuneQuest unless you're playing it in Glorantha. Avalon Hill tried that with RuneQuest 3 in the early eighties and RuneQuest fans rebelled against it. The Glorantha Sourcebook is a great summary of the setting and seems designed for newcomers like you. I would consider it equally important to purchase as the corebook and Bestiary.

I would love for there to be a considered design answer for this...

Coincidentally, I ran a disease spirit for the first time last night. Here's how I handled your questions. I wasn't aware of the difference in the copy-paste error between editions on this one (if it is an error). My successful spirit attack used the acute form. Acute infection seemed OK since RQ's rules put an extra burden on Disease Spirits in combat. By my reading yesterday (performed as we played), Disease Spirits don't reduce magic points on successful attacks; they just infect their targets. To successfully infect, they have to succeed on a second Spirit Combat roll (another opposed roll) after they've succeeded on the first. They have to "hit twice" or, in old D&D terms, "confirm the critical." This rule defangs Diseases Spirits to my eye, so I ruled that the spirit just needed to succeed on an unopposed second roll against its own skill to inflict damage, i.e. the acute form of the disease. It still requires an extra roll, but avoids the higher difficulty of an opposed roll. Why do Disease Spirits have to succeed in two combat rolls to inflict damage? Is it because diseases are harder to cure than lost MP? That could be handled by making Disease Spirits more rare rather than designing a punitive additional rule. Spirit Combat's already a bit dull compared to physical combat. Why make it harder for consequences of failure to be felt? I also didn't appreciate this section of the Disease Spirit's description: The emphasized text made it seem that there was a special rule governing possession that I had to find. I couldn't find any rules that require a spirit to make a Spirit Combat roll when attempting possession. In the rules about possession that I did find, there's always a reference to the target having 0 magic points being the necessary condition for possession. Such a target would be unconscious, so I can't see how the spirit would need Spirit Combat to possess someone in that state. My understanding is that Disease Spirits don't have CHA because their attacks don't reduce the target's magic points. A successful attack just keeps stacking the strength of their particular disease. See my comments above about whether their means of damaging opponents is too limiting. My Disease Spirit was bound into decaying skulls by broo in the Middle World. I ruled that it required the 1-round delay to materialize from the skull and attack. Your question makes me want to return to the rulebook to see if spirits bound in the Middle World do require the 1-round delay, though.

This is probably where I'll end up. Give a full shaman's Second Sight more of a boost as a "class feature."

You can find ways around this by assuming that a dagger critical doesn't look the same as an axe critical. We easily imaging an axe cutting through a broadsword thanks to a massive overhead swing. Dagger critical rely on finesse, not power. I would describe a clever feint by the dagger wielder causing the broadsword's tip to catch in the ground and snap from the wielder's own momentum.

A lot of the discussion in the thread comes from my initial formulation asking if Second Sight allows spirits in the Spirit World to be seen. It implies that the caster can also see the Spirit World itself, which is famously casual when it comes to the rules of space and geography. I sort of like the idea of being able to see spirits currently in the Spirit World, but not the Spirit World. That's what I was aiming for with my original question. But this thread has me a bit paralyzed. There are obviously consistency problems in the text.

This is the best interpretation of the spell's limitations I've seen. That makes sense. Thanks, all.

It's name is so misleading. I've had to explain to three different players that it doesn't let them see spirits or the Spirit World. I'm probably going to houserule it to allow it to see into the Spirit World at the cost of making the caster a little more interesting or noticeable to spirits in the area. It doesn't move the caster into the Spirit World, so antagonistic spirits would still need to materialize before getting frisky. Is there a downside that I can't see? I figure it slightly devalues becoming a full shaman, since the fetch serves as the shaman's eyes and ears in the Spirit World for "free." This change sort of borrows a bit of that benefit and gives it to PCs who might not even become a shaman. For the moment, this doesn't really bother me.

I've found that the best introductions to Gloranthan lore can often be found in the old Heroquest books. If you want a good, detailed explanation of Orlanthi laws and customs, buy Heroquest's Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes. It contains a section called "The Orlanthi Book" that provides the sort of details you're looking for. I've got a nearly-full collection of RQ and Heroquest material and _Kingdom of Heroes_ is the book that properly solidified Orlanthi customs and law for me.

They learned that the hard way today in a fight with a mounted archer.

Agreed. I've got no problem making calls in the middle of play. My players are friends and don't sweat it if I get something wrong. Like most people who post on forums, I like kicking around the edge cases.

That's how I think of it, too, but worry (just slightly) about when to resolve non-combat actions that won't be affecting the acting character. My go-to example for the moment is lifting a portcullis while the rest of the party fights. If no one's can or will mess with the lifting PC, then should it be resolved in Phase 2? Probably not, since other intents could be predicated on the lift, e.g. We're going to move through the gate if the lift succeeds. Phase 2 is really such a weird little exception to hold onto from RQ2.

I noted this week that in a way, games like 5e train us to think this way. Everyone acts in initiative order and each combatants actions are resolved neatly and entirely on their turns. There are relatively fewer "interruptions" that might crop up when someone's movement isn't resolved completely and their opponent's action is scheduled to occur. In a way, it's like watching Zack Snyder's movie, 300, with big action scenes filled with different folks operating at the same time while the speed ramps up or slows down. It's more this, but without the "new tactical evaluation," which implies a character changing their intent and RQG doesn't allow that (and neither do I yet). I would prevent a player from declaring an SoI that included motion bleeding into a new round. I'd tell them to restate it or accept less distance travelled than they want. Here are some more detailed examples. In all cases, the PC is Non-Engaged so that we don't worry about having to disengage from melee. Example 1: PC's DEX SR is 2. Character's SoI is, "I will move behind the nearby wall that's nine meters away and cast Heal 3." Actions will occur in that order. Under my potential house rule, PC starts moving on SR 1 and is behind the wall by SR 3. Otherwise, they start on SR 2 and get there on SR 5. Example 2: Reverse intent from Example 1. Heal first, then run to cover. Heal 3 happens on SR 4 (DEX SR 2 + 3 SR for 3 magic points in Heal 3 - discount for first magic point). PC starts their move on SR 5 and they're behind the wall by SR 8. Otherwise, their movement would start on SR 6 (Completion of Heal 3 on SR 4 + PC's DEX SR 2) and end on SR 9. Given that DEX SR can vary between PCs, the effect seems limited to maybe allowing PCs to squeeze one more action into 12 Strike Ranks in some situations. It doesn't seem game-breaking, but there might be some more consistent implications that would mess things up. It's primary disadvantage, as @deleriad sort of hinted at, is that there's symmetry in using DEX SR as a base for calculating SR for non-melee actions (missiles, spells, movement, non-combat). I'm a fan of rules symmetry, so there's a pull in that direction. I suppose I'm mostly concerned about whether average RQ PCs (DEX SR 3 and SIZ SR 2) would have enough SR to both move and act in most situations. That's a baseline expectation embedded in most modern RPG players' minds thanks to 5e. PCs will often be exceptional and have more slack in their SRs, but I'd like the baseline to accommodate the average combatant. I need to think through a few hypotheticals to see if sticking to RQ3's DEX SR symmetry will produce that sort of play. I don't remember it being a problem in RQ3, so it probably won't be in RQG. But the SR system's a shaky thing in RQG's design, so I'm cautious.

My answer will likely mix RQG's and RQ3's SR designs a bit. I'll try to point out where I'm deviating from RQG when I'm smart enough to notice. 1) According to RQG, Bazza messed up his intent since, as you point out, he's limited to half his Move rating if he also wants to attack or act in the same round. This is where experience playing RQ would help avoid this mistake. Most RQ GMs would recognize Bazza's mistake and correct him before his intent is locked in: "You can't move more than half your Move rate and still attack in the same round. Do you want to declare a different intent or stick with it? If what you really intend is to get into melee range with Gabby by the end of the round, then you'll spend 5 SR, arrive on SR 7 (Bazza's DEX SR + 5, but I'm not sure where RQG ever states that movement begins on your DEX SR. That's a rule from RQ3 and maybe RQ2.), and just defend for the rest of the round." GM and players should openly discuss and agree upon what the SR sequence will be for the PCs before you start rolling dice. It avoids mistakes like this. 2) According to RQG, Bazza used 5 SR to move and can't attack when he gets to Gabby since he used more than half his Move rating during the round. I would interpret her intent to allow her to attack on SR 7 right after Bazza arrives. At the start of SR 7, Bazza arrives. Before SR 7 ends, Gabby attacks. 3) According to RQG, yes, Bazza can't attack Gabby so there's no need to parry an attack from Bazza. 4) According to RQG, yes, Bazza can parry. The timing for parries and dodges occur outside of the SR system, sort of like how Augments and Inspiration can be performed at any time and with no prior notice or declaration. You can interrupt the SR system at any point to parry or dodge.

Yes, no changes to SoI is another change from RQ3 that we're aware of as we play RQG. I don't mind it, but if I'm going to hew closer to RQ3's SR system, I should remember it. Do you think that what I call the "Universal 5 SR Penalty" in RQG performs the same function? In RQ3, the Preparing a Weapon penalty (what I call the Universal 5 SR Penalty since it applies to other things like spellcasting) shared the same cost as changing your SoI (3 SR). If I wanted to add RQ3's flexible intent, I could apply the Universal 5 SR Penalty, I suppose. It's funny to see that metaphor since I privately dubbed our problems with sorting movement and SR as the Quantum Character Conundrum. That's a great jog to my memory of how we did it back in the day and for how we've been doing it in RQG, since I've been trying to use my RQ3 instincts to muddle through in opposition to what RQG's text tells me. We haven't reached the point of using figures and dice, but we're all over the sketch mapping. Our rounds are also front-loaded at the beginning as PCs figure out their SoIs and we negotiate or confirm common agreement on what the SRs will be. Once we have that, the SR sequence is locked in and we roll it out. I haven't needed to batch actions together yet, but that's a good technique to have in back of mind should the need arise. I might start using FATE's Zones as a way of sketching out battlefields. Each zone would require approximately 4 Move to cross, turning it into a D&D-like "Move or Double-Move" framework. For now, I'll stick with RAW and to-the-meter distances unless it becomes too crazy.

I'm trying to avoid this if I can (but it's cool if that's your plan; it's tempting to me!). My preference is to try and play the new edition with minimal tweaking. Those tweaks will definitely come from RQ3, though. I'll provide you with a proper reply later tonight, @deleriad. Thanks for the details above.

This conceptual separation between when to apply Melee SRs and DEX SRs helps to crystalize why RQG's clashing with my RQ3 experience. We see the legacy of RQ2's treatment of movement in your quote by Phase 2 of RQG's combat round, Movement of Non-Engaged Characters. Thanks. I only have a couple of years of RQ3 experience, but it's what I'm leaning on to sort out RQG. I'm pretty close to settling on something close to this, but you've got practical experience on where it can break down. Could you share that experience in more detail? Where will the problems crop up (if they do) and can they be resolved without handwaving (it's OK if that's the answer, I just want to avoid unnecessary brain damage)? It might be helpful advice to have in my back pocket when similar issues arise in my RQG game. Probably the wisest comment I've ever seen on this topic.

I'm generally in favor of subordinating my ingrained play instincts to a game's design if it's trying to get me to play in a new way. I've played a fair amount of Torchbearer, for example, and that game makes very unique demands on modern TTRPG players. But it all hangs together when played RAW and its unorthodox design assumptions work together with the rest of its design. I like having my assumptions and habits around playing TTRPGs challenged. But I have to believe that new, challenging playstyles has been thoughtfully considered and designed. Integrating movement and SR doesn't feel that way in RQG (or prior editions, I suppose). I keep struggling with how to make it all hang together without some awkward bits sticking out. And before we get utterly sidetracked, does anyone have any feedback on the idea I posted above?

If only we had a proper example of play from RQG's designers showing us how they handle movement within RQG's Strike Rank system! I went looking for this and found an actual-play session on YouTube GMed by Jason Durall. This was a promotional session for the game for a group of D&D 5e players who had never played any version of RQ before. When combat arrived, he practically threw out RQG's SR system and ran it more like a free-form AD&D session. If you looked closely, you could see the influence of SR in how things were going, but it wasn't rigorous. I don't think any of the players would be able to tell you how SR work in RQG after that fight because of how Jason ran that game. My own RQG group also consists of 5e players who've never played RQ in any incarnation. I had to teach one of them how to roll percentile dice! He'd never done it before in any game he'd played since he started around ten years ago. He finally understood why one of his d10 had two numbers on each face ("00, 10, 20..."). These are the types of players who might form RQG's new audience. They keep coming to this forum because they can't figure out what I call the "Waiting Warrior" problem. I honestly wonder whether any of RQG's designers do play their game RAW. If they're not, then they need to demonstrate how they do play it so that forum regulars can help resolve this confusion with a unified voice rather than kicking it down the road. If Jeff and Jason can't make RQ's SR system play smoothly for new RQG players without falling into old RQ2 habits that handwave movement within the SR framework, then that would be nice to know.

I'm very much in sympathy with this. Some stalwarts in this forum cling very strongly to this "ordering vs. impulse" distinction. It might have made sense to gamers in 1980 when it was designed and released, but it clashes with the mindset produced by modern TTRPG design principles. It's crucial to acknowledge how awkwardly movement has been shoved into the SR system in RQ2, RQ3, and RQG. It's ironic that I'm often the one banging on about playing RQG RAW considering how shaky the design work is around integrating movement cleanly into the SR framework. I'm looking for the exits from RAW when I should be trying to make it all hang together. But I can't see how it does without some houseruling or handwaving.

That makes a lot of sense, but this thread (and others I've seen like it) show that movement within RQ's SR system brings a lot of conceptual baggage with it from system veterans. If your interpretation is the commonly accepted one when there's a gap in the rules, then I'm glad to adopt it. No problem there. But I like exploring other options... The other rule I'm considering involves the ordering of movement and the PC's other action(s) in their SoI. If a PC declares that they'll move before doing anything else in the round, why not begin that movement on SR 1 regardless of their DEX SR? Absent a particular rule in RQG stating otherwise, is that a better or worse idea than starting on the character's DEX SR? I'm honestly not sure, so I'm interested in feedback. If they move later in the round, their movement (limited to half their Move rating since they aren't moving in Phase 2 of the combat round) is completed 1-4 SR later. I realize this treads on the "ordering system vs. impulse system" debate for RQ's SR system. Frankly, I see threads like this one cropping up somewhat frequently in my relatively short time in this forum. They all eventually orbit this debate. The impulse-system framework seems to produce fewer clashes with modern players' expectations of play than the ordering system. I still don't quite see the difference myself and I've been paying far more attention it than most RQ players out there in the world. So I'm thinking of this in "impulse" terms, at least as far as my still-shaky grasp of the debate defines the term. But this topic keeps coming up and that indicates that there's a problem in the rules that keeps tripping people up.

How many folks playing RQG use DEX SR as the earliest that a character can start acting? I know it's a common, accepted rule in RQ2/3, but was it explicitly brought over to RQG in the RAW? Does anyone have a page reference to it in RQG? I'm trying to figure out how to handle it in my game.

Yeah, I was wrong to suggest this was a mistake on your part.

Glad to be corrected on both the inclusion of the item and the difference between Enchantments and Crystals in RQG. Sorry, Hresht! EDIT: Ugh, why did RQG's designers revert to using the term "POW storing crystal" when they've also included the term "Magic Point Enchantments" from RQ3? They perform the same function, don't they? It's just that RQ2 requires that adventurers spend POW to fuel spirit (battle) magic whereas RQ3 and RQG changed that to magic points. Am I missing some nuance? Same comment about the crystals in the Adventure Book being able to bind spirits. Isn't that a conflict between the old RQ2 rules and RQ3/RQG's Binding Enchantment? I suppose the benefit of the crystals is that they're flexible: they can act as both Binding Enchantments or Magic Point Enchantments (excluding Powered Crystals). But doesn't it seem like RQ2's rules were sloppily copied over to RQG without trying to conform them to the new edition?