Beoferret

For the core areas (especially Dragon Pass) I think of Italy before Rome runs everything (so, when the Etruscans, Samnites, etc are still independent); the Eastern Mediterranean during the period from the late Bronze Age stretching through a good portion of the Hellenistic era; some Mesopotamian/Babylonian influences; ancient India; and the Persians. To be more specific, I tend to think of ... 1) Sartarites - Samnites/Etruscans/Ligurians - mainly tribal, but with urban communities in a frequently mountainous area. Lots of Greek-style influence and a small amount of Celtic. The Etruscan angle may be the best (IMHO), though I'm partial to Samnite imagery (aside from the really short tunics they seemed to love). Maybe sprinkle with ancient South Asian elements. 2) Lunars - a Persian-style empire - lots of different peoples, including Greek-types. 3) Tarsh - (I honestly don't have a great handle on Tarshites, but maybe they're like Thracians) 4) Grazelanders - Scythians (or other similar horse-riding groups, like the Saka or Roxolani), with a scattering of Plains Indian elements. 5) Esrolians - mix of Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece, and ..... pick an ancient cosmopolitan people. 6) Praxians - they're definitely more fantasy-based, with a smattering of real-world cultural influences (or costuming, at least) - e.g., bison-rider women have hairstyles that are reminiscent of traditional Hopi women; High Llama mustaches remind me of Hunnic or Cossack facial hair; etc.) Those are my starting points. And there are a lot of images out there (esp. via Google image searches) that can give you the flavor of things. Of course, there are no 1 to 1 corollaries between any Gloranthan society and any real world culture. Take the historical inspiration and inject the fantastic elements of the setting and all the tattoos. Your Glorantha is yours, in the end.

I don't think it's fur, Bill. I think it's a representation of small, downy feathers. Love this pic. A Vingan and a Babeester Gor devotee - the buddy combo of the year!

What do you think about how the Starter Set explains the rules, especially combat?

Understanding motivations for NPCs is so important to running a good game - even if the motivation is just to kill the PCs. As for long slog fights between PCs and foes, a) it's kinda cinematic, if you step back and look at it as a whole, and/or b) it calls for innovative/imaginative combat tactics (knockdown attempts, grapples, kicking sand into wimpy dark troll's faces, etc.)

Does anyone preprogram a breaking point or morale mechanic into their larger battles? When do your NPC opponents decide that enough is enough (keeping in mind that that's going to be different for a trollkin vs a broo vs a ZZ Runelord)?

I did indeed. Apologies!

This seems like one of those player vs character experience/knowledge issues. One possible solution is to allow the characters to make an INT check if they encounter something they've (especially the players) haven't seen before. I see no reason why characters trained in fighting (or who are just plain smart) couldn't make a quick observation to size up the opposition (at least on a superficial level.) Hell, even if the players don't think to ask, maybe just tell one of them to make the INT check. Those with a combat or Battle skill better than 60% (just to throw out a figure) get an INT x5 check, while the more civilian types roll vs INT x3. And, of course, anyone with the Second Sight spell is going to be able to assess the magical capabilities of an opponent. (In my game, Vishi Dunn's use of Second Sight on the big baddie in the Rainbow Mounds led to the party promptly retreating to get more help.) My point being that there are in-game means that players can use to assess the relative strength of an opponent. And while that's not perfect ("How was I supposed to know that baby goat could spit acid!"), it's better than nothing and puts more agency in the players' hands (and potentially creates fun, dramatic moments (e.g., when herding said baby goats turns into a fight for survival or when the aggressive, drunk beggar turns out to be a shamed, impoverished Rune Lord in exile.) Overall, could RQ use more stock monsters? Maybe. There are large portions of Glorantha that haven't been fleshed out all that much beyond the Guide. It might be fun to introduce a couple of endemic races or critters (snake people!), but I suspect that the majority of new monsters in Glorantha would/should be one-offs, such as embodied spirits that are tied to particular areas or unique Chaos mutations. Will characters be able to handle them? That's up to the GM fashioning said enemies and what the GM is trying to achieve. Fairness? Well, give 'players/characters a chance to figure that out for themselves, as outlined above.

That's an interesting idea. Are you thinking that it'd be a roll just for improving SR for an entire combat or would that effect be combined with augmenting weapon skill? I could see a successful augment for a melee weapon skill (for example) including your suggested SR improvement for the first strike after the augment.

Great ideas, Runeblogger! I'd simply add the possibility that, if Vishi fumbles, he also has a -20/-30% to any Ride or Herd skill checks involving High Llamas. They just don't like him anymore (well, for a year or so.) In this situation, Vishi's best option might be to return to Prax and his shamanic teacher for some sort of cleansing or atonement ceremony (like you mention). This will, of course, involve some adventure or trial that could just be Vishi's player having a one-on-one session w/ Zulfikar Zaban or something the entire party can participate in. Either way, a fumbled result (maybe even the plain failure?) leads to more adventure - an adventure the players should be invested in. Quick aside: it occurred to me that if Spirit Combat was going to be the way Vishi tries to win back his llama in some way shape or form, that maybe the player should have the opportunity to use the Herd skill as an augment. Also, how is the body disposed of? Here's a chance for Vishi's player to get drawn into the setting a little more. The average high llama might be eaten, but this is a loyal mount. Does it get a burial ceremony or is the body just abandoned? If there's a burial ceremony, what does it look like? Is it eaten? Maybe it's buried in some sort of dignified way, but its heart is eaten raw (w/ Vishi insisting that all his comrades take a bite) in order to partake in the high llama's strength and courage. What does Vishi do now for traveling? Just walk? If someone offers him a horse, how is this proud Praxian going to react? Lots of roleplay opportunity here! I'd give Vishi's player some guidelines, but then let them figure out particulars.

That's a potentially really cool idea. Especially if he had a crystal or something the high llama's spirit could be bound to - so they could continue to be partners. The spirit combat bit could simply be a representation of Vishi trying to talk his mount into sticking around awhile longer (calling it to him), while the high llama itself is torn between returning to its master/rider and heading off to great green pastures of the afterlife. Discorporation, while meditating near the site of the high llama's death should do the trick. If it's been too long, Vishi might have to stack Extension on the Discorp spell in order to have adequate time to track the llama's spirit down in the spirit world.

SWEET! That is very good news. Thank you for the non-Lunar illumination, Nick!

Looking at MOB's post, am I interpreting it right that all three items combined saw 167 sales during the period of the sale? I hoped it would've been more than that. I will selfishly crow that one sale of the RQ Starter Set is due to me showing my hardcopy to a young co-worker (in his 20's). He was really excited by what he saw and is going to try to sell his gaming group on playing RQ at least some of the time. (I really think it's important for the long-term health of RQ as a game that more younger folks get seduced by Glorantha - Gen Xers like myself are only a few decades from either the grave or the nursing home.)

Ah, but here's the point where one can differentiate between rider and mount. It's the mount that's moving (the rider too, obviously, but they're not engaging in any effort to do so.) Because the mount is putting effort into moving, it's the one (assuming that it's properly trained) that can't attack after moving more than half it's Movement ((aside from a slam/knockback attempt, if I'm remembering correctly) ). The horse, for instance, can't charge and kick in the same round. Makes sense. But its rider should still be able to strike. All in all, I think we can interpret the Strike Rank rules in a way that's consistent with RQ mechanics as written and which makes a fair degree of sense (i.e., maintains verisimilitude).

A thought regarding the charge example (w/o looking at the rulebook)... two options as I see from the above discussion: 1) movement is calculated according to the movement of the mount, which should generally allow a charge and attack during the same round. What if the target opponent has a better strike rank though? Um...... house rule? Parry and attack charging opponent (at half skill for the counter attack - the charging opponent is moving quickly past, right?) or attack at full skill, but no parry (or just half skill parry). 2) The set up the charge and the charge itself end up taking two rounds. Does the target get to attack during the first round, when the charging combatant is mid-charge? No. They're too far away. Unless the target of the charge has a readied missile weapon. Otherwise, essentially, the first round is just getting up the proverbial head of steam, meaning the charger is out of range of the chargee.

What I appreciate about RQG: - much of the combat system: hit locations, armor as damage resistance, active defense against attacks, etc. - much of the art - evocative and cool. - Passions and Runes - - the character background history minigame - at little too focused on big events, to my mind, but overall a fun way to link characters and players to the setting. - Rune magic and how belonging to a particular cult is directly linked to what magic a PC has access to. - social skills and similar magic (Bless Pregnancy) can have a real purpose in a game.

I, for one, would welcome some alternate options for family history generation. Particularly anything that's more focused on local affairs, rather than all the big battles and major historical events. For my own campaign, I've been working on (but have not finished - not by a long shot) a set of small random "boons" linked to a character's childhood; things that make them a little unique, while often providing a small skill boost or other small boon. For example, for Sartarites, options include that a PC was known for being very athletic (+5% to two Agility skills, Grapple, etc., or 10% to one); the PC was a bully as a kid (+5 to Intimidate, Fist, or Kick or +10% to one - and someone out there has the Hate (PC name) passion); or the PC has a parent or other close relative from another Homeland (+5% to Customs (other homeland), other language, or Lore (other homeland) or +10% to one.) Nothing earthshaking, but enough to make PCs a little more rounded and to provide flavor that, in some cases, could lead to more roleplaying and/or future adventure hooks.

Or life experience, potentially. I might adopt a version of this. Personally, with these kinds of skills, I'd assess on a case by case basis, and maybe even rule that a normally non-checkable skill (like the Lore skills, you mention) can only increase by 1-3% without formal teaching. Not great, but but if you include any skill category modifier, it'd be an easy way to jump from 0% to upwards of 17-22% at first. Example: Vago the Not-Quite-So-Fierce has an unfortunate encounter with poison ivy while relieving himself in the woods (he's a city-boy and has Plant Lore 0%). It's just one experience, but dang it's a big one. Vago is now very aware of what poison ivy looks (and feels) like and has also become much more aware of the differences between plants, etc., and that some should be avoided. That should be good enough for a tiny boost to his Plant Lore, providing a basis for future study (since he still can't accurately identify what greenery has healing or fertility-boosting properties.)

I like the idea though that different types of weapons, yielding different types of damage, have their own set of pros and cons. Maybe it's better to make these general attributes. What I mean is something like giving every bludgeoning weapon a chance at causing stun on any head strike or like giving thrusting weapons (esp. spears) 1 step better Strike Rank than RAW.

Haven't actually applied any house rules yet for the current campaign I'm running, though one is pending. Here's what I've personally been thinking of: 1) [About to be put into effect]: Automatic experience checks for new languages and customs, if a character has spent at least a season in a foreign land and has actually been interacting with the locals on a regular basis. After going through two of the three Starter Set adventures and spending awhile (incl. Sacred Time) in Clearwine, Aranda of Nochet and Vishi Dunn should be improving their Heortling and getting a very basic feel for Sartarite culture. 2) Weapon skills by category (e.g., 1-h sword), instead of individual weapon. OR weapon skills by category with "specialization," e.g. one-handed sword (broadsword), meaning that every other weapon within the category is at a minor penalty (let's say -10%). Enough to justify having a favorite type of weapon, without undercutting a PC's ability to use other, very closely related ones. 3) Close combat. Allowing an opposed DEX check for a PC to stay in close on an opponent, nullifying their ability to use large weapons and providing daggers, shortswords, etc with an SR advantage. 4) Applying the Two-Weapon fighting rules a little more broadly, allowing combinations of weapon strikes and Knockback attempts (seems like an actual historic fighting technique, so why not allow it?)

Fun to listen to, as usual. I have a copy of Jackals, but haven't read completely through it yet. The world that JM created is pretty interesting. Regarding mechanics complaints; Ludo, have you actually tried any of the 7th ed CoC mechanics (whether for combat or otherwise) in your RQ games? If so, how did they work out? Do you think JM's clash mechanic would work in RQ, without fundamentally altering gameplay? Or what about a GURPS-style approach to combat mechanics? What I mean is, to officially provide a simple baseline set of mechanics that can then be added to in as great a detail as one desires. So, for example, starting out with attacks vs active defenses, and keeping armor as damage resistance, but not worrying about hit locations or damage to weapons/shields. Not sure that'd totally work with RQ (one hit from a typical dark troll would often be instant kill,) but I hope my main point is still coherent. My personal concern with simplified mechanics is that they end up reproducing a level of abstraction (often boring abstraction at that) typical of D&D - which many of us are trying to get away from in the first place. What did you think of the simplified rules in the RQ Starter Set? As for the discussion of setting a campaign during the early Third Age resettling of Dragon Pass, maybe someone should put something together for the Jonstown Compendium, complete with revised character histories, etc.

I'm curious too. Was some of the material accidently too close to copyright infringement?

And here I thought I was having an epiphany! Apologies for not fully understanding your point. I do think you can make an argument for using shields for active defense (e.g., not risking a damaged weapon), but enabling the option of using shields as passive defense in melee combat does make them more ... well ... useful.

D'oh! OK, you might have to tweak the rules a little bit to make this work. So assuming an average DX and SIZ person, playing completely by RAW, a shield and a short spear used in dual attack would be: shield at SR 7 (SIZ SR2 + DEX SR 2 + shield SR 3) and then spear thrust at SR 13 (7 + 2 + 2 + spear SR 2). Doesn't work for average person. If the character is DEX SR + SIZ SR < 4, then no problem (like you say), which does seem reasonable for most warrior types (or anyone who's had Mobility cast on them. OR one could tweak the rules and say that the first strike has to include the full SIZ + DEX SR, but the second is only uses the DEX SR. You're already in range, right? Then the combo would be: shield bash at SR 7, then spear thrust at SR 11. Maybe still worth doing?

Different option for making shield use more attractive, without any modification of RAW. Use the two-weapon fighting rules, with the shield acting as one of the covered weapons. Set up that good old dynamic shield bash, then stab/smash/slice combo.

Another idea working off of this one. If character is holding a shield in place as functionally passive protection, then give them the added benefit of allowing the standard opportunity to attack and parry with their weapon. Combine with a small bump in shield HP and shield use becomes much more attractive, whether as a passive or active defense. Directly attacking shields (say with your 2-handed axe or maul) also becomes a more reasonable option for weakening an opponent and opening them up to further strikes.