Kloster

6 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I am curious to hear what you believe came from KAP or SB that made RQ less RQ?

In fact, the influences that I believe are giving a 'less' RuneQuest impressions are from Stormbringer and are (for me) the  Single skill for attack and parry (bad idea) and the Multiple Parry (bad idea).

For the rules coming from Pendragon, I feel some are good imports, some are bad imports and I have mixed feelings on some, but none are make me feel the game as 'less Runequest'.

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

The main reason Pendragon's opposed role system wasn't used in RQG is because we wanted to keep the dynamic of attack and parry for combat in RQ - and didn't want to introduce two very different "dice interpretation regimes."

This, I perfectly understand and I like your choice. I know (from my readings) that Pendragon came from Runequest, but my feelings are different of yours: the internals (what you called the DNA) is completely different.. Of course, I'm not part of RQ design team and have not access to all the informations you may have, but this is my feelings. Apart this, I was only telling that 'coming from Pendragon' is not automatically good, not that it is bad: I think the opposed rolls rule is a good addition to RQ (except for the above 100% part).

9 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

You cannot go wrong with a rule inspired by Pendragon. RQG's Runes/Personality/Passions and backgroung based character creation is most definitely inspired by Pendragon and is the best part of the system in my opinion (along with how the runes interact with Magic). I wish Pendragon had an even greater influence on RQG.

When (and if) you love Pendragon. If not, you don't automatically consider it a good idea (nor a bad, by the way), but I wish Pendragon and Stormbringer had less influence on Runequest, in order to stay more ... Runequest.

This is in fact the weak point of the 'new' background creation system. It is useful, elegant, gives nice ideas ... and restrict to 6 homelands and 1 period.

3 minutes ago, g33k said:

Yes, rolling to keep Conc during casting is the RAW.

In fact, the rule p245 does not speak of keeping concentration during casting, but keeping concentration during meditation.

3 minutes ago, g33k said:

I was saying that each cause of loosing the bonus needs to be accounted for...  in an extra roll, or a more-difficult roll. 

On this, I agree.

5 minutes ago, g33k said:

You had seemed to be suggesting (or I had been mis-reading) that the (proposed) INT-rolls (to sustain Meditation bonus across several MR's of  time) could also "cover" the INT roll vs damage.

There was a misunderstanding. See above comments.

11 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Just to be a party-pooper on this Spell Trading topic, apart from associated cults (and even then), should individuals even be aware of the cult secret special spells??? I'd be inclined to say "no", unless it's something they've become famous for (e.g., Humakt's Sever Spirit). 

I agree with you, but how do you segregate those truly secret (that is existence unknown) of those secret but known (existence is known to most, but the workings are secret)? By the way, this concern not only spells, but also all cult secrets (skills, knowledges, techniques,...).

54 minutes ago, Imryn said:

I think singing is probably a part of a bronze age persons general life, not just religious ceremonies - I'm thinking work songs and chants and just general entertainment.

In fact, this was still the case far after bronze aged finished. Up to the begining of 20th century, all human activities that required a regular rythm were guided by more or less 'ritual' songs. The 'Volga Boatmen' is a famous example. The first cinematographers (The Lumiere brothers ones) were singing 'Sambre et Meuse' to keep the rythm, and numerous songs were (and in some cases still are) used to teach alphabet and numbering (Does Ein Zwei Polizei, Drei Vier Offizier, .. raise some memories?).

17 hours ago, g33k said:

INT rolls are the same mechanism, but IMHO no -- taking damage calls for an immediate & separate roll from any roll that's just marking time.

As we are well into House Rules here, I'll offer another alternate:  when you take damage, it advances you down the chart of INTx5 ... INTx4 ... INTx3 ... etc; for every 2 pts of damage, you step one step further down the chart.

 

No. What I said is that the rule p245 is that you have to make an INTx3 roll to keep concentration when taking damage. This is not my idea of a houserule, but RAW.

14 hours ago, g33k said:

I would allow same-round casting without calling for an INT-roll (maybe even following-round, if it was late in the SR-sequence when the meditation ended).

After that, I'd begin imposing INT rolls to maintain the meditation bonus.

I would immediately advance someone down the INT-roll chart for taking damage... *OR* for making any OTHER roll than meditation or spellcasting!

Nice ideas.

21 minutes ago, Sumath said:

And losing the bonus automatically in the event of e.g. damage being incurred.

This is covered by the INTx3 rolls to keep concentration.

I've just checked p244and 245, and nothing is specified on the subject. I think the good answer is the 'delay within reason' you gave.

5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Especially when the first use of Restore Health is to get back the POW for the Restore Health... 

The second would be to get back the POW used for the Rune Points needed for getting Restore Health and all the other Rune spells you need.

1 hour ago, Crel said:

I think this is so Egregious that no GM would possibly permit it, buuuut... couldn't you technically get back characteristics lost to sacrificing for RP, shaman abilities, etc. with Restore Health? Relevant text is p.338, "This spell restores characteristic points that have been lost to disease, to the effects of the sorcery spell Tapping, or to other sources" (Emphasis added). Again yes, I don't think there's any chance in the Underworld you could get away with this in an actual game--clearly other sources means external Bad Stuff--but if you're looking to be Extra Egregious, maybe playing an Illumined trickster, seems like a neat way to start an argument .

And the winner is .. Crel. I think you've found the most egregious of all. Respect.

8 hours ago, Crel said:

The text doesn't seem to specify how many RP an allied spirit begins play with (but it must be at least one, since they're always an initiate).

Either we think they become initiated when the become allied, and in this case, the answer should be 1, or we decide they are already initiated, and the 3 of characters that are initiated when entering adulthood, but begin play at 21 seems to me correct.

13 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

and sacrifice for spells and RPs with any POW gained I would surmise. Or give the POW to a wyter as is discussed in elsewhere.

Yes, why not.

13 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Now can an allied spirit (if somehow it managed to complete the requirements) become a god talker of any flavour?

Crel already gave the right answer.

2 hours ago, Imryn said:

Don't Rune Lords allied spirits get POW checks for worshipping etc? I know they are normally embodied, but I don't think embodiment is actually required for the POW check. 

Allied spirits are initiated, so the should be able to perform worship.

Long live the Andouillette!!

4 hours ago, davecake said:

For wyters, specific useful references, besides the references in RQG, RQG- bestiary, are:

- for creating clan wyters in play, the Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes clan creation system. Also, the way in which wyters are used in HeroQuesting is informative - lending the support of the clan (in the form of the wyter) to heroquesters is a big decision, as it is a risk to the clan (but heroquests can also reward the whole clan). 

- for examples of clan wyters in play, The Coming Storm and the Eleven Lights. This also includes creation of a wyter.

- for wyters in warfare, the Glorantha Sourcebook description of the Sartar Magical Union is very useful. 

What we need is explanations, rules and examples in Runequest terms, not generic, nor Herowars/Heroquest terms.

58 minutes ago, soltakss said:

The way I play it is that you need to give a proportion of your income to your Cults. If you are an Initiate then you give 10% to your Cults, if you are a Rune Lord then you give 90% to your Cults. The Cults then divide that up accordingly. so, a Troll Death Lord is almost always going to be an Initiate of Kyger Litor, so gives 90% to the Cults, which is then divided into effectively 81% to Zorak Zoran and 9% to Kyger Litor. Similarly, an Elf Light Son gives 90% to his Cults, of which 81% goes to Yelmalio and 9% to Aldrya/High King Elf. All Citizens pof Pavis need to be members of the Cult and many are Initiates, of they also belong to other Cults then they tithe accordingly, so an Initiate of Pavis and Yelmalio would give 10% to Cults, with 5% going to Pavis and 5% to Yelmalio.

A lot of people play it differently. There is a reference to Bolthor Brighteyes, in Cults of Terror, tithing his money to several cults, for example.

The only information I've found on the subject is RQG p278 and is about God talkers of a cult that also have a rank in another cult: They have to pay 90% to their main cult, and half of the rest (as god talker) to the second. If we extrapolate the same rule to multiple inititation, one has to pay 10% to the 1st cult, then 10% (=9%) of what remains to the second cult, then 10% ... und so weiter.

On 6/2/2019 at 2:21 AM, Shiningbrow said:

Sure... Join them! 

I've never seen anything anywhere in RQ that says there's a limit to the number of cults you can join. 

In.fact, I'd suggest it to be the norm.  (Other than the lack of POW required to initiate. Definitely multiple Lay Memberships).

I don't remember having seen more than 2 cults in an official product, but 2 is quite frequent, whatever the RQ variant, so multiple Lay memberships can be the norm and multiple initiation is at least possible. I also can't remember any rule that limits the number, except the rules that enforce all the strictures and tithing: It is of course not possible to give more than 100% of your time or of your income.

On 6/1/2019 at 5:17 PM, gochie said:

Damn right. My group never played/read Heroquest, only RQ3/G, so my Orlanthi joined Humakt with no problems whatsoever. 

Same for me, and except if something changes in what is published for RQ, I will not change my position.

28 minutes ago, jps said:

You mean no dodge at all? Seems a bit harsh.

No, RAW means the dodge score is normal. The attacker has a bonus, and the defender has a normal score.

11 hours ago, Cloud64 said:

This puzzles me. ‘Gen’ is almost always soft in English: general, gene, genesis, androgen, hydrogen, gender, genitive, gentlemen. I can’t, off the top of my head, think of an example of the G being hard at the start of a word when followed by EN. Want a hard G, follow it with an A. 

I shall, if course think if a hard G example as soon as I post this.

I know, but this was a fact. Perhaps due to the fact that most of the english speakers spoke also german (we were in Switzerland).

6 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

I was happy when I finally found out that Genertela used a 'hard G' sound, it put to rest the endless cheeky jokes about playing a setting where the characters are from the 'Land of Genitalia', heh heh

 

(PS: I initially didnt scroll up when wrote this - I see now that it wasn't just my group that had the schoolboy humour!)

I don't have the problem in french: the word genitalia does not exist and the equivalent is not close phonetically. The result was a mix of hard G for those who had a german or english linguistic package and soft G for those who had only latin (french, italian or spanish) background. I was at that time playing in or close to Geneva and the mix of origin was interesting.

3 hours ago, g33k said:

I really liked the rule -- (I think it was "official" in RQ3?) but we played it as a HR in RQ2 -- that standing-off with a much-longer weapon prevented the short-weapon wielder (Shorty) from attacking at all.

Shorty needed to "close" first -- make a successful, unparried attack; this didn't hit their foe, but drove the foe's weapon out of line and let Shorty get inside the foe's reach.

Then the converse applied -- Shorty could get all stabby-slashy, and the long-weapon wielder couldn't bring their weapon to bear until/unless they in turn made a successful, unparried attack against Shorty, that would do no damage, but re-establish the longer range.

IIRC, we said 2 weapons had to have a SR difference of at least 2 points (maybe 3?) for this "stand-off" effect to apply; otherwise, we just gave the longer/reach weapon the traditional SR advantage.

 

It was a house rule. The RQIII one was that the longer weapon had a better weapon SR as long as he can maintain range. If the shorter weapon hloder decides to close range and the longer weapon holder does not want or can't maintain distance, then, the short weapon can strike and the long weapon can not strike before the short weapon. This is part of the RQIII combat rules that were not ported to RQG.

5 hours ago, g33k said:

I think I recall a prior thread noting the possibility (at least in theory) for mixing Rune-Theism / Sorcery / Shamanism (any 2, or all 3!) in one character..

I would need to re-visit the rules, but don't think that's overly munchkinous... Sorcerors' use of Spirit Magic detracts from their Sorcery, and I'd have to take a long, hard, and highly-suspicious look at each Shamanic Ability before I said "sure, yeah, that works for Sorcerors too!"  

I think the shamanic abilities don't affect the sorcery part, but you can store the spirit spells in the fetch expanded charisma and expanded presence, keeping all INT free.

I think I have found another case: In RQIII, characters that were shamans were forbidden to become rune priest or lords, or sorcerors. Rune priest were forbidden to become shaman except for a few specific cults were they had to become shamans, and were forbidden to become sorcerors. Sorcerors were forbidden to become shamans, and could not have a rank above initiate in most cults.

It seems such restrictions are now lifted (or I couldn't find them). Jeff gave us a short (and incomplete) list of cults that accept sorcery, but in the rules, it seems nothing prevents a shaman to become priest of a theist cult, or an unaligned sorceror.