g33k

I'll go ahead and suggest that sometimes in fiction, the spoken / written distinctions are intentionally blurred. Most particularly for F & SF languages. And without further explication, we don't even.know it this usage of ' (and other nonalphabetic marks) even represent a contraction or the like... it may be another sound!

Before going too far down this rabbit hole, I'd like to check and see if you have looked at the Mythras (aka RQ6) mechanics for "Combat Effects" or "Special Effects." It replaces the BRP/RQ Crit & Fumble mechanics. Often enough, these Effects are more important to the outcome of a fight than any raw "damage" is...

I don't think that's so. "Goblin" (and creatures with cognate names) are much more varied than that (in some cultures, I think the "earth elemental" traits may be prominent), . They are generally "fairy" type creatures, not usually/generally "e;lementals" with that fixed association to the Earth. Certainly the little monsters of D&D are very un-like the folkloric roots of the word! Wikipedia says: (n.b. folkloric faerie-ish beings, if malicious or dangerous (or prone to "sin" such as lusty habits, or lazy ones, etc) are often taken by Christian folklorists and re-cast as devils/demons). Paracelsus seems to have created the "gnome" (indeed as an earth-elemental) but I don't think "goblin" was any of his. Given the uniquely-Gloranthan nature of Elves and Dwarves, I see no reason there shouldn't be a specifically-Gloranthan version of "Goblin" either.

Also, if it were simply a matter of only the Rune Point being one-use -- but the spell something that stays permanently available -- it opens the HUGE can'o'worms of the "black hole" effect. Say I pray for a "one use" spell that ISN'T one use (per the descriptions above: I keep the One-Use spell after casting, and can cast it again)... just it's Rune-Point(s) is(are) "one use." Now... what if I keep the spell, not needing to cast that one, for a while. I burn through all my RP casting OTHER spells, and go pray and get them back. Do I get back that one-use Rune Point? I didn't cast the One-Use spell. Does the One-Use spell increase my Rune Pool until use that spell? So I could keep the larger Rune Pool indefinitely, if I don't use that spell for an indefinite time? Interesting thought. Not a "black hole" effect, but interesting. Now imagine the opposite -- I am in DIRE need of that One Use rune-spell. So I cast it, and the Rune Point goes away. But I need it again, and per this hypothetical it ISN'T in fact a "one use" spell, I still have it! So I cast it again... and again... and again... until I am out of RP's. When it comes time to worship at Holy Day... do I get back ANY Rune Points? If the thing that is "one use" about the One Use Spell is that the Rune Points to cast the spell are permanently gone, I think I can burn my entire permanent Rune Pool down to zero with that Black Hole version of a One Use spell. Am I no longer an Initiate since I have no Rune Pool? This would seem to be an obviously-implied consequence -- not an inevitable reading, but an obvious one. Talk about needing to be clarified!!!

You mean, no rules other than establishing a separate category of Rune Spell called "one use"? And calling out an exceptional case in Spell Trading? No such rules other than those... Do you really need a statement that "you only get one use of a One Use rune spell" ? I think we're just going to have to YGWV to disagree, until/unless clarification is forthcoming from Chaosium (and even then of course, Everybody'sGWV, so we can each run our game to our preferred standards (regardless of jackbooted thuggery crushing our creative souls) 🤣 ).

Barley Hotep? Don't they sing that at the Renfaire events? After closing, I mean... When the customers are gone for the night, and it's just themselves and the darkness...

It's called "one use." I will just say, flat-out, that this is the obvious way to understand the intent of the rules; no -- I do NOTthink they need to "mention" that one use means one use. Barring some language in the rules to express some other intent -- which does not exist -- I can only presume that "one use" means "one use." To turn your own rhetorical question around: the rules give us absolutely no reason to think you get multiple uses. You don't think that's the kind of thing they would have mentioned? I think the author(s) presumed adventurers would gain one use of the spell (note the similar presumption (now explicitly clarified) that all "... Trance" spells would be taken by the players to have trance effects, not just be pretty names). The associated mechanics show the RP's supporting that spell go away after one use. Spell trading has specific language in support of this. I only see that people don't like the obvious& plain-sense interpretation of the RAW language, and are making the unsupported claim that it's "leftover" from cut&paste of prior editions. To reiterate: all the language & all the mechanics that I can find supports "one use = one use." No language that I can find supports "one use = keep the spell forever, just like other Rune spells."

You could argue that, yes. I will allege that in fact you should argue that! It is, after all, what the words say: the obvious meaning. Do we really need the rulebook to say that "one use" means "one use" ??!? Is there ANY supporting language -- anywhere in the RQG rules -- for another interpretation? Oh! Look! Some other "supporting language," just like I asked for! Annnnd... it supports that obvious, common-sensical interpretation that the words DO mean what they seem to mean. Really, I see absolutely ZERO sign of this "alternative facts" interpretation -- there are no FACTS there, only wishful whole-cloth invention. You get ONE USE of a "one use" spell. one use === Who let all these munchkins out of the "egregious munchkinry" thread, anyhow???

TYVM @metcalph ! Also, forgot to mention in my prior: really loving the concepts going into that backstory! Great stuff! All sorts of anima/animus, implications for a Fetch, etc ...

I believe that Waha /IS/ gender restricted (M only), but not Daka Fal; I believe Earth Witch has at least a few shamans in Prax, and she's F-only. And of course an "independent" (not Initiated to any deity) shaman might have virtually any gender-restiction, including none. Spirits (and Bad Man!) are made up of almost pure story-hooks (lightly coated in game-mechanical bait, to lure players into biting on the hooks...) .

Ahhhh! That'd be the most common character Class in old-school Glorantha games... ... The Tick-Hunter.

Please don't: some people take it seriously. Like... the main author from Chaosium who found it necessary to chime in and rebut your "taunt." Also, people making sexist & racist & etc remarks are all too prone to trying to cover up genuine sexism & racism & etc with an "only joking" excuse (which excuse is getting thinner and thinner; and looking more and more often like "wink wink nudge nudge we ALL know I wasn't joking; but having done the public disavowal, I am immune to public criticism!"). I'm not trying to say YOU are doing this: I'm always willing to stretch the benefit in favor of someone making the effort to speak/write in my language, since I'm so dismal in all the others I've ever tried! I'm trying to note how it may appear. (Also worth noting -- "taunt" specifically means a remark intended to hurt or anger someone; is that your meaning?)

Any chance of a shirt with the C.T.E. walktapus on the front, and "carving instructions" on the back? 😁

Paging @David Scott . David Scott to the white courtesy telephones...

It is currently listed -- possibly incorrectly -- in the 4th wave of products. RQ stuff has an "up next in expected order," then "other upcoming," then "coming later." PraxPak is none of those. PraxPax shows up below those three, as "Other Glorantha, Rule System TBD." I'm (strongly) suspecting this will come out as a RQ product. I'd love it if they re-prioritized PraxPak so it came out very close to the Laws BR&P product(s?). As Oracle states, "Soon" is "not so likely."

It apparently got mentioned at a panel discussion at a Con this past summer/fall/ish... The Kraken? I'm not sure. Chaosium has confirmed it, but without much in the way of details. There will be a new draft of the BRP rules, apparently? It will be published under a new Chaosium-written Open License (explicitly NOT the WotC OGL, which Jeff has stated he has a few qualms with); I'm unclear whether they'll use the OGL as a model, or look to Creative Commons, or cleansheet the process, or what. I presume it will be largely like (or identical to) the license they'll use for the upcoming new HeroQuest core. I am guessing they are waiting to make a "big" announcement until everything is about ready to roll out.

Careful there, Bill, or I will 66 you!

I have always understood that to be the case. If it's YOUR camp, and YOUR fire, then you (the Oakfed shaman) will keep the fire alive. Once you break camp, and depart, it's no longer your camp, or your fire. It may go out, or it may break the fire-ring and spread (speaking of which: I (strongly!) suspect that an Oakfed shaman never uses a fire-ring or fire-pit or any other built restriction on the spread of a fire!), or whatever else the fire naturally does. I particularly like this, as it implies the Oakfed shaman is carrying, maintaining -- and spreading as they travel to new places -- one singular gigantic fire! This fire -- right here, in this gourd (or pot, or whatever) is the same fire that has burned all across Prax, deep into the Wastes, up into Pent on raids, out to trade (and raid) in Sartar. This fire burns everywhere. I imagine some special rituals when two Oakfed shamans meet ... joining their fires into one, each taking a bit of the resulting fire when they leave. When they do that, each takes a piece of the others' "fire history" and puts it into their own Sacred Fire, spreading into one singular Great Fire that burns everywhere any Oakfed shaman goes...

<guiltily stuffs his box set of Rolemaster back onto the bottom shelf> "I only read it for the Crit tables, really!"

For anyone who argues that wolves do an "Impaling" Critical, I ask: please show me the YouTube/BBC/NatGeo/etc of wolves stuck by the fangs into their prey, unable to get loose. I'll wait.

I expect that an "authoritative" answer is exactly what Chaosium is NOT likely to do. I don't think they see this as sufficiently common to justify additional rules. And, as noted, there's LOTS of different kinds of bites. Slashing claws & piercing ones, and blunt hooves too. More rules, and more and more... And mostly, pretty obvious what the ruling should be, so why grow the rulebook to cover the obvious? I think that it is -- in Chaosium's eyes -- part of the RQG GM's job to adjudicate this sort of thing at the table.

In cases such as these, where the player says "I am carrying..." and the GM finds it unreasonable, the GM can simply say "no." Or fiat a penalty. Or whatever seems best on the spot.

Three sources: you forgot "suddenly needing to interrupt <important Middle World social interaction> to begin blabbering in Spirit Speech and deal with <even-more-important Spirit World interaction>."

I think Greg never was a "stoner" in the "spends a lot of his life stoned" sense -- he was WAY too productive for that. Similarly, I think he quickly moved on from just "pot" to the more vision-quest-y substances, and I think those were far more influential on his work. Which is not to say I think he was a "light" user. I never got to hang out with him, but my sense was that he was... exuberant might be a good word?... including in how he approached many of those mind-expandng substances.

And now that so many "community content" programs are going, DTRPG is becoming -- even more -- the fan's go-to place to get content... even other fans' content.