g33k

Cool! Let us know how it's going, eh? Note also that Sorcery is in some ways the most "problematic" of the three magic systems. It's arguably the least "adventurer-friendly" because of usually-slow casting times & limited in-the-field-versatility. Also (I find) the "logic" of Sorcery is often very different from the mythic feel of the rest of Glorantha. That said... Durulz ftw, always! Congratulations on having a player willing to dive the extra fathom on this!

Fascinating stuff! TYVM Jeff (while not directly or immediately useful to me, it speaks wonderfully of you & Chaosium). One question, though... About how long are these Battle-scale "rounds"? Are they intentionally amorphous scene-oriented "last as long as needed" segments, or are they actually set durations?

I think, after a bit, many RQ players with high-powered healing available begin to internalize "'tis only a flesh wound" and "I got better!" I mean, sure -- let's still do the "fight smart" bit -- ambush, missiles, outnumbering the foe, etc -- but really, Heal 6 and such begin to make those beginning-character cautions a bit less necessary...

The (c) issues of OGL are (to my mind) of secondary importance. IMHO, the real upside for "Open..." anything -- computer code, gaming mechanics, etc -- is the sheer volume of tweaking and stress-testing that has gone before. Love the d20 family or hate it, it is undeniably the most-thoroughly-explored game-engine in existence, because there are so F'ing many variants, played by so F'ing many groups, and discussed/debated/dissected on so F'ing many forae, for relatively-many years (i.e. 5e is even bigger, but is so much newer) Sure, BRP has more decades since birth. But once you put [play-hours]X[number-of-players] into the equation... OMG. Then add the "d20 glut" which saw innumerable variations explored on the open market! The BRP/d100 "extended family" has a lot of variations within it, and a lot of stress-testing of the core components, so it's also a really robust system too; but (a) some of BRP's fringes (such as supers/superheroics/etc) are rather less-explored; & (b) only some branches are safely/non-disputedly OGL/SRD'ed, so that "secondary" concern of mine becomes relevant to the would-be publishers out in the wild. Make no mistake -- class/level systems ain't my jam, never have been. In the 3-ish years that AD&D was my fantasy system of choice, I put in more tweaks and fixes and HR's than I did in the 35-40 years of BRP that followed (modulo my long digression into Ars Magica, hacking ArM3 similarly, but playing ArM4 and ArM5 mostly RAW). D&D3 came closest, for me, to being "classless." I liked the mix&match classes, which amounted to small bundles of skills/abilities/etc; and I liked that about it... but then came 20-level-long minimax'ed builds, unexpected & broken race/class/feat/etc synergies, and all the other banes of of the complexity death-spiral. And I value all that raw d20 info based on WotC's original OGL/SRD because I know there are even variations on the class/level tropes that I dislike... and I know the limitations of those variants... and I know that for most of my gaming needs, the d100 family IS my jam. 🤗

The supplement titled "Classic Fantasy" uses the Mythras ruleset. Those adventures use the CF supplement to Mythras. (There was, BTW, a prior iteration of CF for BRP, but as the author was at work v.2'ing it, he decided to move to the Mythras engine) If you like that "classic" vibe from AD&D... ... and you ALSO like the d100 engine invented for RQ back in the 70s (from which all these others descend) ... Well then, then this whole schmear may just be your "like^2" game.

The "Classic Fantasy" line IS an homage to old-school AD&D, mostly 1e/2e I think (with tidbits of 3e and pre-Advanced editions), all running within the Mythras engine. It's a rather clever revisiting of the class/level tropes & memes in the non-classed BRP family of games. If your bundle (and your bookshelf) don't have the CF supplement (which is really the basis for the modules) I encourage you to add it! http://thedesignmechanism.com/Classic-Fantasy.php

Don't be silly, this is Glorantha! Both of those are true.

Looks like you got this query addressed over on the Runequest forum; and yeah, expect better, more direct answers to RQ-centric queries there, than here. Also: welcome to the forum! 😁

Thank you very much Chaosium! I mean... free adventures YAY! of course. But even moreso, remembering the Grand Shaman of Gaming. Thank you.

Also, casting to the benefit of an adventurer who is going out of the community on some personal mission is really the exact model of "pay full price, it's how I make enough cash." Casting to the benefit of some "pillar of the community" type, who gave you a cow last year, and gives a bushel of wheat most seasns, and looks to have an even bigger herd & better crops this year... that looks like someone whose good-will and well-being is worth.FAR more than mere coin...

TYVM! I hadn't heard of this case...

Is the "exclusivity" clause materially the same across all these DTRPG fan channels, such as DM'sGuild? Or is this one (and the MR for CoC content) its own thing? One implies you'd want to talk to DTRPG, the other implies you want to talk to Chaosium; needing an OK from both is very possible! Either way, don't forget to check in with d101Games! N.B. -- I represent non of the parties above, and thus could be wildly off-base... when the sport is hang-gliding instead of baseball! I'm just trying to figure it out myself!

I presume that pretty steep discounts are offered to community-members in good standing, who tithe and sacrifice regularly, who are always available when someone needs something, whose crops are helping support the clan, etc... Much moreso than "cast on my fields so I can go adventuring but my lands will still be uber-productive, Kthx!" sorts.

I have seen this often cited as part of "fan wisdom" and have previously held that position myself. I am now... less certain... of this. Another game fan -- one I believe to be a lawyer -- has advanced the claim that the law as-written isn't entirely clear-cut... and more to the point: no deep pocket litigants have ever thrashed the issue through, to provide case-law and precedent. So it could reasonably go either way. Gamer-Lawyer-Guy says in fact he sees pretty clear arguments against this article of fan-wisdom. He just doesn't see, AFAIK, any deep-pocket indie developer who wants to enrich lawyers by challenging a deep-pocket owner of an existing (c)'ed ruleset (and without the deep pockets on both sides, there would inevitably be unexplored sidelines and lacunae where legal loopholes might lurk). Given that he has (I believe) an actual law degree -- and I do not -- I now regard my prior belief in this article of fan-wisdom to be... well, decidedly in question. === But -- in addition to not being a generator of Scrooge McDuck levels of deep-pocket wealth -- RPG gaming is basically a small community made up mostly of... gamers. Even amongst the authors & publishers. And I think these gamers (who are authors & developers & publishers) mostly all like (or at least respect) each other, and don't want to piss each other off, piss in each others' pools, &c. So they ask one another nicely, license mechanics where called for, and generally behave like friends sharing the cake, instead of rivals who are strictly maximizing their own advantage under all circumstances. YGMV

Yeah... this! THIS is the material I've been hoping would be on the DTRPG fan-content channel for RQ/Glorantha, ever since the idea was mooted. RQG-ified stats/etc for Borderlands, Pavis, Griffin Mountain, etc... Not excluding the "little" projects like the SoloQuest Collection, Fangs, Plunder, the OSRP, etc. Basically, the whole RQClassic KS project! Honestly, I'm a bit surprised they haven't been done up "officially" by Chaosium and offered as free/cheap products to go alongside that Classic Goodness they afe bringing back to print... 😍 🤗 Seems like an obvious sales-booster for the older line ! Yes, yes, yes... I know it's "easy" to do this myself. It's just a time-consuming process that I haven't yet had time to process... noting that if I haven't found this (relatively-modest) time YET (i.e. since getting the 1st printing of RQG in the first wave of orders)... I'm not likely to have the time any time soon.

It may be worth annotating your example with something like "Change of SoI is an interpretation, not explicit in the RAW, based upon the change-of-weapon / change-of-action rule." Otherwise, some poor slob may spend hours fruitlessly searching for the rule you used; and/or you may find yourself answering the same plaintive "but it doesn't work that way!" DM's for years to come... 😏

I don't think it covers change of SoI: as I read the RAW, it covers a SoI of "I cast a spell" when they began the round armed for melee, from the prior round. I do not believe the RAW covers changing the SoI at all, actually. +5 SR's seems like the "default" delay for something of the sort, however! I also note the (somewhat slapdash, honestly; but official!) reply from Jason in the "official clarifications" thread: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/8399-runequest-core-rules-questions/?do=findComment&comment=135847 I'm not sure if Jason is saying "As a gamemaster I tend to..." in order to indicate ordinary "just another GM" advice, instead of Line-Developer "official ruling," or what...

And for Kerwith Yewthever, the elf, to shoot the sword with an arrow, deflecting it into the hands of Kerwith's ally... We need rules for that, too! 🤡

Not addressing this to Trif (cos he knows it of course) but giving supplementary data to others: this is exactly what's happening here (and the OP does indeed keep editing/updating his post) :

IIRC the Broo has no readied weapon, so it needs +5 SR's before it begins counting up its DEX SRs & weapon SR's. The Broo also has to close range, which will take some SR's. Whether "close range" and "ready weapon" can happen during the same SR's is IIRC always a GM call (I often see everyone assume it always happens that way, but believe that to be an error). Only ONE attack in a melee round, with a few specific exceptions: Splitting an over-100% skill Dual wielding Firing missiles, not engaged in melee And... I think that's it?

EP's supplement "Transhuman" adds a "bundled package" mechanism that streamlines a LOT of that long-chargen & vast point-spend. I think their new 2e makes that style the default. It still implements the same mechanical effects, but does so more quickly/conveniently. Any chance you were thinking of Transhuman?

IIRC, someone official @Chaosium has stated that a RQG "Grand <X> Campaign" (in Pendragon's GPC model) is looking probable; or at least has made implications to that effect. I don't believe any writing has begun (other than the fact that they have a metric crapton of Gregnotes -- and extended writings! -- on Argrath & his Argrathsaga). I am... unclear whether I think this is a Good Thing, or not. The Hero Wars, and players comparing their own PCs to the Really Big Guns, already elicits grumbling about how the metaplot looks a lot like being sidekicks to the GMPC's Destiny. I cannot but think a published Argrathsaga would make that grumbling worse. At the same time, I cannot help but ... ... SQUEE!!!

Heya! Welcome to BRP Central!

I need to go re-read that. It looked to me -- on 1st skim -- like the GM was using a continuous rolling count of SR's across MR's, instead of resetting SR-count to zero at the beginning of each round ... ?

Generally I think you raise some good issues; but... Regarding the piece I bold'ed, I just want to note that "This is great" and "This is shit" are both opinions... but not necessarily parallel. I think one is more-subject to moderating because it's so negative: negativity sucks, and in particular it sucks the civility out. If I say "this is great" about something you dislike, and go on and on about it, you may be annoyed &c, but you seldom feel personally attacked. If I say "this sucks" and go on and on about how sucky something you love is, that does run closer to making you feel attacked. Do I make any sense here?