g33k

My first RQ game (1980) the GM got us involved with Cults & Guilds & the like pretty quick. Debt (at least cash) was pretty minimal, as the cult was training us mostly in their own 1/2-price skills -- but we definitely "owed" them, and declining to do the "favors" they wanted of us would have been both churlishly ungrateful, and dangerous... ;-)

Wasn't Kyger Litor part of the Great Compromise? I had understood that not only Time, but the day/night cycle, was part of the Compromise. As such, I'd think overtly disrespecting the Sun in the sky would be tantamount to disrespecting Kyger Litor's honor... which would be tantamount to suicide, for most Uz...

Wasn't it Waha who established this? And isn't there a Rune Spell to reverse the role -- make one of the Eaten sentient, or strip sentience from an Eater? But it isn't in the "Cults" write-up for Waha... with this notion invented later? Or am I mis-remembering entirely? Or...?

+1 I believe the d100/5 mechanic was chosen because it was "the same as" d20. But as Vile says, there are times when fractions-of-skills are used, and the finer granuarity comes into play.

Over on the KS page, Rick reports having manually-sent a (very few) test-the-system BackerKit's, and he thinks those are what people are seeing/reporting. BackerKit hasn't initiated the bulk send, yet (he expects later today, or tomorrow) . - Steve, the g33k

Based on comments on the KS page, the BackerKits are really trickling out... BUT, I presume MOST of those who have gotten their backerkits have NOT announced on KS!

Everybody's Glorantha Will Vary... @Joerg -- Wow... that's a remarkable list. Some of it made me go "d'oh!" and realize I should've covered it in my OP, but much of it was new or different to what I was thinking, so... Thanks! I don't really count divine / semi-divine (or demonic) beings, those only living via spirit-world and/or mythological appearances, or immortals; I was really looking for "purely-mortal" creatures. I'll need to think if I'm gonna count shapeshifters. If there is any level of "parity" between shapes, any sense that both shapes have equal "valiidity" or "identity" (as opposed to a spell or a curse imposing an alien shape -- said being still has a "native" or "true" shape), or if the animal form is "primary," then probably. I never played KoDP; do they appear in the original version, or only newer ones? GloranthaWiki cites MoonDesign's "Sartar Companion" as the source of the "Eleurae" fox-women. I confess to zero info about Dernu & Gernu (???). And, I guess I'd better reconsider whether I count the Durulz... I have always considered them as close to "just big ducks, with intelligence" as it's possible to get, while still able to wield a sword (so, hands! and, arm-like joints/muscles in their feathered wings). @Pentallion & @Iskallor -- I confess that "sentient versions of each species of animal" does feel rather Gloranthan (so My Glorantha May Vary in that direction), but did primary authors ever write it up that way?

So, just like the title says... Off the top of my head, Glorantha has ducks (durulz), tapirs (morokanth) & baboons (do they have another name for themselves?); but are there other "animals" that are sentient? I don't count the half-and-half's like Centaurs, Minotaurs, Broo's, etc (collectively called "Beast-Men" (although the Broos' extremes of Chaos may now exclude them, they USED to be of the same general sort...)) in this list, only the "full" animals...

@Baulderrstone, I was afraid I was being too glib, there; that'l larn me! It's true that D&D 3e formalized it at "d20 + StatMod + SkillLevel" (and in fact JoT stated that he thought that D&D3's "d20" ruleset (largely his design) was more derived from ArM (and would have been a natural "ArM Next" if he had designed that) than AD&D).. Nevertheless, AD&D 1e used the same concept with d20 roll + StatMod + <some skill/level number, or sometimes vs-some-level-dependent-number, which is mechanically-equivalent> . I maintain that the ArM way to figure a skill-roll (not skill-improvement, but skill-use) is (much!) more akin to AD&D1e than it is to any BRP game up until then, and that ArM's pyramidal skill-improvement table looks more like a D&D "XP/level" table, than anything BRPesqiue.

Supplement WIthdrawn wakes up, and eats you. Turns out to be related to the Dread Gazebo...

I wouldn't put Ars Magica on the list of "mostly" RQ-derived games... Clearly having character-advancement be by way of individual skills, that are individually improved, is entirely RQ-like! Similarly the broad use of a signle skills-mechanism, as opposed to different funky little subsystems (like when some "Thief Skills" were rolled percentile in AD&D). But ArM supposdly began life as the suite of D&D House Rules for one particular RPG-playing group. It's "wizards the way they are supposed to be" (in a contrast to D&D's adventure/experience model of wizards getting better... despite D&D wizards being the "learned sage in the tower" type of wizard).. Many spells are clearly just ported D&D spells, and "classes" are seen in the Magi/Companions/Grogs division, and the 15 "Arts" are more thematically-akin to AD&D "Schools/Spheres" of magic (Enchantment/ Illusion/ Evocation/ etc) than to anything RQish. It's true there are no "levels" per se, but ArM's d10+Stat+Skill is much closer, mechanically, to D&D's d20+StatModifier+Skill, than to the BRP-derived d% mechanics; ArM's pyramidal XP table is much more D&D-like than it is like a BRP skill-check system. It'd be hard to deny some RQ influence... but overall, I have to consider it more D&D-derived than RQ-derived... but of course, there's a tremendous amount of originality, too! 8^)

Well of course it's 2e... 1e had the older title, "Shūtur eli sharrī" and I don't think they have a clean scan of it. OCR left a very-partial document. Maybe it'll be a stretch goal, like the RQ1 PDF?

Ummm... correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but isn't "unholy abomination" sort of the starting-point for CoC? "It ain't CoC unless it's an unholy abomination... or something even worse..."

Particularly if there should happen to be an officially-licensed RPG out ... https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/#/universe/star-wars

I understand the next joint Chaosium/MoonDesign kickstarter will be a reprint of "Sha naqba īmuru" cast in Babylonian mud, hand-scribed using reed stylii.

Just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying this! (apologies to Iskallor -- & the forum in general -- if 3rd-party commentary like this is Just Not Done.... Mod/Admin please delete if so!)

That's a very good rule, which seems to take the best of both worlds. I like it a lot. Agreed! I allow unlimited tick-hunting until some pre-defined skill-level (generally either 50% or 75%); sometimes I allow 1-2 "core" skills unlimited improvement to 90%. Then it's like the above -- you need a tick to make the improvement-check, but there's generally far more ticks to choose among, than there are improvement-rolls available to check for improvement. I allow an extra tick for a crit or a fumble, and this CAN mean TWO rolls to improve a single skill; I've considered only letting those same 1-2 "core" skills have that double-tick option, but haven't implemented that. For Glorantha, these "special" skills obviously MUST be cult skills... This honestly is a bit more fiddly than I like, but at the same time it also IMHO/IME gives even more of that feel of "learning/growing from the experiences the character had" that was such a revelation to me back in 1980 when I first met the RQ rules (after level-based systems).

I read that to mean "the only stuff Chaosium is actually looking for is CoC scenarios, but we'll at least glance over other stuff to see if something catches our interest." To pull this thread back on-topic(ish)... what about new content (scenarios, whatever) for the RQClassic that was so successfully kickstarted? Sure, some of those folk are just getting the stuff for collectorism... But if even half of 'em are planning to play it, and were willing to pay $5 each, that'd make a decent incentive to make an adventure or even a small sequence... yes?

I like this! But I'd also use a rune affinity relating to the event that caused the god to bleed, or even to the being/weapon/etc causing it... I like this less-well... I prefer the character to be able to diversify by way of such items; so long as it isn't something forbidden by their own god, of course!

Remember that these are REPRINTS of already-complete projects. Scanning & OCRing, fixing typo's & OCRo's (is there a correct word for that??? if there wasn't, there is now!), doing layout in modern programs, etc. But none of the usual 3rd-party sources of delay -- waiting for drafts to complete, waiting for art, etc -- that are largely outside publisher control.

RQ6 has a minimalistic setting, as-needed for demonstrating principles of the game; it's non-Gloranthan & VERY minimal, and the system is essentially "setting-free" (or at least "setting-neutral"). Exactly what product do you mean by "RQ7"?

Huh. Somebody should definitely look into that! I got my books 5 hours ago (all except for Trollpak, of course, it won't arrive until after Darkness).

+1 for using characterization/RP to differentiate! OTOH, an admission is in order that the very structure of BRP seems to NOT support these sorts of things... I think of this REALLY as a "feature" rather than a "bug." It's a classical complaint against RQ, particularly at higher power-levels as multiple abilities exceed 90%, that characters begin to seem homogenous... the "primary" skill/skillset (favored weapons for the warrior types, climb/stealth/hide for the "rogue" sorts, etc) slows down in improvement, and the "secondaries" begin to catch up; then even the third-tier skills begin to ascend to the lofty domains! After a while, the clank-iest fighter and clumsiest spell-sage are only slightly less-stealthy than the Rogue; and the Rogue & spell-sage only slightly less-skilled with their swords than the clanky fighter. And so on... Why do I call this a "feature" rather than a "bug"? Because it "feels right," like that's how it (mostly) SHOULD be. Consider the "adventuring party" -- a party of armed to and beyond "normal military" standards, with additional "penetrate hard target" and "explore/evaluate unknown" specializations. The closest real-life analogues I envision are something in the "special forces" military/intelligence/CovertOps domains, and those guys ARE all exceptionally combat-ready, exceptionally stealthy, exceptionally good at climb/etc... 95% in the core skills of EVERY adventuring "character class". Sure, there's some "niche" but they are RARELY in-use compared to session-oriented RPG play: One guy might be the "best" demolitions guy on a SpecialOps team, but few of them will be less than competent at it, etc.

I have to agree that the big-pool-of-points character systems is yet another axis of design/style. I think "Champions" was the foundational game, in 1981? Or was TFT sufficiently big-pool-of-points-y to feel similar (I never played it, tho it was "on my radar")? The way "points" built everything -- from raw characteristics like Strength and Intelligence on to super-powers -- certainly felt unique the first time I met it in Champs! When you look at, a modern game -- say, for example, "Eclipse Phase" -- you point to the d% mechanics and skill-driven characters as "runequest-y" and the big-pool-of-points character-design as "champions-y". GURPS, I think, took a big piece of the HERO approach in how it evolved from TFT...

Hmmm. How about generalizing this way: "Evade" is an all-out "escape from the blow" effort, which nearly always leaves you at some sort of disadvantage. Usually, and by default, it leaves you "Prone;" the GM may call for a different disadvantage, if it seems apt to the situation, or even permit you to Evade without taking any disatvantage (e.g. when you can slam a heavy door in the attacker's face, why would you dive away from the attack, and let them walk through the open doorway to stab your prone body???), If you are in sufficiently-tight spaces (a shieldwall, an 18"wide passage, etc) you cannot Evade at all. "Using Acrobatics in place of Evade often allows the same defensive effects of an Evade, but without taking disadvantage. It is a more-trained skill, so you generally need a teacher to train you, and a studio (or dojo, etc) to practice. Also, using it in combat sometimes just isn't an option. It requires a completely free field of motion, so an attempt to roll or flip away from one opponent is liable to get you hit by another one, in a close-set melee, and tumbling straight down a narrow corridor away from a foe is the same as running straight away from them by any other means. You also need a relatively flat and unobstructed floor. Attempts to perform Acrobatics on a field of broken boulders, or upon a steep slope, tend to leave you Prone just like an Evade... and possibly injured, too!