Rodney Dangerduck

The "fact" that the King of Sartar must marry the Feathered Horse Queen is, in effect, a mythical forgery, faked by Arkati/Ernaldan heroquesters.

Much like the Donation of Constantine was forged by the Church to give it power over the temporal rulers of western Europe, this was forged to give Ernalda and the FHQ power over the rulers of Sartar.

49 minutes ago, g33k said:

<handwaves>
You'd do that all once, up-front, during the game-design step.

Then (depending on what you've found) give the weapon a +1 or +2 damage boost, or step it up a die-type, or whatever.

This bonus is in the weeds.

Given that casting Mobility on your horse does not increase your impact bonus with a lance, (remember, it should go as mass times velocity squared), there's no call to add +1 to a missile weapon.

8 hours ago, Darius West said:

I wonder how an atlatl performs when used from the saddle?  

One interesting point they make in the video is that the atlatl has a lower rate of fire than a bow, plus a lower "muzzle velocity".  Therefore, it is less effective against rapidly moving targets, which you are more likely to encounter while mounted.

22 hours ago, Malin said:

The way we do heroquests they mainly use passions, rune spells and runes, with charisma and power

When I GMed, I ran a few short heroquests, also trying to follow the hints from Chaosium.  Rules mechanics got switched: instead of using Passions to augment skills, the heroes could use skills to augment their runes or passions.  That worked pretty well.  Definitely an interesting twist.

I am skeptical of emphasizing CHA.  it's already the most important stat in RQG, and I see no reason to make it even more so.

On 2/10/2022 at 12:36 AM, soltakss said:

A lot of people think that HeroQuesting is about Power Gaming.

It really isn't. 

It is more about exploring mythology and how it relates to the world.

 

Though this is a side issue from the thread, I'm going to strongly disagree here.  

1. Orlanth / Harmast / Argrath didn't undertake the LBQ to "explore mythology". 
2. Sacred Time quests are performed to get good omens for the upcoming year. 
3. Initiation or obtaining rune spells are to achieve a (minor) power gaming effect. 
4. Whenever an NPC has some powerful magic item or insane stat or skill, it is attributed to "heroquesting".

A Heroquest to "explore mythology" is a fascinating idea, I've just never heard of one.  Except by the God Learners, and that turned out, well, poorly.

When a PC declines to gain a rune point when they sacrifice POW to join a cult, I will believe that they do it because "it is right" or "traditional".

8 hours ago, Heltver said:

Kallyr and even Jar-Eel seem more human to me and therefore a bit more interesting and sympathetic

I very much agree.  Argrath, Harrek, and the Red Emperor are much less interesting.

44 minutes ago, g33k said:

I think it does, in that both implicitly admit to wrong-doing.
An apology expresses regret.

I tend to agree with you and @Ynneadwraith.  Especially if atonement is "offered".

The fact that Yelm "demanded" atonement gives me pause - too reminiscent of war reparations.  But I'm probably going way too far into the textual Glorantha rabbit hole here...  (And Jeff clarified his intent)

33 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I used the word "atonement" because I view it as more serious and substantive than a mere apology. So I don't think this makes the point you are trying to make.

Thank you for this clarification.  Works for me.

10 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

It's a core tenet of the Lightbringer's story.

I'm aware of the story.  I'm stating that atonement is different from an apology.

Does atonement imply apology?  Maybe?  Orlanth "entered boldly", which doesn't sound apologetic.  But making a "bid for friendship" does.

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Yinkin, for an eye, Humakt for a family member, Yelm for a life, and some other I don't know. After all the well of Daliath was a little bit hard with him

Can you please cite sources / links for some of these?  Maybe it's my google-fu - a Google search of "Orlanth Yinkin Eye" got nothing relevant.  A Well of Daliath search for "apolog" brought up one item, Orlanth apologizing for stealing Death.

I'd also argue that Well of Daliath shouldn't be the primary source for this stuff.  I, and many others, just paid a lot of money for new books. 

Neither Mythology nor the Lightbringers Cult book contain the word apology.  They don't mention Orlanth and Humakt reconciling!  There is no statement, anywhere that I have found, that Orlanth apologized to Yelm.  If there is one, please cite the source or link.  (I agree that Orlanth did correct his mistake)

Stormfall is noted in the books as a defeat for Ygg, Valind, and Vadrus.  And "other storm gods".  Which, I guess, by implication, includes Orlanth.  Would have been much better to expressly call him out for this key battle in myth.

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

Orlanth fails, and gets defeated, but perseveres against the odds.  Orlanth is the only god who ever admits he did something wrong too.

Please, I'd like more information on this.  I have, yet again, reread the Orlanth writeup in Cults of Runequest, The Lightbringers.

1. There is a brief mention "sometimes defeated temporarily", or "He was scorched ... yet survived". but zero details. 
   1. Who defeated Him?
   2. What were the downsides?  Lunars, Yelmalio, Uz, they have mythical downsides.  Orlanth?
2. I don't see where he ever admits he did something wrong.  To whom did Orlanth apologize, and what did he say?  There should be some "Bad Poetry" used for a formal Orlanth apology ritual.

There is a fair chance that the Carmanian Hazar is himself an initiate of Humakt.  Especially if he is more "old school". 

Otherwise Yanafal, another highly honorable cult.

32 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I suspect tighter writing would resolve 80% of RQG issues. The rest is just clunkiness here and there. I am only talking about the technical aspect (rules) of RQG. The setting aspect (fluff) is currently very good.

Well said!

8 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Say what you will about D&D, but the Standard/Move/Minor action economy there worked really well.

Our group, and the late Steve Perrin's, use a slightly modified version of this.  It isn't perfect, but it's much quicker & simpler than Strike Ranks.

Our group sometimes wonders mildly about Argrath's sexuality.  He is extremely powerful and charismatic.  Many compare him to Jagger or Bowie - a rock star babe magnet.  Yet there is no canonical mention of lots of Argrath bastards children.  Though, no canonical mention of Annstad kids either.  So maybe it's just assumed...

Mainly mentioning this as Annstad knocked up my PC, and surely many others, so seems like Argrath has too?

8 hours ago, Darius West said:

Argrath is illuminated, and that means that he is able to see opportunity in the sort of calamity that would drive everyone else to despair

I agree with everything in your excellent post, other than the above sentence.  I don't think that Illumination has such an effect.  If it does, it's very very indirect.

OP is dead on.

Maybe Orlanthi / "Storm Tribe" aren't actually morally good "good guys", but they are clearly the intended target for RQG player characters.  Which is a reasonable design decision by a small game company with limited resources.

43 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

No sensible GM would say "under no circumstances would I allow an Elemental Rune to augment a skill that isn't within its skills category."

Agree.

However,  I (and some others) think that such an exception should be, well, an exception.  Not the norm.

8 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

Rulebooks can't defend you against pettifogging rules-lawyers: only GMs can do that. It's their job.

Ultimately, you are correct.  However, clear rules can help.

In this example (Climb), the rules are actually very clear, and support a strict application for elemental runes.

"An Elemental Rune may be used to augment the adventurer’s chance with a single non-combat skill within its skills category..."

7 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I have no issue augmenting if the Rune seems appropriate. For climbing, I'd accept at least Air, Earth, Water, Movement, and Harmony.

We allow Runes and Passions as Augments / Inspiration.  But tend to be on the strict side.

If the GM is liberal in accepting "off" runes, it quickly devolves into the player always using their highest, or maybe 2nd highest, rune.  Which usually means Air, Earth, or Movement for the typical PC.  As @Crel notes, GM strictness "encourages Runic diversity".

Also, you'll get more arguments.  For example, why are you accepting Earth or Harmony for Climb?  Then the GM spends minutes explaining why they think Harmony is appropriate, and probably get a lot of confused looks and counter arguments...

This is one of many cases where I think the rules are hard to interpret and adjudicate...

19 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

First, runes and associated personalities, passions, ... make the game rich and dense. They are not complicated to use

I agree with your conclusion that "RQG's combat needs a cleanup".  Or at least a semi-official "quicker combat rules"

As for Runes and Passions, I don't think they are "simple".  Well, the rules themselves are simple. Except...

1. when it comes down to the GM deciding if a Passion or Rune is applicable for an augment.  Then it's a a mess.  I remember a White Bull episode where Jeff let's a PC use Air to augment their Climb to get over the walls of Pavis.  Isn't Water the proper Rune for that?  If not, why write guides for the runes at all?  And much of the time Jeff just says "no", you can't try any Inspiration for this simple situation.
2. when, in a roleplaying situation, a GM requires a PC to roll their super-high Death or Love XXX and the player really doesn't want to follow the result.
3. when they fail their Inspiration and the rules subtly vary between Passions and Runes.

15 hours ago, Bohemond said:

It helps to keep in mind that granting hospitality is doing the guest a favor, and it creates a status imbalance...

Disagree.  If the Tribal Leader or King of Sartar arrive in Apple Lane, the Thane would still offer Hospitality, right?  I doubt that it becomes an issue.

If you have actual Gloranthan counterexamples, that would be interesting.

6 hours ago, Bohemond said:

That raises an interesting question. Many real world belief systems include the idea that divine beings occasionally visit incognito to test hospitality (Judaism, early Christianity, Greek and Norse paganism are the ones I can think of off the top of my head). But Gloranthan deities can't do this anymore--it would violate the Compromise. So do Gloranthans actually have the idea of 'the god disguised as a stranger'? 

Good and interesting question.  However, Cults of Glorantha, Earth Goddesses, says that Glorantha deities may visit incognito.  Page 71:  (there may be other examples too)

Quote

Since Time Began
Donandar wanders the world incognito as an ordinary wayfaring songster, bringing warmth and cheer to the folk he meets. Everyone is careful to welcome and be hospitable to all entertainers in hopes that they may someday host Donandar himself, bringing good luck forever after to their house.

17 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

That's fair.

Personally, I'd just change the rule instead. Perhaps I might make it only offer half protection against crits...

In RQG, where rune magic is more common and reusable, our tanks frequently have something like Shield 5 and Prot 4 or 6.  16 points of magical armor, even halved, makes them immune to trollkin sling stones and (nearly) multi-missiled arrows.  If not halved, they would be immune to a lot.

I get here you are coming from, it sure seems like magic should protect, but be careful with changes.