Squaredeal Sten

Suggestion: Play "theater of the mind" just as many people do face to face. You don't need the roll20 graphics nor do you need an electronic die roller. I am having fun GM'ing on Zoom.

That gives us a handle on the horse trainer part of the thread. But can a trainer train more than one horse at the same time? If not simultaneously, then does a trainer work the horse all day, or do one in the morning and one in the afternoon? If we assume a ratio of one trainer per horse: Then if a riding horse must be trained 5 years and sells for 75L, then with a cost of 40L the trainer is only gaining 25L over 5 years = 5 L a year. So unless several can be trained at once it makes no sense to be a trainer of riding horses, the income is only 5L per horse per year. And that assumes that the horse doesn't have to be fed - though in the RW there is a saying "eats like a horse". If training a warhorse (the step above cavalry mount) , standard price for the war-trained Daron is 225L, cost is still 40L, that's a gain of 185L over 10 years, or 18.5L a year. (Training 13 years that's 14.2L a year )That is still not a Free standard of living unless more than one warhorse can be trained at a time. So under those training time assumptions, the Runequest equine economy breaks down. What different assumptions can we make to make horse training a practical occupation?

Since the original question is " how many horses would you reckon it would take to make the 80 Lunars a year ", the amount of land is moot - it's the size of the horse herd that matters. Given the breeding numbers Darius West provided, (though you should also figure lifespan in there when you use the doubling time) the only remaining variables are the breed and the training status of the newly bred horses: 40L for "meat", 75L for a Daron trained to ride, 150L for the same Daron trained as a cavalry mount, 225 trained as a war horse. (RQiG p.410) I would separate the value of the hide in producing horses from the value of the trainer's work training them, and calculate the hide using "meat" value: 40L per horse. So to get 80L profit per year, you need to breed and sell at least 2 horses a year - and often 3, in order to replace your breeding stock as it ages. Make that a constant 3 per year since in a world where children don't necessarily survive to maturity neither will all horses. Assuming a 20% fertility rate, if you are raising Darons then you need 3x5 = 15 mares and one stallion. If you are raising Goldeneyes, you only need 5 mares and one stallion to produce one colt a year and you will still make an above-average income from your hide of horses. Now there is an implied next step: If someone will tell us how long it takes to train a horse as a riding horse, a cav mount etc. we can tell how many horses a year a horse trainer will train to make a Free standard of living. Interestingly, "horse trainer' is not among the occupation listed in RQiG.

Party city ? Can't be, they have to work some time to achieve their high staddard of living and exports.

Source? Are you the author?

Seems to me thar Chalana Arroy folks worry about beings with living bodies. Spirits have no special claim to consideration. Disease spirits are anathema because they harm bodies and do nothing else. However they are also an opportunity to increase POW so the CA will actually gain by defeating them.

Thanksgiving here in the U.S. has made me think of festivals or celebrations in known Glorantha. Other than SacredTime, I think - but am not certain - that there are no canon festivals or celebrations other than cult holy days. ? Perhaps a celebration of Voria in Sea Season, though I can,t reference its timing ? Please correct me with any you can reference. However non canon events include the planting and harvest events in Six Seasons in Sartar. Which are also cult events, just not on the holy day calendar. What other non canon celebrations can you reference? Descriptions of them? I believe the Lunars will have some religious and regime oriented celebrations. Not sure where they may fall on the calendar. Then there are the non agricultural populations. How about events in Prax? Do the Uz and/or the Aldryami celebrate repeating events on the calendar? Has anyone written descriptions of such?

In my opinion it would be an unusual case, but i can think of some circumstances in which you would have time to do an augment: 1) The Crimson Bat is coming. This has automatic morale effects, a 4KM chaos scream according to the Bestiary. You can see this thing a long way away, as it is flying high. You have plenty of time to cast a spell like Face Chaos, also to improve your POW vs POW resistance to the Demoralize by singing an appropriate hymn. It depends on your GM as to whether that tactic can work. 2) You encounter someone backed by Jack o Bears, as in a certain adventure... anyway the Jack o Bear only harmonizes one victim per round IAW the Bestiary. It harmonizes the adventurer next to you and you can deduce that you may be next. You look for something to augment your POW and resist it - perhaps Meditate? If the GM agrees that is reasonable, they you may do it.

Sure enough it is there, Runeblogger. A pre-Dragonrise map, just what I wanted. Thank you.

I would have sworn i saw a map or sketch of Wilmskirirk, other than the sketch of Jeff's posted in Well of Daliath here https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/websites/facebook/2021-10-jeff-on-facebook/#ib-toc-anchor-17. But i sure can't find it now. If anyone can point me to it that would be good.

I hope hits on the soloquest will be used to estimate the reach of the BRP RQ forum-

i did indeed buy Secrets of Dorastor through Jonstown - but note that a single copy of the original Dorastor book, Dorastor - Land of Doom (RuneQuest (Avalon Hill)) is now listed by an on line bookseller for $175. https://www.abebooks.com/Dorastor-Land-Doom-RuneQuest-Avalon-Hill/31052629460/bd?cm_ven=nl&cm_cat=trg&cm_pla=want_CM&cm_ite=viewbook

My responses below are definitely not officiall, buti favor sticking to the most recent official material. 1. *Do people, non-Clearwine militia or queen's men, wear armor and carry weapons in the city-fort, is it allowed? Except for queen's and city guard at the gate on duty, I wouldn't expect people to run around in armor when they are engaged in ordinary daily business. But allowed is another thing: People coming in and out of the city may be armored, as I would expect folks to be armed when traveling, and Clearwine is a center of trade. If you habitually run around in armor the neighbors may get nervous. 2. *Is the Ernalda temple located right outside the city or about 3-4Km away as shown on the map in Quickstart rules p27? I go with the map that came with my RQiGslipcase set. The Ernalda temple is right next to the city walls. 3. *Is the champion Nameless, from GM's Pack, .....Is Hareva Chan (FB post on Sartar book) or Hareva Weaver (GM Kit) the owner of The Ram's Head I go with the GM pack. 4. Can a Humakti cast rune and spirit magic during the week they can't speak due to a Humakti no-speak geas? The rules are not specific about exactly how you cast any spell. P.254 does say that a focus is commonly used for spirit magic, but there is a wide choice of possible foci; and you can still cast without a focus if you take more time. It doesn't say you need to speak any formula. You as GM are free to run it as you wish - but i suggest you tap your players' imaginations as to how they cast spells. I do note that spells can be cast by spirits without mouths and tongues, also by spirits bound into animals that don't have the usual equipment for human speech. You don't need a focus for rune magic, p.314, and p.314 specifically says 'the caster recites the invocation to the god, either aloud or in the mind." So it seems to me that your silent Humakti can do it "in the mind". Or maybe just mouth the words. it also seems to me, just my own taste, that that particular geas will be annoying enough in the ordinary course of adventuring, so there's no need to add to the annoyance.

Ordered mine with no problem. And downloaded my PDFs. This will take weeks to digest. A tremendous lot of material. Admittedly the rules book is redundant to the RQiG book I already have but the package is great. Jonstown is relevsnt to current campaign so I am already happy. Thanks!

All right, let’s run through the same Orlanthi & aldryami scenario with those methods Let’s assume neither side begins with a significant advantage. Let’s make the points for Bargaining differential as follows: 4 levels e.g / Crit vs. Fumble = 4 3 levelx (e.g. Crit vs. Fail 0 =3 2 levels e.g Special vs. Fail =2 1 level e.g Success vs. Fail =1 0 level;s e.g. success vs. success = 0 Here is my test run through. I still assumed an additional rule; you can only use each augment once. Both the GM and the PCs prepare lists of Bargaining goals, divided into The PCs (Orlanthi) ‘A. Land to feed/house added people : cost 10 B.1. Not to fight B.2 Firewood B.3. Grazing land cost 5 C; Avoid fighting cost 2 The Aldryami (GM) cost 10 A. Preserve their forest B.1. Allies against nearby Uz; B.2. Access to Ernalda temple; B.3. To expand their forest cost 5 C.1. Avoid fighting both clans of Orlanthi at once, a 2-front war; C.2. Avoid fighting any Orlanthi cost 2 The initial bargaining rolls are the same as in the previous test: Orlanthi:: Bargainng, will augment with Aldryami lore 15% and Sartar lore 40% The augments; Aldryami lore 91 fail Sartar lore 15 success Bargaining roll at 50%+20% 06 special Aldryami: Bargaining, augment with Earth rune 70% and Human lore 20% The augments: Earth rune 75 fail Human lore 58 fail Bargaining roll at 40% 44 fali Special vs. Fail gives the Orlanthi 2 points. Choice round 1: You say it’s going to be player-character driven so… Orlanthi want to buy their A, and have 2 points, so need 8. The Orlanthi buy 8 points with the following concessions: Aldryami B1 allies against nearby Uz =5, Avoid fighting any Orlanthi =2 , Avoid fighting both Orlanthi clans at once =2 Total Orlanthi points available now = 11 (one over). This will buy their ‘A”, Land to feed/house added people : cost 10 At this point the Orlanthi want to stop. Note however that if the Aldryami had gamed it better and only named one ‘C” the Orlanthi would be short one and need to throw in access to the Ernalda temple, or the other possibility would be for the alliance to take Uz land. Each side has at least one item on their list, and an item of the same level or one lower than the highest level item on the other side. This fulfills the ending criteria. End of negotiation. Now is that satisfying? Do you have the feeling that bargaining took place? How about if the GM role-plays it a little, providing a conversational interchange (to be modeled)?

Tnat's as good point, and a good idea on building give and take into the mechanics. I would also like to build in an option for each side to have an initial offer 9as distinct from an initial request or goal). Something like the Orlanthi in our example having a goal of negotiating for land but also bring willing to pay for it in some way. This would not be a requirement, instead it wold be an option. Now since the initial opposed bargaining rolls can start each side off with a number of points, 1) How many total points? For the initial points, and for the total point value of the bargaining items? I suggest keeping those numbers fairly low - something like a total of 10 or 20 points, and a crit vs. a fumble giving an initial 4 points to the crit side vs. 1 point for the fumble side. 2) How do we set the point value of items from the two sides' lists? 3) How do we account for one side starting with a stronger bargaining position? Something like negotiation between the stronger Lunar occupying forces and the weaker Sartarites circa 1620ST? Or for the Orlanthi in our test example potentially using their new population to fight? I would think that the simplest way is for the GM to value that a an augment. But I'm definitely not stuck on that idea If the previous list format of 1 A, 1 to 3 B, and up to 3 C is acceptable- then as a starting idea how about a 10 point base, 4) What are the rules for the negotiation continuing or ending? 5) What impact will augments have?

then they would have gotten to choose 2/3 of their 'A" item or one B item. A. Preserve their forest; B.1. Allies against nearby Uz; B.2. Access to Ernalda temple; B.3. To expand their forest If that were the ONLY die roll change, then if the Aldrymi chose A, 2/3 of Preserve their forest, then at the end of round 3 they would not quite have that. But if they chose B3, expand their forest, then i see a way that that is not a contradictory result (read 3 paragraphs down). But I do see that we need a rule to resolve contradictory items, such as the Orlanthi getting more land and the Aldryami getting "to expand their forest" or 'preserve their forest". I'd appreciate your own views on how we might do that. The GM can't allow a true contradiction. However I can see that one way to satisfy both of these and still fulfill the literal terms of the bargaining points is to ally against the Uz and take the Uz land, either dividing it equally or compensating the Aldryami for anything ceded to the Orlanthi with 100% of the Uz land. So the GM will have to do some interpretation here. I would also say that if the two sides' rolls produce an un-resolvable contradiction then there is an impasse and no deal.

Here is my test run through. i assumed an additional rule; you can only use each augment once. Both the GM and the PCs prepare lists of Bargaining goals, divided into A. One Most Important thing they want B. Two Less Important things they want C. Up to three Things they want to avoid Starting 8:35PM-8:50PM (lots of typing and thought about the Aldryami here, world buildling should already be in GM’s mind) The PCs (Orlanthi) ‘A. Land to feed/house added people B.1. Not to fight B.2 Firewood B.3. Grazing land C; Avoid fighting The Aldryami (GM) A. Preserve their forest B.1. Allies against nearby Uz; B.2. Access to Ernalda temple; B.3. To expand their forest C.1. Avoid fighting both clans of Orlanthi at once, a 2-front war; C.2. Avoid fighting any Orlanthi 3. Both sides do Bargaining rolls, which may have reasonable augments. Round 1: Orlanthi: Bargainng, will augment with Aldryami lore 15% and Sartar lore 40% The augments; Aldryami lore 91 fail Sartar lore 15 success Bargaining roll at 50%+20% 06 special Orlanthi choose 2/3 of A, and Insight roll, Insight Aldryami is basic 0 + bonus 15%, roll a 36, fail Aldryami: Bargaining, augment with Earth rune 70% and Human lore 20% The augments: Earth rune 75 fail Human lore 58 fail Bargaining roll at 40% 44 fail Round 2: Orlanthi Bargaining, Augment with Man rune, 60% Augment roll 77, fail Bargain roll vs. 50%, 60, fail Orlanthi Bargaining, Augment with Man rune, 60% Augment roll 77, fail Bargain roll vs. 50%, 60, fail aldryami Bargaining, Augment with Plant rune, 80% Augment roll 68, success aldryami Bargaining, Augment with Plant rune, 80% Augment roll 68, success Bargain foll vs. 40%+20% is 23, success Aldryami choose C.2. Avoid fighting any OrlanthiBargain foll vs. 40%+20% is 23, success Insight rolls; orlanthi 70, fail Aldryami 85, fail Negotiation continues- Round 3: Bargaining, Augment with Darkness rune, 30% Gift/ bribe GM values at 10% Augment roll 39, fail Bargain roll vs. 50%+10% is 39, success Orlanthi choose 1/3 of (A), This gives them A, land Bargaining, Augment with Man rune, 50% Augment with Sartar lore, 40% Augment roll s 47%, success 26^, success Aldryami choose one item from (B), B.1. Allies against nearby Uz argain roll vs. 40%+ 40% = 26, success Aldryami choose one item from (B), B.1. Allies against nearby Uz Insight rolls: Orlanthi 45, fail Aldryami vs. 15%, 18, fail Orlanthi take their option to settle for what has already been negotiated. The Orlanthi will get some land – the amount at GM’s discretion since it was not specified – And have pledged not to fight the Aldryami and to ally with them against the Uz. The Aldryami achieved a B goal and will not walk away. I was finished by 9;50, so over an hour on my end - but most of my time was spent typing and I type slowly. I also had to do some world building on the Aldryami side. Each side had to do three Bargain rolls and five or six augment rolls. and I as GM had to evaluate on gift/bribe which i had thought of as Orlanthi.. Your thoughts on how the test ran?

What will make the non-combat scenes as exciting as combat? And, by the way, make them last longer than a single die roll, with actual player choices and not just time-wasting = so the non-combat scene is not just a minute's break between fights? My only thought is the dramatic pattern of rising to a dramatic climax, and then the falling action of playing out the results. Your thoughts, though? Specifically about the Negotiation scenario? And how do we structure that so it will be played by players and GMs who are not good negotiators in the Real World?

Well this is about negotiation , not just bargaining over a price. Bargaining over a price is already handled on p.168 of RQiG, in which IF you do a single skill roll a special gets you a 25% add or subtraction from standard price and a crit gets you 50%. But if we are negotiating over a multi-part package of mostly non-monetary exchanges and concessions, then I'd want to take the advice in the first full paragraph on the right hand column on that page: " ...Bargaining is about compromise." So how do we set up a mechanic to get the players as characters to compromise and do it in as engaging a way as combat? And lead them through negotiation even if as Real World people they are not good negotiators? I think your "initial phase of IC talking that sets up the negotiation, which would provide the basic context for what is happening. It's partly from that that the lists would grow from ... " is right. But I'd like a slightly more involved mechanic to actually get the players into the compromising. I see the single die roll as cutting corners on that. So how do we actually get the players into the compromising? My draft 1 approach was to have them win or lose on the multiple issues by winning or losing issue by issue. If it's clunky then please suggest how to improve it or replace it, or suggest another path to get them into the compromising. I'm thinking of playing it out and seeing how many die rolls are really involved - Would you care to set a scenario from which we can derive a test set of issues or proposals?

Yes, because the PCs start with uncertainty. And because that uncertainty is realistic, unless the adventurers already know tbe NPCs well. Question, how would you decide that "know well" issue with or without dice? But the NPCs' goals should become evident as the negotiation progresses. Perhaps we will get more comments about how quickly the NPCs' goals should be revealed, and appropriate mechsnics or criteria for doing that.

Stupid? How about disadvantaged? Am I wrong in saying that It only takes one side to go into spirit combat - so a more powerful spirit could press the attack, and the priest of the less powerful wyter would just be stuck with that wyter suffering an attempted possession? Having Distraction ready to cast certainly sounds like a good tactic if you have Distraction. But most will not, CHA is not infinite so you can't have every spirit spell for every contingency. It does look like good advice for the priest though.

How does this look for a first draft of the negotiation model / form? 1. Negotiation only starts when the targeted side is interested. To get there use the Persuasion form. The GM should shift to negotiation when after persuasion, the resistance scale is down to "Inclined", (that is from 1 to 3 on an 11-point scale from 10 to 0) and the GM sees Bargaining as fitting the story line. Role play the shift to negotiation, at least briefly 2. Both the GM and the PCs prepare lists of Bargaining goals, divided into A. One Most Important thing they want B. Two Less Important things they want C. Up to three Things they want to avoid Naturally the GM is doing this on behalf of the NPC(s) and the GM's list should reflect the extent of world building and character creations or lack of it. If that extent is zero then do it on the fly, you are the GM! The GM's list may be kept concealed. 3. Both sides do Bargaining rolls, which may have reasonable augments. Crit - get (A) One Most Important thing or preclude one item from (C), or cause the other side to give up one item from their own (B). Special - get either 2/3 of (A) or one item from (B) Success- get either 1/3 of (A) or 1/2 of one item from (B) or preclude one item from (C). Failure - get nothing Fumble - have to take one item from their own (C) or must give up one item from their own (B). 4. At this point the PC(s) may make an Insight roll to discover one item on the NPCs/GM's list, and if that roll is successful then the item is arbitrarily or randomly revealed by the GM. Regardless of whether Insight is attempted, If one side has achieved all their (A) and (B) list then they will opt to end the negotiation. However at that time if the other side has not achieved any (A) or (B) item then that side may walk away and declare NO DEAL. If neither of those ending criteria apply, then now each side has the option to continue the negotiation or stop and settle for what is already negotiated. The players play this decision and the GM GMs this IAW their concept of the situation and adventure. 5. If both sides opt to continue the negotiation, repeat step 3 above. If one side fumbles twice or fails three times and has not achieved their (A ) item, then they may walk away and declare NO DEAL. That is my first draft of the negotiation model / form. Your thoughts?

Let's say we have two spirits fighting each other: For instance an allied spirit vs. another random spirit or vs. a wyter, or the regimental wyters of two mercenary units: If one of the spirits gets low on magic points, tries to disengage but does not succeed in that round's spirit combat roll, then it won't be able to disengage (RQiG p.370). it is clearly in trouble! But what sort of trouble? Such a losing spirit could be reduced to zero magic points. In that case, can it be controlled by the winning spirit? I ask because unless I'm missing something, the rules only speak to control of a corporeal being by a spirit (p.370, possession), or control of a spirit by a discorporate shaman (p.368), or a corporate person binding a spirit using Spirit Binding magic (RQiG p. 249, p.265). Or does the losing spirit simply retreat into the spirit world, to gradually recover its MPs? What if it is a wyter, which is incapable of recovering its own magic points (RQiG p.287, first full paragraph)?

It strikes me that we should define one single process, not two, if it is to be revealed to the players. Why? Because it's not good for suspension of disbelief if you can tell from the process whether the GM cares and has fleshed out the NPCs. If I am GMing and I haven't fleshed the NPCs out and am doing this on the fly, then I will do it on the fly, and essentially work off of the players' list plus an immediate whim of my own that may fit with the current story. What do you think of this take on it?