Stephen L

Though the translation is pretty obvious even with my schoolboy French, to save even that minimal effort, here it is in English.

I'm about to set up a campaign in Balazar, so there's chances someone will have a hunter parent.

The skills in bold are those used for income calculation (unchanged from core rules).

If anyone is concerned if they are "Official", I notice that these changes haven't made the Q&A corrections (at least that I can see).

Hunter

Cultural Missile Weapon (pick type) +30%, Hide +25%, Lore (local) +10%, Animal Lore +30%, Move Quietly +25%, Conceal +10%, Listen +15%, Devise 10%, Scan +15%, Track +30%.

Fisher

Javelin, Self Bow, or Thrown Net (pick one) +20%, Craft (pick one) +15%, Shield (pick one type) +10%, Boat +30%, Animal Lore +20%, River Lore +30 %, Short Spear +10%, Bargain +15%, Swim +40%, Scan +10%, First Aid 10%.

Healer

Alchemy +10%, Plant Lore +30%, Orate +10%, Insight (Human) +20%, Devise +10%, Scan +10%, First Aid +40%, Research +10%, Treat Disease + 30%, Treat Poison +30%.

Just bumping this topic, as I'm just beginning to mull on a Balazar campaign myself.

Jon Hunter's Back to Balazar site is a useful place to start (http://www.backtobalazar.com/), but Jajagappa's detail for a citadel dweller is amazing.  Anyone anything similar for the rural clan folk, before I roll my sleeves up and dive in for myself? 

Similarly, there's enough to construct the family history tables, but anyone already had a go this?

Obviously, there'll need to be ducks, as I don't think my target audience could countenance their absence.  My kids have just infected their cousins with the roleplaying bug, and a campaign without ducks would be a non-starter.

Many thanks Cloud 64,

Ah yes, on the whole city map (p28, book 2), there are the 2 Bs, but the Bs aren't present on the upper city map (p45) and the scholars quarter map (p49) only extend far enough for the B for the lower city entrance.

Mystery solved!

I was wondering where the Jonstown Under the Hill tunnel emerges in the upper city?

I might have missed it, but I can't see it in the Jonstown descriptions in the Starter Set, either Book 2 - p47, or Book 4 - p30.

If not, given the tunnel spirals, it could come up anywhere you liked.  I was planning in the rockface at the base of the Orlanth Thunderous hill, probably opening onto the assembly grounds, perhaps between the Moon and Earth temples...

Thanks if anyone has ideas.  I was planning to run "A Fire in the Darkness" soon, and it would be handy to know...

The npc squads in the down loads has just gone through *big* update. 

As I’ve been helping out with stat generation for Ian Thomson’s Pavis projects, I’ve considerably expanded the functionality of the generation programme, so , as well as adding lots of new stuff, I’ve replaced the stats for quite a few of the older stat blocks. 

Follow the link for lots of Stat block goodies (or baddies...)

https://basicroleplaying.org/files/file/851-npc-squads-txtzip-npc-squadspdf/

These are links to what I remember of the discussions on the forum:

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/14316-battle-of-queens/

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/15497-handling-large-scale-battle/

9 hours ago, g33k said:

As von Clausewitz teaches, though, defense doesn't win the fight.  I find Parry still strictly-inferior (to Bladesharp & Bludgeon), in that -- while it keeps you from falling -- it doesn't advance the fight towards your victory... it merely delays your defeat!

I disagree.  I can't remember who (might be Wellington) said something along the lines of the "battle is one by he who makes fewest mistakes", but, in general in RQ, a successful parry blocks a huge amount of damage, and it's missing the parry that often ends the combat...

Congratulations, and super excited on this!

On 3/22/2022 at 5:49 PM, Ironwall said:

so the Bestiary states the ogres innate chaotic taint wont give them away when joining non chaos cults.

Funny, I read the Bestiary entry entirely opposite to how you are.

For 

Quote

Ogres sometimes join local cults where their
innate Chaotic taint will not give away their secret.

I read that, where their innate Chaotic taint is not a giveaway, they can join a cult.  But where is it, they can't (unless, of course the cult doesn't care about chaos members).

No matter how I read it, just can't make it mean that that their chaos taint is unreadable when trying to join a cult.

I'd point out that a weapon breaks on -ve its initial HP and at 0 HP is "just" non functional.

P200, Core rules:

Quote

Like a human limb, a weapon can take damage equal to its normal hit points below 0. For example, a broadsword has 12 hit points, and can be reduced to –12 hit points. If these points are exceeded, the weapon is destroyed utterly, unrepairable, and may not even be salvageable.

I'd rule that weapons on 0 or less are not repairable in the field, but could be repaired at a smithy/armourer, and wouldn't need re-enchanting.

It's only beyond -ve initial hit-points that I'd have that the weapon needs to be remade rather than repaired, so would need re-enchanting. 

I've not seen many weapons break...

Survival Covenant.

p118 core rules:

Quote

Then Waha performed his greatest deed: he arranged the Survival Covenant. His mother, Eiritha, through her connections with Ernalda, would support most of the people with the plants she sent from her home beneath the earth: the other people would live on the bodies of those who ate the plants. The peoples of Prax, both men and animals, agreed that this sacrifice was necessary for the survival of all. The men and animals of Prax chose lots to see who would eat, and who would be eaten. In most cases, men won. The exception was the Morokanth: of all the animals on the plains only they would treat men as their herd beasts.

(Admittedly it's much easier to find if you've remembered what you're searching for!)

I don't know how canonical it is, but in the upland marsh special of the tales of the reaching moon, upland marsh special (19), in an article by Rick Meints, he was promised all the corpses of the dead.

So he must have felt a bit cheated when the bat came and ate them all!

On 2/7/2022 at 8:26 AM, KPhan2121 said:

In the vanilla BRP rules, there isn't a reason to use a shield at least for melee combat since it deprives you from using a more powerful 2H melee weapon

I'm not an expert in the BRP rules, but in RQinG (which suffers the same issue with shields, though they've one or two advantages which won't translate to BRP).

But RQinG allows you to parry more than once, each successive parry is at -20%.

But perhaps you could apply something similar here:  

That the first use of an weapon/shield to attack parry, is at full chance.  Then if you use that weapon/shield again, its at -20%

So if you've a dedicated attack and parry weapon or shield, you attack and parry are a full chance. 

If you're using one weapon, your first action (attack say) is at full chance but your second action (parry in this example) is at -20%.  So your 2H weapon has some disadvantage to 1H weapon + shield (or indeed 2x1H weapons)

It seems a simple rule, and quite natural, in that if you've used a weapon in the round, it has momentum from that use, making a subsequent use more difficult.

On 2/7/2022 at 9:03 AM, Ian Thomson said:

regular RQ stats

If its RQ stat's you're after, take a look at https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/13507-npc-squads/

If that kind of thing is any use to you, I can generate high volumes of stats at low effort, and would happily lend a hand.

Of course, it might not be what you had in mind!

Just updated for Dwarves (Iron Mostali), Tusk Riders (and Tuskers), Bears, Bison, Boar, Shadow cats and wolves (replacing the previous wolves, which have been renamed Dire-wolves, which is what they were).  Also Lunar heavy cavalry (we’re just finishing the Battle of Queens, and I needed lots of baddies.  Stats for Kana who is a sworn enemy of the player characters, and led a charge against them, wildly inspired...). 

I believe that’s covered everything from the bestiary on the Wiki pages!

and yet another link:

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/13507-npc-squads/

On 2/5/2022 at 4:25 AM, Erol of Backford said:

How can Bullpen not be canonical with Greg's name on the Gazetteer?

I’m not sure whether you’re using “Canon” in the same way of as the good folk of Chaosium are (or at least seem to me to be) using it.

Canon does not mean right or wrong, or this is “officially” what the great Greg said.  Rather, Chaosium, I think, just mean that it is a consistency for all Chaosium publications to follow, so that Chaosium publications are, and will continue to be, consistent with each other.  Which is a great thing for Chaosium and its writers to aspire to.  It's a pain when something is published, and you build on it, and then Chaosium change their mind, and suddenly you've a lot of work using later published stuff which needs changing to use in your Glorantha.  (Though if those publications don't happen, then there's no problem).

But beyond that canon has no meaning.  So for you and me (unless you’re planning to publish official Chaosium material) what is canon is meaningless.  Obviously your Glorantha will vary from canon.  It has to, otherwise it becomes a strait jacket, and you and your players have no agency and cannot decide anything significant in the Glorantha setting or their actions cannot change the future timeline of Glorantha.  We all just become puppets playing out a script written by Chaosium.

If there’s a settlement Bullpen in your Glorantha, then let it be so.  If it’s a village, then canon isn’t going to name every village in Glorantha, so it’s unlikely to conflict with future canonical publications.  If it’s metropolis, then you might have to tweak published stuff when you want to use it (whenever it might be published), so things make sense in your Glorantha.

1 hour ago, DreadDomain said:

but isn't the problem that shields do not offer enough protection compared to some weapons?

Probably. 

But I'm certainly not playing with AP of Shields Weapons, because what we've got seems finely balanced for really exciting combats.  A parry will keep you safe from most blows, but it's when your shield/weapon is whittled down by those special hits that leaves you vulnerable.

Raising or lowering AP seems likely to break that balance.

22 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Your characters have too much money. Replacing a broadsword, or even more a greatsword

Not really, they're not that rich...

Largely they get their weapons as starting equipment, and have them repaired between adventures, which I assume to be much cheaper than a replacement cost.

On 2/1/2022 at 1:17 PM, jajagappa said:

Further, Chaosium released a licensed version of Thieves World and the city of Sanctuary around 1981-2 which included stats for using in RuneQuest.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thieves'_World_(role-playing_game)

13 hours ago, Manimati said:

For more than 30 years, I have been using the RQ2 rules : "Damage taken by the shield for more points than the shield can absorb in one blow is taken on the hit location rolled in the attack. The armor on the location, if any, absorbs the excess points.", which happen to be the same as p. 218 of RQG.  

I think it is a better rule than "damage goes to the shield arm". 

Indeed,

However, it does make characters more survivable using a shield, parry a critical with a shield, and you'll live (minus a left arm, perhaps), but *much* better than a random location.

Otherwise, there's little advantage to using a shield.  You might as well take a two handed weapon, and do loads of damage.

Yes shields are good at missile weapons.  But you don't need a skill in shield for that, so MiniMax the Odorous could carry a shield just for closing to the enemy, and then drop it and finish them off with his great-sword.

So I quite like RAW RAC

I know this has come up a number of time in a few threads, but I only just spotted, there is a rule clarification on this:

CHA4028 RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha – Chapter 07 Combat Q&A pages 191-206 – The Well of Daliath (chaosium.com)

(under the section the Parry)

Quote

 

Excess damage after successful parry with a shield

“A Successful Parry” on page 198: “In most cases, a hit to a shield damages the arm wielding it.”

An example on page 204:”Since he parried successfully, the attack goes through to his arm, which is clad in a 6-point plate vambrace.”

“Notes on Shield Use” on page 218:”Any damage taken by the shield above what the shield can absorb in one blow is inflicted on the hit location originally rolled in the attack.”

The last rule is different from the former descriptions. Which is right?

Go with the shield arm, which is the common-sense solution. If you intercept an attack with a shield and the shield is pierced, it will hurt your arm. 

 

23 hours ago, Soccercalle said:

I wonder if there are some good rules anywhere about handling battle with say 10-20 people. Not a large battle like Dangerford or Auroch Hills

If it were me, I would run it using the larger scale battle "rules".  I can't see why it wouldn't work for a skirmish.

31 minutes ago, David Scott said:

See the example here

David Scotts reply links to the example of the Battle of Queens.

Also the White Bull campaign has how Jeff played this through in the Chaosium house campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJNnec52PzjOWpiUFsO_8YRRDmwFG1wEK

It's episodes 10-12.

But how I play it is: the players round the table fight a normal RQ engagement as a vignette, a scene which is an element of the whole fight (but perhaps slightly more fluid, in that combatants can be swept apart, or thrown together), and then I, as GM, hand wave the rest of what's happening round them.  The example for the Battle of Queens gives an idea of how this hand waving can be done formally with battle rolls and rules like guiding passion.

I like this approach, because I *really* like the RQ combat system.  And, to me, a battle or skirmish is the perfect show case for it (at least for me and my players).  And what I've seen of the battle rules, I can't see these would need much variation to handle small skirmishes up to apocalyptic battles.

On 1/25/2022 at 7:45 PM, Soccercalle said:

I was looking thru the skill levels of the pregens PCs.

I then looked at some of the top NPCs.

Good point well made.

A few observations:

I *think* but am not sure, that Leika and Nameless are all real player characters from Gregs RQii house campaign.  There was a jump in skill levels, RQiii characters were better than RQii characters, and RQ in G are even better.  Whilst I'd believe they'd been given a brush up for the RG in G, I wouldn't be surprised if they hadn't changed significantly.

They might not need to, as RQ in G Player Characters are heroes.  Starting out, they are the same age of Kallyr Starbrow, when she did her Hero Quest for the star fragment set in her brow.  So that's probably a better standard to measure by.

On 1/28/2022 at 9:38 AM, JRE said:

I think what is missing is that real people (and therefore well designed NPCs) lose skills as we age.

Yes, but more significant if you are at the *very* top of a skill, then any time off and it immediately fades significantly.  

I can only speak of music. I'm not that good pianist and organist, and I can tell when I go away for two weeks holiday and haven't practiced.  Lock down meant I couldn't practice the organ for a few months, since the churches were shut, and it was depressingly rubbish when I started to play again.  My great aunt was a concert pianist, and the disruption WW2 meant she *never* returned to the same level.

I'd believe that were true also for athletic skills (music technique is just muscle memory).

18 hours ago, JRE said:

What I probably used too many words to say is that you cannot judge NPCs by PC standards, specially improvements.

I agree.  Should Leika's and Nameless's skills be higher.  Maybe, maybe not.  Ultimately they could whop my group's player characters with their skills as they are, so I probably wouldn't worry whether it should be 150% not 120%, 190% not 140%, it wouldn't make much difference.

And I doubt it's worth the game designers worrying too much about it, because it will depend on the different campaign style at every roleplaying table.  For people playing high level campaigns undoubtedly they should be higher, and for those playing lower level ones they should definitely not be.

As an aside, my RQii/iii characters, when they'd been knocking about quite a bit and campaigns invariably wound down, had typically got to around 80% or so in their best skills.  That for me was a sweet spot for the RQ game mechanics.  Fights or other contests would generally be resolved in a few rounds or rolls, when someone failed their skill or parry, the opening their opponent was waiting for, and hoping for a good roll/damage.

On 1/26/2022 at 6:55 PM, Kränted Powers said:

One of the Game Masters' Black Belt techniques is to guide the style of the play by rewarding XPs. 

If I were a good enough GM to have any black belt techniques, the one I would aspire to would be quite the opposite: how do I encourage the players to guide the play, and not how do I guide it.  That, for me, is best for encouraging player involvement. 

For me what works is asking players questions.  Why do you think you failed that roll? What happened?  How do you think Queen Leika will react, now that you’ve killed Asthmatic Bob?

That’s how I get the players involved, because we are all deciding together how the story unfolds, and how we interpret the dice, and the GM is only the conduit by which the players interact with an unknown scenario.

20 hours ago, Kränted Powers said:

Yes, I understand. 
I think the opposite way – it is not fair to punish the players who actively participate and contribute to the story, only if one of the players happens to be the more passive type of a player.

Rewarding the players for many various things gives them more options to "shine". I have good experience with rewarding; a silent guy who used to solve all the challenges nowadays seems to enjoy bringing his character to live on the table etc. And sometimes the challenge is solved without any dice or skill rolls. Then the reward system works nicely. But, hey, everybody has their own style. 

I must admit, I’m struggling a little with this.

I suspect that it’s that I haven't much (positive) exposure to other Role Playing systems.

But have a rewards system for players makes as much sense as a rewards system for the GM, narrative points for each moment of cleverness they bring to the table.

But the RuneQuest system naturally rewards “good” (whatever that might be) roleplaying from everyone, GM and players alike. 

At the simplest level, players get a check for skills they use.  One check, no matter how often.  And if it’s an occupational skill, they don’t even have to use it.  So, players naturally start to think of different solutions to situations, rather than resorting to the same old tactics.  And referees are pulled in after, trying to dream of situations that are open and encourage a wide range of responses.

At the scenario level, the published settings are all about the cultures the characters are immersed in, and the scenarios naturally involve interacting with the rich cultures and people of Glorantha as a driver.  That is really how the characters progress, who they know and impress and annoy as they make their way in the world.

At a deeper level, the magic system involves an interaction with sprits and temples and their hierarchies, and gods themselves, and the myths of Gorantha, so you are naturally pulled into the building blocks of Glorantha, Runes and Myths, as you play.

For me, RuneQuest is the system, where the designers have stood back and thought, what is “Fun” about “Good” roleplaying, and designed a system around that.  So it all just happens naturally when you play the game. 

For me, a XP reward system is an admission of failure in the game, the system is getting in the way of having fun, it’s rewarding behaviours that are a bit dull, and there is a need to balance it out somehow.  That’s why I play RuneQuest, which doesn’t need it.

Having said *all* that, whilst RuneQuest doesn’t *need* a rewards system, if that rewards system is fun, then I can see you might enjoy using it, if it works for you and your gamers.

15 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

3 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

Alternatively: The GM makes all the Perception Checks for the players. 

To me, this is the correct answer and what I have done for years... 

Quite so.  It's what ever works for the style of the GM and players.  We all have our tricks for how we build suspense, and how we involve the players.  And we are best employing those tricks without any worry of how we *should* be doing it.