GAZZA

Does Superworld not have non-combat movement as cheaper than combat movement? I doubt Superman needs to leap 1/8th of a mile in combat.

I'm not, particularly, I was responding to the quote that "it works well for early pulp heroes such as The Shadow and The Spider" followed by the suggestion of Doom Patrol, suggesting that the latter was another example of the former. Other than that I was simply noting that Doom Patrol characters are actually quite high powered superheroes - Calamity Jane would be tricky to build as a starting character in Champions, for example, and the energy being has that nasty "can attack while Desolid" feature that all superhero GMs hate (and is also expensive to build in Champions, given that it seems to be a very flexible power, capable of electrocution and mind sharing). They do not use their abilities very efficiently due mainly to psychological limitations, but Cliff is about the only one that I could comfortably build as a starting character in Champions (for example). My understanding (I haven't read the books in a long while) is that Superworld uses similar point levels to Champions (or at least the version of Champions that was around when Superworld was released), so presumably this would be true there as well. To return to the original question, though, and abandoning pulp as noted, perhaps Superworld could reasonably simulate supernatural settings. I don't mean Call of Cthulu (probably the most highly regarded game I'll likely never play), I mean stuff like vampires, werewolves, and I'm sure you recognise the references. Those often turn out to be run as Superheroes With Fangs anyway, but the WW system is terrible as a superhero game.

I'm a huge fan of Doom Patrol, but I'm not sure I'd classify them as "pulp level". Cliff Steel, sure, but he's the only example. One character has essentially "powers as the plot demands" via her 64 different personalities (each with a different power); another is an energy being with the powers of flight, radiation projection, and likely others; yet another has essentially Plastic Man's/Elongonated Man/Mr Fantastic's power set (which, fair enough, I don't think is that powerful, but these are superheroes that often work as peers to 4 colour supes); finally Cyborg (with all his powers) is part of the team too. Of course it's possible to tell grounded stories with high powered heroes... but it's the high power level, I understand, that is the concern for Superworld. (I must confess despite owning it, I've never actually tried to run a game with it - I've almost always used Champions or DC Heroes, though there's an indie game Capes that's quite fun as well). Has anyone mentioned The Boys yet? Or the TV series Heroes? (Yes, you'd have to keep out Sylar and Peter, and maybe Hiro, but the rest are pretty low powered and even Hiro isn't immune to a bullet).

I have four campaigns for various games that I'm either running or playing in at the moment. One of them is on Roll 20, and one of my players was diagnosed and admitted to hospital last week (he seems to be recovering OK, but still in hospital as we speak). The rest of us have decided to go to Roll 20 for the foreseeable future just to be on the safe side.

I apologise for any part I may have played in that. I may have been the first to use RW philosophies as an analogy. In my defence I didn't foresee that would turn into a RW history argument over whether not universal morality exists.

Or contrarily: it's cyberpunk with orks. And for cyberpunk (like most sci fi games), crunchiness often is the selling point.

With the exception of the armour rules ("only anti vehicle weapons can hurt me!") I honestly think 1st edition was probably the best. I don't get why RPGs have to have a metaplot nowadays, especially when they're as silly as WoD and Shadowrun's became. Then again, I suppose King of Sartar is Glorantha's metaplot. I don't like that either.

Harsh but fair.

Personally I usually associate it with the Shadowrun character.

I've never been to any conventions before, perhaps I'll make Chaosium Down Under 2021 the first.

I don't hate them at all, I just don't have any use for yet another RPG that I'll never actually run.

Ah, nice to see it's been written up somewhere at least. Unfortunately I don't have (and don't plan to get) any Mongoose stuff, but good on them for the effort.

Won't work for Humakti, that's the problem. (Well, maybe an illuminated Humakti, but I'm not sure even an illuminate can ignore the ban on resurrection, assuming you can find a healer willing to try it). Of course it's not exactly canonical that Humakti can return from death at all, even with a Lightbringer's Quest. I'm unaware of any solid rulings one way or the other. I'm not sure anyone undertakes any Hero Quests lightly, but the Lightbringer's Quest is pretty much the ur-Hero Quest, and the fact that we have known about the concept of Hero Questing for decades, across multiple game systems and even mediums, and it's yet to be written up is, well, disappointing.

Is there an actual write up for the Lightbringer's Hero Quest? It seems like one of the more useful ones to do (resurrecting dead comrades - indeed, if you go by 13th Age Glorantha, you can even get Humakti back that way) but I don't think I've ever seen it written up in full.

Fair enough on the resisted spells.

Well, two points: First, do you have any other example spell that is supposed to be resisted but doesn't specify it? Because frankly I'm unaware of it. Second, Control requires you to force the creature down to 0 MP in spirit combat first. So even if I accept that Spirit Binding requires you to overcome its POW - and I am by no means convinced of that - it's still better than Control (even ignoring that Control has to specify an entity type; Control Wraith and Control Ghost are different spells, Spirit Binding works on either).

Not Binding Enchantment. Spirit Binding. 1 point spell, new in RQG. You still need a Binding Enchantment. But you don't need any sort of contest to control the spirit - Spirit Binding just works (it doesn't even need to be specific to a type of spirit unlike Control).

Distraction only works if it's already in spirit combat. And RAW, it appears Spirit Binding does not allow any resistance. (If it does, it's not really clear why it exists at all, since if it can be resisted it is presumably identical to Control).

Here's another point - what does it even mean for a ritual spell to be Active? Ritual spells typically don't have a duration (and this appears to be no exception - as noted, it would appear that having been Summoned the entity can pretty much bugger off and do whatever it likes unless forced in some other way). That means that of the three descriptors (Variable, Ritual, Active) only one of them is clear in its intent. Also I'm not sure this is the boon for assistant shamans you think it is @gochie - if the prospective assistant shaman wants to cast Control, he has to reduce the spirit to 0 MPs first. As an assistant shaman cannot discorporate, and spirits cannot be compelled to enter spirit combat, there does not seem to be any way to force a neutral or hostile spirit to comply with your wishes. Then again... Spirit Binding doesn't make any mention of the spirit having to be willing... Wait. It would seem, RAW, if I have a Binding Enchantment prepared that I've sacrificed sufficient POW for, then if I encounter a 20000000 POW spirit that would "fit" in the binding enchantment, Spirit Binding gives it no resistance, no way to avoid being bound. What am I missing here? RQ3 didn't have this - you used Control (Species) to force a spirit into a binding enchantment (which, depending on the variant spirit/Divine/Sorcery, might require you to have bested the spirit in spirit combat first or at the very least to overcome its MP on the resistance table). If you still need to do that, it's not clear what Spirit Binding even does. I'm clearly missing something here; the rules on Binding Enchantments pp249-250 clearly state that Spirit Binding is a control spell, and also note that Control (Species) still works, so... does that really mean that with Spirit Binding all that dangerous mucking about with having to force spirits into your enchantments is no longer needed?

Interesting. So you're saying if you have Shield (or Countermagic) up that has to be dispelled first? That is ... interesting. I wouldn't necessarily have concluded that. I would have thought Shield and Countermagic only protect you against spells that target you directly (Disruption, Sever Spirit, Befuddle type effects), and that Dismiss/Dispel effects are targeted on your spells, not on you. That makes Countermagic a lot stronger than I had realised (Shield was already plenty strong); you could quite reasonably throw up Shield 5 to protect your Sword Trance then. I'm ... not sure that's really making the case that "Sword Trance isn't that bad because it can be Dismissed" if you can shove it behind a Shield spell. Have I misunderstood, or does this not make Sword Trance arguments to the effect "Well it will just get Dismissed" pretty much "ORLY did you not see this Shield spell I put up first?" overruled?

That looks like a mess, for sure. I think it pretty much has to be a 1 point spell because otherwise there's no feasible way your average magician will be able to summon two decent kinds of spirits (although a shaman can just discorporate and go hunting I guess); the main point of it having a cost historically (e.g. RQ3) was so that you still had to devote some INT (now CHA) to memorising it (or have a matrix, or a spirit, or whatever). I don't have a solid answer for the rest of your points though @Akhôrahil - and I can even add another in that it would appear that this sort of thing can't be done solo (unless you're really high INT and fancy your chances of nailing that INTx3 roll once you cast Control Species afterwards - and Orlanth help you if you get attacked or whatever, since then you have 2 Active spells to roll concentration for). I suppose you could rule that a Summoned entity is automatically hostile to whoever summoned it, to get around the "let the spirit loose and hope it goes after your foes first" loophole... but that's nothing more than a house rule at best. It's interesting that the most common case where you'd have someone try to do this with spirit magic would presumably be shamans, but they are also the least likely to need to (as above, just discorporate, find the spirit you want, and bash it into service).

Honestly I'm not sure there's really a problem with saying: I cast Dismiss Magic 4, and target in order Sword Trance, Shield, Bladesharp, and Protection. I mean obviously in world that's not what they'd say, but that's not really a problem. The issue happens if the target has, say, Sword Trance, Shield 5, and Bladesharp 3 up. Does the Dismiss skip over the Shield because it isn't powerful enough and just go straight to the Bladesharp? At best, unclear. But in any case, honestly if the best thing you can think of to do with your magic is to dispel the other guy's magic... then your magic kind of sucks. There are certainly cases where it's appropriate but if it's your go-to response for why Spell X Isn't Overpowered then it is a little unconvincing, as it's not really clear what spell could possibly merit the "overpowered" definition if "oh but it can be dispelled" is allowed as a defence.

I am certainly glad I asked! Wraiths are hardly rare, and I don't believe I would have come up with that from the text. Cheers.

Points about parrying weapon getting damaged and so on aside - all else being equal, that 190% and 110% match up, RAW, could take considerable time to resolve. Yes, you can use other tactics, whatever - that's essentially admitting the problem, since you wouldn't have to resort to that otherwise. As I say, I can see the reason anti parry is there. Whether or not I agree with it (I'm going to let it ride as written at first, at least) it's not a "solution in search of a problem" so to speak - the problem is real enough.

I can see the point. If I have 190% Sword and you have 110% Sword, then we're basically playing "let's see who criticals, specials, or fumbles first". Even though my skill is a lot higher than yours, we both have a 95% chance to hit and 1% fumble chance, so really it's just my 38% special versus your 22% special that matters (I am assuming we both would take no damage on a successful parry). That can take a fair while to play out. Note that I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, but I do get why some people would think so. I am not convinced that the core rule of switching that to a 100%/20% contest is particularly fair though; I go from effectively 1.5-2 times your skill to 5 times your skill, and I don't think that's really justified. (Which is why I was suggesting maybe just halving them both - 85 to 55 is the same ratio, after all). Mind you the resistance table has always had similar issues; if you have POW 10 and I have POW 20 then I have a 95% chance to overcome you, but if I have POW 2 and you have POW 1 it's only 55%. I know some people have claimed this is because the POW table is actually exponential, but I've never really bought that (if that were true, how come +10 POW only ever equals +10 magic points?) It works sort of OKish for the typical ranges it is used for (1-30 or so), so it isn't usually considered a huge deal, but if you agree with me that the range of POW (or STR, or whatever) is basically linear, then it really should be some sort of ratio. But that sort of simplification for the sake of quick play I can understand - and that's what anti-parry is doing as well.