GAZZA

14 minutes ago, Darius West said:

1) Not everyone has shamans, and such an act is not covered in RQG, even though HQ might manage it pretty easily.

Well neither is the LBQ though - until we get actual Heroquest rules for RQG (or indeed RQ) saying that a particular effect of hero questing is or is not covered in RQG is kind of moot.

I'm curious as to why it's apparently so easy to come back to life in 13G compared to what is suggested above - I thought coming back to life was one of the first tricks any Hero worth the capitalisation learned.

It's fine, I was just pointing out that generally speaking I thought the RQ3 approach to this was better (actually I think that about a lot of things; I cannot really disagree more strongly with the decision to base RQG on RQ2 instead of 3, but here we are - just IMO of course).

The possibility of a small guy who is really tough isn't prevented by averaging SIZ and CON - it just means that if you want (for example) some sort of Pratchett Gnome (SIZ probably 1d6) you'd need a correspondingly higher CON - which honestly could be considered a feature rather than a bug. The core rules essentially require elephants to have massive CON because SIZ is comparatively unimportant, or in your case would require birds to have tiny CON for much the same reason. This isn't bad per se - any way you do it is going to have the occasional corner case - but if you're going to tinker with the rules, personally I'd tinker by starting with RQ3 instead of just swapping SIZ and CON around, because the latter has the greater possibility of unintended side effects (IMHO).

Mind you I can see an argument for saying that big creatures should be more resistant to poisons, for example (if only because they'd need a higher dosage), although you could sort of handwave that away as saying that their higher general hit points already covered that.

2 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

That would have been my preferred way as well. As long as CON values are kept in check (they do not scale with SIZ because it shouldn't), (SIZ+CON)/2 gives very sensible results and it is much more easier to figure out on the spot. Unfortunately, the official approach is different. Fortunately, aside from the added complexity, results are also mostly sensible (except for small creatures perhaps).

Right, but if we're preparing to introduce house rules swapping SIZ and CON around, I figured going back to the RQ3 method was also on the table.

I mean, averaging SIZ and CON (aka RQ3) always seemed a perfectly sensible approach to me. Basing it on CON and giving bonuses for SIZ and POW just seems like a roundabout and more complex way to get to essentially the same place.

12 hours ago, tedopon said:

HA! This thread was entertaining.

I come down fully on the side of Nuke Orlanth from Orbit and paint the whole northern continent red...but the setting is more interesting with both contradictory societies existing in opposition to one another. Both cultures have enviable traits and both cultures are nightmarishly backward in some respects.

I often think that the Crimson Bat exists to remind everyone that the Lunars aren't the good guys - because they have so many appealing features if you lose sight of the things like the Bat.

I always quite liked the RQ3 Vikings method of gaining spirit magic - for variable spells, you have to overcome the spirit's MPs with your own (neither party actually loses MPs, so you could as easily use POW vs POW), and you try until you lose. If you lose the first round, you get nothing, otherwise you get a number of points of the spell equal to the number of times you succeeded (up to whatever maximum the spirit knows).

Makes it really difficult to get something like Bladesharp 10 - the law of averages is a cruel mistress - but that might be considered a feature.

On 6/6/2020 at 9:49 PM, The God Learner said:

Perhaps this is what you're looking for? https://web.archive.org/web/20000229131322/http://www.geocities.com/Paris/8689/YAHQS.html

You might be able to contact him here: https://basicroleplaying.org/profile/7758-nils-weinander/

Very nice, cheers! Evidently I didn't look thoroughly enough, I'm glad you were able to find it, and I've snagged a copy now.  I don't think Nils has been around here since 2018 but I've shot him a PM as a fan just in case.

42 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Well, there is Vampire....

Clever. I approve, and bow to a master.

On a purely gaming level, River of Cradles has the PCs potentially come across a 2nd age God Learner "beacon" and I believe some plans for a weird machine; you could incorporate either or both of those into such a quest (RoC simply drops them in as "GM can do whatever they wish with these" maguffins).

9 minutes ago, ffilz said:

Should I be pedantic about death in chargen in Traveller? One read of the 1977 text indicates that chargen is complete with the rolling of attributes and naming the character. The previous experience system where death can occur is optional.

As to finding folks willing to pay homage to these early games? I have had no problems recruiting players for RQ1 (1978) Classic Traveller (1977) and Original D&D (1974).

What is astoundingly difficult is finding places to talk about RQ1 or RQ2 or even RQ3.

By "pay homage" I meant "other RPGs"; specifically, it is extremely rare to find a modern game that includes the possibility of dying in character generation.

And you can talk about all those other RQ versions here - by all means!

Good stuff @Joerg, I clearly came to the right place to ask.

28 minutes ago, Joerg said:

There is no way that Orlanth can abandon his marriage to Ernalda. Without her, he is no king, not the principal heir of Umath. Maybe you need to find a way for Sedenya to become both husband of Ernalda and wife of Orlanth, in a menage a trois similar to that of Daliath, Framanthe and Sramak(e). Sedenya should have the altering sex down pat.

OK so that means I apparently understand less about Heroquesting than I thought I did (and believe me that is saying something; I am now wondering if I actually have a negative amount of knowledge).

Let's suppose we have Bob the Orlanthi Hero. He goes on an experimental Heroquest and discovers a myth that shows Orlanth was actually originally a member of the Sky pantheon that co-opted a barbaric storm god's powers after defeating them, and then subsequently went on to off Yelm etc.

Bob returns to the Mundane plane.

My understanding is that this does not retroactively change the myths of all Orlanth worshippers, nor even at Bob's only temple (even if Bob is the high priest). My understanding is that at best all this does is allow Bob to create a Hero cult or subcult that has these heretical teachings - in effect, the best you can do with a Heroquest is to establish a competing religion, not alter an existing religion in place.

Now, if Bob's hero cult proves to be very useful and/or popular, it may eventually supplant existing older versions of Orlanth, and thereby organically eventually become the mainline Orlanth cult - but that is only "from now on", not retroactively.

Therefore, it seems to me that an Orlanthi hero quester could theoretically find/create a myth whereby he gives Ernalda the flick and goes for Sedenya without busting anything - such a hero would "simply" have created a new (presumably illuminated) subcult of Orlanth that may or may not eventually supplant the Ernalda-loyal version. I'm not going to suggest such a hero quest would be easy, or even feasible, but it's not clear to me that it would be utterly impossible.

Though I confess it's not clear to me how, if these limits exist, that Nysalor was able to wound Korasting, since that would seem to mean that even if he did that, he'd simply have created a new variant Kyger Litor cult that, evidently, few trolls would follow. So it seems that some hero quests must be able to alter things "without consent", as it were.

A roundabout way of saying that I know bugger all about Heroquesting, I suppose.

Glorantha is basically a bronze age culture; however, I've noted a few references in some publications to adventurers exploring "ancient ruins" (sure, it's a cliche, but for a reason) with armouries containing weapons or armour that have "rusted to uselessness".

Here's the thing - bronze is fairly corrosion resistant; like most non-ferrous metals, copper oxide acts as a protective coating against further corrosion. It's not completely immune, but in the real world you find a lot more bronze artefacts have survived the ages intact than iron artefacts, and recall that the Bronze Age came first.

So my question is - is Gloranthan bronze "rustable", or is this a (minor!) oversight?

2 minutes ago, Crel said:

Please share what you do--that sounds really interesting!

Happy to, but honestly my research will have to start with, "Holy Country, The" and proceed from there.  I suspect someone far cleverer than me has already developed something far more interesting, but I'll see what I can do.

16 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

I am reminded yet again of the moment Sandy Petersen realised the Yelmic upper classes of Dara Happa could contain a shining host of PG Wodehouse characters: worthless drones, terrifying manipulative aunts, cheerful chinless prelates and bizarrely obsessive minor nobility, holding a ceaseless whirl of house parties, sporting events and other social engagements while match-making, poaching servants and displaying ancestral trophies...

If you're saying that Yelm is actually Jeeves, or better yet Bertie... math checks out.

8 hours ago, Al. said:

Terrible starting skill percentages are an artefact of RQ2's generation of RPGs.

An old favourite is the original Black Box Traveller, which I believe was the first RPG where your PC could literally die in character creation.

This is not an idea that has aged well, nor found many willing to homage it.

Interesting stuff. As my campaign is currently in Sea or Fire season 1616 (there are two groups of PCs, each player has 2 - helps for when one or more players is absent) I suspect I'll need to work in this Belintar disappearance soon.

19 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

The skill check is done if there is a "crisis". If you worship just to worship (or to replenish rune pools) I consider it is not a crisis :

you have 95% effective and it is just a standard ceremony => no xp check

you have only 5% at effective, you don't want to show your clan how weak you are, it is a crisis => xp check

you have 95% effective and the ceremony is done to save the clan / family / heroquest => xp check

Remember that with occupational xp, you can increase your worship skill even without xp check

Well, as far as the crisis is concerned, given that the likely only times you're making Worship rolls is to regain RP, I would consider it a bit harsh not to allow a check for that.

For the rest, you seem to be implying that if I boost my skill by 90%, I don't get the check. OK, what about by 80? By 50? By 5? By 1? What happens if my skill is normally 85, and I boost it by 10 with an MP? Compare that to if my skill is normally 5, and I boost it with an MP? In the first case I moderately increased my chance of success, in the latter I tripled it. Do we award a check in one case and not the other?

Worship is only the most obvious example, of course. Basically any skill roll that has a bonus or penalty comes under scrutiny. IMG I say if you succeed at the modified skill roll, you get a check; that means if there was a penalty and your roll would have succeeded without it, tough, but if you can find a creative way to get a one time bonus and succeed only with that bonus, good for you. Mostly because it's too much mucking about to try and keep track otherwise. It probably results in a bit of skill inflation, but honestly getting to Rune status before aging penalties is tough with RAW, so I already have plenty of skill inflation house rules anyway.

Just now, jrutila said:

I wrote a review about Valley of Plenty: https://worldsofqw.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/valley-of-plenty-review/

I would appreciate constructive feedback about the review as this was my first time writing a longer review of, well, about anything. So, please be gentle.

It sucks!

Just kidding. Generally I liked it a lot; you included a link to the product (which is something a lot of reviewers forget to do), you covered the contents well, and you addressed the flaws in the product as well. You provided plenty of follow up material.

Honestly there's not a lot to hate in that review - kudos.

4 hours ago, BlindPumpkin said:

A weird quirk related to minor holy days that I've noticed is that, if you can only effectively roll worship on holy days, then why does a minor holy day give you a bonus at all? If you'll always have at least the +10 bonus from a minor holy day then why not just bump worship to 15 base instead of 5 base? I feel minor holy days shouldn't have a bonus at all, that people pray every week precisely because of the lower odds.

One can imagine other cases where you might want to make Worship rolls other than to regain Rune Points. For example, an avatar of Orlanth appears; roll Worship Orlanth successfully or get smitten by impests (or whatever). I suspect you could possibly better model that particular case with a Passion of some sort, but the general idea applies. The examples given under skill use are (I believe) not intended to be proscriptive.

An interesting side point: if I have Worship Orlanth 5, and via expenditure of magic points and sundry bonuses on a High Holy Day have an effective skill of 95+, I will likely succeed at my roll. Does this garner a skill check, even though if rolled say 45 (which would not otherwise have been a success)? RAW seems to suggest it is, and I allow it IMG, but it is a bit cheaty.

The old Champions supplement Ninja Hero had some good stuff for Wuxia (most of it later incorporated into The Ultimate Martial Artist, and possibly again in the newest edition - I'm still on FRED mostly, though I do have the sixth edition rules). Champions is somewhat similar in crunchiness to Superworld, so I imagine it could be done.

Though I share your opinion @Ian Absentia that narrative systems like QuestWorld might well be a more apt fit for superhero gaming.

My issue is that I view Glorantha primarily as a roleplaying game rather than an interactive reality. Many adventures take longer than a week - indeed, many adventures the travel time alone is more than a week. These become unreasonably complicated to schedule if, in a party of 4, there are 4 different minor holy days that have to be respected each week or risk invoking spirits of retribution.

I realise that a pat answer is that "Well, RQG isn't a game about adventurers, it's a game about members of a clan" which is fair enough, but there's plenty of published material that requires the PCs to travel and doesn't assume that the travel time will be interrupted several times per week for minor worship ceremonies (even assuming there are enough priests scattered en route to conduct them - which is itself pretty unlikely). And not all adventures can be "special exceptions because you're on temple business", especially with multiple PCs that have multiple temples to keep happy.

So at least IMG I'm going to rule that for initiates, you are required  to attend the High Holy Day and Sacred Time events, you are expected to attend Holy Day events, and you are merely welcome to attend minor holy day events. That seems fair to me, while still being reasonably playable.

I assume it's OK for most PCs to skip these, rather than have to haul their butts back to a temple every week?

10 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Think about it this way: what if one of your PCs wanted to be a weapon-smith? They would "go find the stuff they need" (leather, bronze, whatever) and then they roll their Craft skill. It makes sense that a big sword is more expensive than a dagger, and a bronze armour is more expensive than a leather one.... yet there are no mechanics for how hard it is to find or acquire bronze vs finding or acquiring leather. Both the GM and player would agree on this price difference because they both have a basic grasp of what's involved in the production of bronze vs leather. Not so much about the production of spirit spells though... so if anything, what you're missing is mostly Gloranthan lore, not mechanics. So make up something: more powerful spirits are less common than less powerful ones, or this or that spell being less common than this or that other one... go crazy and infer the world from the cost table if that helps.

I mean, to me that just points out we're missing good crafting rules as well.

Honestly this is not something that really comes up all that often - I'm not arguing otherwise. In the case of a PC wanting to make themselves a sword, I would probably arbitrarily say that most craftsmen were working on something like a 10% profit margin, and charge the PC 90% of the cost in materials or whatever. In the case of them wanting to set up shop and churn out swords for sale, I would have a choice to make. If I was prepared to let the player go down the path of Gloranthan Economic Manipulation, I'd need to figure out some reasonably robust crafting rules that were consistent with the observation that existing redsmiths were not swimming in silver. More likely I'd just say that this just counted as the appropriate Occupation and hand wave the details - which is exactly what I'd do for most cases of PC shamans as well, as you note.