The Problem Rune Spells (and a quick-fix for most)

[Akhôrahil]

1 minute ago, lordabdul said:

My problem with Befuddle is that I don't quite understand why it says "with deceit or clever misdirection, a Befuddled opponent might end up attacking their own party", when just before it said that a victim of Befuddle can't attack at all, even if attacked (they can only parry and defend). Am I missing something?

Yes - the rules text says you attack people who attacked you. So if you can be tricked - likely more easily due to your befuddled state - into thinking someone else attacked you... 

[Akhôrahil]

13 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

It's limited by time -- you need time to replenish the RPs you traded, and over time you'll be spending those spells.

True, but at the very least, you will use up all your Rune Points every season, effectively "saving up" anything you don't spend for the future. If you fully abuse the overabundance of holy days - Sacred time, HHD, seasonal HD, associated cult HD, weekly worship, any other opportunities - it should be possible to save up a lot. Optimized worship means hundreds of rune points per year.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Lordabdul]

Lots of good stuff in this message :

• Forcing PCs to give a portion of their loot to their temple is a good way to limit MP crystals and such. However, I don't want the players to feel like it's a "GM tax", so I have to find ways to make it look like these donations don't just disappear. It's easier in a clan-based game because these items can re-appear a couple sessions later when they are temporarily given to raiders who accompany the PCs (so that instead of having heroes and a bunch of cannon-fodder Orlanthi NPCs, we have the heroes and a bunch of decently equipped Orlanthi NPCs). The temples can also mention how the items were put to good use, give some other benefits to the PCs in return, etc. I'd love to hear more ideas on that topic, actually.
• Making combat last more than 15min is a big one yeah, which I learned early on.
  • The problem right now is that we either have detailed combat rules for short skirmishes, or fairly nonexistent rules for big battlefield encounters (although the upcoming GM guide is supposed to add rules for that...or is it the campaign book?). The battlefield rules don't have anything to figure out how much Rune magic the characters would spend, so you have to wing it. I haven't had to do it yet, but I might give bonuses to Battle rolls based on MP and RP expenditure.
  • Making enemies retreat and wait for Sword Trance/whatever to pass is not an uncommon tactic (when they see limbs flying and swords glowing, that's the cue). Generally, I find that good enemy tactics, making better use of the terrain features (as opposed to just playing out the scene on a flat battlemat until one side is dead) has vastly improved my gaming, regardless of the RPG being played. In particular, ranged vs melee vs support vs tank tactics. Maybe I should have played more World of Warcraft in my youth.
• Medium term consequences: a favourite of mine, and, again, especially useful for clan-based campaigns. If the PCs spend a lot of RPs and MPs to obliterate some enemies, that will be heard of. They will gain some Reputation, but will also increase the chances of surviving enemies seeking vengeance (potentially allying themselves with a bigger faction), neighbouring clans using this opportunity to strike, etc.

 

[Lordabdul]

16 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Yes - the rules text says you attack people who attacked you.

They don't. Here's the full text (emphasis mine):

A victim of Befuddle may not attack, cast an offensive spell, sound the alarm, and so on. However, if attacked, they may parry and defend at full value. Beginning the next melee round, the affected victim assumes that who- or whatever attacked them is their enemy, and will extend that to the caster’s obvious allies.

So if you get attacked, you assume those people are your enemy. But when you get attacked, you can only parry and defend anyway... I think the second sentence is meant to say: "However, if attacked, then may fight back at full value" ?

[Shiningbrow]

23 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

True, but at the very least, you will use up all your Rune Points every season, effectively "saving up" anything you don't spend for the future. If you fully abuse the overabundance of holy days - Sacred time, HHD, seasonal HD, associated cult HD, weekly worship, any other opportunities - it should be possible to save up a lot. Optimized worship means hundreds of rune points per year.

Issaries has a holy day every week... So, easy to abuse.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Shiningbrow
Fun autocorrect!!!

[g33k]

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

...

Please quote where it stops all spellcasting, including in self-defence. This seems unlikely.

I think we are still waiting publication of specific text.

Jeff has stated quite clearly that all the "<X> Trance" spells are indeed trances, and will generally follow the model of Arrow Trance.  That spell does seem to preclude self-defense casting (or was that in regards to the issue of being Befuddle'd?)

I think the correction will come in the Red Book of Magic, (if they decide to publish it), or CoG (Cults of Glorantha seeming to be Chaosium's currently-preferred title... though I admit much fondness for the GaGoG acronym!)

 

[g33k]

31 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

They don't. Here's the full text (emphasis mine):

A victim of Befuddle may not attack, cast an offensive spell, sound the alarm, and so on. However, if attacked, they may parry and defend at full value. Beginning the next melee round, the affected victim assumes that who- or whatever attacked them is their enemy, and will extend that to the caster’s obvious allies.

So if you get attacked, you assume those people are your enemy. But when you get attacked, you can only parry and defend anyway... I think the second sentence is meant to say: "However, if attacked, then may fight back at full value" ?

I do presume that last bit, yes -- Befuddle means you don't know who your enemy is, etc; THEREFORE you don't attack/etc (but you defend -- which could include buffing yourself).

Once you get attacked, you DO know who an evident enemy is, and therefore may attack them (and their allies) the following round; that language, "Beginning the next melee round..." seems definitive as to the intent, albeit the Nitpickery Tribe (a branch of Lismelder, I think?) might claim that it's not explicit, so it doesn't count.

YGWV, until errata'ed.

[g33k]

58 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

... So if you can be tricked - likely more easily due to your befuddled state - into thinking someone else attacked you... 

There is also the allied Fumble (which I've seen more than once, at the table:  Fumble hitting Befuddle'd character, who then re-activates in the fight... but fighting on the wrong side!). 

[Akhôrahil]

43 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

They don't. Here's the full text (emphasis mine):

A victim of Befuddle may not attack, cast an offensive spell, sound the alarm, and so on. However, if attacked, they may parry and defend at full value. Beginning the next melee round, the affected victim assumes that who- or whatever attacked them is their enemy, and will extend that to the caster’s obvious allies.

So if you get attacked, you assume those people are your enemy. But when you get attacked, you can only parry and defend anyway... I think the second sentence is meant to say: "However, if attacked, then may fight back at full value" ?

That was my assumed reading - and for obvious reasons, because otherwise you only have to Befuddle someone to get a free kill, as you can keep hitting them without fear of getting attacked back. Befuddle is already extremely good - that would make it obscene.

[Lordabdul]

Yay, another errata then. I hope someone at Chaosium is taking notes  

[g33k]

23 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Yay, another errata then. I hope someone at Chaosium is taking notes  

Personally, I don't feel Befuddle needs the errata.

As I said (and I think you agree) the intent of "beginning the next melee round..." seems clear.

OTOH, if there's going to be an errata printing, or even a PDF-doc of errata, I suppose it's worth including, since some people apparently don't agree that the intent is so clear.

[Akhôrahil]

36 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Befuddle is pretty easy to "shake off" given a few rounds.  It actually favors making dumb characters.

Smart people are more likely to start hitting their friends than the opponents, though...

[g33k]

36 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Befuddle is pretty easy to "shake off" given a few rounds...

Maybe, but "a few rounds" can be HUGE in combat; particularly if it has taken an uber-buff'ed linchpin character out, where much of the party had dumped prep-spells and the group strategy revolves around your Berserker's linear charge toward the Chaos Shrine, or the impenetrable parrying of your Sword's Trance...

 

[Scotty]

11 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

As for the Sword Trance, the RQ:G lacks the further details that has, apparently, been supplied elsewhere that says the Trance is indeed a trance...

10 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Where is this errata text found?

CHA4028 RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha – Chapter 13 Rune Magic Q&A

9 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Jason's Q&A, may not technically count as "errata" but rather "designer/editor's opinion".

The Q&A pages are official corrections and answers (errata). They include updates, rune fixes and other information where noted.

Please read Jason and Jeff's introductions on the first page:

CHA4028 RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha – Q&A by Chapter

If you have questions please post them here: https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/8399-runequest-core-rules-questions/

[Akhôrahil]

10 minutes ago, Scotty said:

The Q&A pages are official corrections and answers (errata). They include updates, rune fixes and other information where noted.

Honestly though, ”I treat them the same” is not errata text. If you want to change the rules (and this would be a pretty dramatic change, even though called for), you need to:

a) Not phrase it as mere personal opinion, and

b) Actually provide new rules text (or the specific changes).

Edited February 13, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[soltakss]

On 2/12/2020 at 9:23 PM, Akhôrahil said:

Is there anything in the book that can handle a hundred trollkin with slings, though?

Probably not.

Have you seen the film Hero? The scene at the end with the archers? OK, so it's with arrows and not slings, but the end result is the same.

[g33k]

On 2/13/2020 at 1:14 PM, Akhôrahil said:

Honestly though, ”I treat them the same” is not errata text. If you want to change the rules (and this would be a pretty dramatic change, even though called for), you need to:

a) Not phrase it as mere personal opinion, and

b) Actually provide new rules text (or the specific changes).

I've got to agree with this sentiment, particularly item (a).

 

At the same time, we need to note the context:

On 2/13/2020 at 1:05 PM, Scotty said:

...The Q&A pages are official corrections and answers (errata). They include updates, rune fixes and other information where noted.

Please read Jason and Jeff's introductions on the first page:

CHA4028 RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha – Q&A by Chapter

(emphasis added by me)

That link says:

Quote

"the RuneQuest game rules are not computer code. They are like laws or regulations, which often need some construction to interpret how they work together..."  -- Jeff Richard

Quote

"The rules cannot – and should not – account for every permutation of character interaction.  The gamemaster’s role is to make decisions about circumstances that are unclear and rule accordingly."  -- Jason Durall

So, however stylistically-unsatisfying the response, the intent is clear.

I nevertheless hope one day to get a "RQG Revised Edition" (one where some of these perennial debates are addressed... and unambiguously resolved)  😁

 

[Akhôrahil]

Just now, g33k said:

So, however stylistically-unsatisfying the response, the intent is clear.

I nevertheless hope one day to get a "RQG Revised Edition" (one where some of these perennial debates are addressed... and unambiguously resolved)  😁

No-one writes rules-text like computer code. That disclaimer had better not just be an excuse for lazy rules text!

[g33k]

2 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

No-one writes rules-text like computer code. That disclaimer had better not just be an excuse for lazy rules text!

Gonna have to disagree.

I've seen some rules-text that looks remarkably like computer code (at one remove); like pseudocode; like algorithmic process.   😵   I could probably take it as a design-document into a 2nd-year programming class.

I think Chaosium is intentionally not covering every-last-detail in the ways those "more complete" RPGs do.

 

That said -- yes, I do think there's some stuff in RQG that was done out of "laziness" or the like. Sword & Axe Trances not explicitly having "trance-y" features (as Arrow Trance DOES have (which (taken together as facts) sort-of implies "<Melee Weapon> Trance" is only called a "trance;" but they've explicitly corrected that (but the correction is hard to find))).  Call that "lazy"if you will; or "sloppy."

Or observe it as the nearly-inevitable outcome of a grognardian author, writing with the unconscious assumptions of decades of play, and a grognardian line-dev/editor, in lockstep that of course it's obvious that a spell called "<X> Trance" is a trance (those spells have always worked that way).

 

[PhilHibbs]

On 2/13/2020 at 8:19 PM, Akhôrahil said:

Smart people are more likely to start hitting their friends than the opponents, though...

Yep, that's the way it's always been. I think the justification is that smart people are more likely to arrogantly assume "I know what is going on here, I am always right" and act on it.

[Akhôrahil]

Just now, PhilHibbs said:

Yep, that's the way it's always been. I think the justification is that smart people are more likely to arrogantly assume "I know what is going on here, I am always right" and act on it.

That doesn't seem very smart. 🙂

[PhilHibbs]

9 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

That doesn't seem very smart. 🙂

The smartest people that I have known have almost universally been arrogant SOBs who can never accept that they are wrong. And yes, I include looking in a mirror here!

[g33k]

3 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

The smartest people that I have known have almost universally been arrogant SOBs who can never accept that they are wrong. And yes, I include looking in a mirror here!

Statistically speaking, we're usually right, and the other person's usually wrong.

It can make spotting those exceptions extra-challenging to the SOB-inclined.

 

Get outta my mirror, PhilHibbs!

 

[Diana Probst]

On 2/12/2020 at 8:41 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

I'm starting to grok that Orlanth really isn't perceived as a straight-up "fighter cult", and Humakt is an order of magnitude better.  And it's starting to work for me.  My Vingan is starting to focus on Bow, social skills, and getting all those interesting Orlanthi Rune Magics.  Fortunately, she can avoid most of the dicksizing contests.  🙂

Has anybody actually done a fight vs. a big chaos baddie, where the PCs had both a Storm Bull and a Humakt?  I'd still put my money on the Humakt, but wondering...

Yes.  Oh, very much yes.

Our Storm Bull and our Humakti were the party main big hitters for a while.  The Humakti is tiny and fast, and breaks easily when hit.  The Storm Bull is SIZ 19 and can take a small mammoth to the face and keep going.  It's generally established that when the Humakti gets going, she's better - but it takes a little while for her to warm up.  In a mugging, she's really fast but a single sling stone could take her down.  It's a lot less risk for the Storm Bull.

In a straight up fight between them, if she managed to get her serious spells off, she'd win.  If she didn't, they'd be burying her in two pieces.  The Sword Trance with enough magic points to make a difference takes a full combat round to cast.  His fanaticism would go off first, they'd both probably be hugely inspired by their various passions...  and he might well do enough damage that she never gets to hit him.

Against big chaos baddies, the Storm Bull's Berserk and Hate (Chaos) just blew her out of the water.  She came in second once, and was nearly equal once but he hadn't cast Berserk.  Most of the time, they are a big chunk of the front line, and it's well known that they do different things.  She's the sword one.  He's the massive frothing damage one, and he starts off doing that right from SR1 of round 1, when it's against Chaos.

The Vingan who joined us several sessions in did start off envying the Humakti's skill, but pretty quickly worked out that the Humakti suffers for it, and is highly specialised, and is vulnerable socially.  The Vingan's the one who does the speaking and sometimes has to cover for the other two having pissed off important people.  The Storm Bull doesn't bother being envious.  He's got other things to do, like drink and fight.

[Kloster]

On 2/14/2020 at 10:31 PM, g33k said:

I nevertheless hope one day to get a "RQG Revised Edition" (one where some of these perennial debates are addressed... and unambiguously resolved)  😁

Or at least provide a single document (not web site with links) containing said errata. RuneFix 1 was a good start, even if containing more 'new rules' than corrections.