Purchasing magical items?

[Kloster]

31 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Munchkin!!!

Of course.

[Godlearner]

Quote

That's because it's not an economy. It's a rules system for running fun games with small groups of adventurers.

YIFMV - Your idea of fun may vary

[icebrand]

On 12/18/2020 at 8:00 AM, Kloster said:

I don't think the offer would be so high. Between the Rune Points, the gifts to Wyters and some diseases, not counting all the people that would not accept selling part of their POW (like I would not , if given choice, sell a part of my body), the enchanters will not have access to a so high number of sellers. And I can't envision (except for jokes) a POW Stock Exchange.

Easy: Don't provide too many sellers.

Yeah when I Instituted this rule back in my rq3 campaign (that anyone can supply pow for an enchant) one of my PCs, an orlanthi petty king tried to Institute a yearly "pow tax".

He got shot down by threat of uprising, and quickly learnt his political power was pretty weak.

[Akhôrahil]

On 12/18/2020 at 12:00 PM, Kloster said:

(like I would not , if given choice, sell a part of my body)

Would you donate blood? POW donation looks more similar to that - it's pretty harmless, mostly painless, and it's replenished naturally.

[Godlearner]

1 minute ago, Akhôrahil said:

Would you donate blood? POW donation looks more similar to that - it's pretty harmless, mostly painless, and it's replenished naturally.

Seems like an argument for getting ones POW Tapped.

Why does this bring Theodoric of York SNL skit to mind? 🙃

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, icebrand said:

Yeah when I Instituted this rule back in my rq3 campaign (that anyone can supply pow for an enchant) one of my PCs, an orlanthi petty king tried to Institute a yearly "pow tax".

He got shot down by threat of uprising, and quickly learnt his political power was pretty weak.

We had the same rule, but nobody had such an idea, even if we had quite good munchkins.

38 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Would you donate blood? POW donation looks more similar to that - it's pretty harmless, mostly painless, and it's replenished naturally.

Of course I do, and I agree with you, mechanically, both I quite close. But I perceive conceptually giving POW more as giving a part of your soul.

[PhilHibbs]

5 hours ago, Godlearner said:

YIFMV - Your idea of fun may vary

That's fine, but if you want rules for running a consistent and functioning fantasy economy then you will need to expand the RuneQuest rules substantially.#

Unless your idea of fun is taking a set of rules that weren't designed to be a working economy and figuring out the hilarious consequences of the limited rules. I do find the idea briefly amusing in a Murphy's Rules kind of way, but I wouldn't do it in a game for more than a one-off laugh.

Edited December 22, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Lordabdul]

13 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Absolute nonsense! Of course, Glorantha is itself absolute nonsense, so if that's the way your Gloranthas are, then that's perfectly fine! Go have fun in them! But my Glorantha isn't like that. My RQG Glorantha is the same as my Hero Wars Glorantha (I never ran HeroQuest).

HQG and RQG Gloranthas are pretty similar, but mine differ quite a lot in some select areas. For instance: Odayla initiates and other hunter/shapeshifting cultures. They have much more power in HQG and can be played with a lot more flavourful animinist magic by virtue of the freeform rules system. The Telmori are scarier in my HQG. Of course, someone playing HQG with the RQ spell list in mind will end up with much more identical Gloranthas.

Generally speaking, it sounds like you're the type of GM that has a specific setting/flavour/genre/style in mind, and that will be the game regardless of the game system being used. That's totally fine, and I'm impressed by your ability to not get carried away by mechanics, but that's not me. I tend to pick different game systems for different flavour/genre/styles, and that tends to affect the setting because merely playing in a setting does modify it as players bring their ideas. But anyway, we digress!

 

15 hours ago, Kloster said:

On this, I can not agree. The 200L/point I spoke is only for the POW. It does not include the cost of the object, nor the cost of the enchant itself. This is why I spoke of base price.

The 200L was because it's the price of a 1 RP one-use spell, if I remember correctly? It's entirely conjecture and extrapolation that this is what would be the price/POW for an enchanted item. It's a good idea to start from there to come up with a reasonable price, but at best that's the price you'd give the enchanter for the entire transaction. If that enchanter makes you a 4-POW item and, behind the scenes, gives 75% of the money to his assistant because the assistant gave 3 POW, well, he might be good at enchanting but is very bad at business. On the other hand, he probably has a lot of applications for being his assistant.

15 hours ago, Kloster said:

Yes. In fact here, you are in line with my base price story.

Actually I think I misread the Griffin Mountain text? I'm not sure anymore what the percentages on p184 are for... I think they're for the availability roll, and not the price? In which case, the Bladesharp 4 Broadsword is 50 L + 200 L + 500 L = 750 L.  I find it a bit weird (or at least surprising) that the fixed cost part (1000 L in RQ2, 500 L in RQG) outweighs the cost of the enchantment in the vast majority of cases.

Edited December 23, 2020 by lordabdul

[Shiningbrow]

41 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

I find it a bit weird (or at least surprising) that the fixed cost part (1000 L in RQ2, 500 L in RQG) outweighs the cost of the enchantment in the vast majority of cases.

Maybe that's the price the PCs could reasonably sell it for?

[Kloster]

9 hours ago, lordabdul said:

The 200L was because it's the price of a 1 RP one-use spell, if I remember correctly?

Your memory is good.

9 hours ago, lordabdul said:

It's entirely conjecture and extrapolation that this is what would be the price/POW for an enchanted item.

Yes, pure conjecture. I was looking for something as a base price, and is the only source I found.

9 hours ago, lordabdul said:

It's a good idea to start from there to come up with a reasonable price, but at best that's the price you'd give the enchanter for the entire transaction.

I don't think so, because you need to pay the enchanter for his work and you need to pay for the object. If you don't, a horse bone with protection 4 would cost the same as an iron sword with silver and gold ornaments enchanted with bladesharp 4.

9 hours ago, lordabdul said:

I find it a bit weird (or at least surprising) that the fixed cost part (1000 L in RQ2, 500 L in RQG) outweighs the cost of the enchantment in the vast majority of cases.

I agree with you, the enchanter's work is underpaid.

[French Desperate WindChild]

Well I will add an house rules :

you can sacrifice pow if

- you are the enchanter

- you are the customer 

- you succeed in a passion roll aligned with the purpose of the sacrifice pow

(Love customer or god dévotion or hate ennemy of the target...)

then you cannot sacrifice your pow because it is requested, you need an higher reason, a personal reason, a true conviction

[Kloster]

48 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

then you cannot sacrifice your pow because it is requested, you need an higher reason, a personal reason, a true conviction

like 'thanking somebody for purchasing you with the sole goal to free you'?

[Shiningbrow]

 

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

then you cannot sacrifice your pow because it is requested, you need an higher reason, a personal reason, a true conviction

 

12 minutes ago, Kloster said:

like 'thanking somebody for purchasing you with the sole goal to free you'?

Or... Woot! I won't have to pick up sticks for the next couple of years!

[French Desperate WindChild]

56 minutes ago, Kloster said:

like 'thanking somebody for purchasing you with the sole goal to free you'?

If you have the passion « love freedom » 

remember than all sartarites hate chaos but all don’t have « hate chaos » passion, same for freedom

[French Desperate WindChild]

4 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

If you have the passion « love freedom » 

remember than all sartarites hate chaos but all don’t have « hate chaos » passion, same for freedom

And i disagree with myself 

the purpose of the sacrifice will not help the « customer » to free you

Your owner can free you without this pow sacrifice 

 

but in another case if the enchant help to kill the guards and to free you , yes it works

[Kloster]

16 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

If you have the passion « love freedom » 

remember than all sartarites hate chaos but all don’t have « hate chaos » passion, same for freedom

 

8 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

And i disagree with myself 

the purpose of the sacrifice will not help the « customer » to free you

Your owner can free you without this pow sacrifice 

 

but in another case if the enchant help to kill the guards and to free you , yes it works

I have not said 'someone that frees you in exchange of POW' but 'thanking somebody for purchasing you with the sole goal to free you'. The guy buys you, then frees you without asking anything in exchange (One of my character already did it in an old RQ3 campaign). Then, you thank him by giving POW to an enchant he is just performing.

[French Desperate WindChild]

31 minutes ago, Kloster said:

 

I have not said 'someone that frees you in exchange of POW' but 'thanking somebody for purchasing you with the sole goal to free you'. The guy buys you, then frees you without asking anything in exchange (One of my character already did it in an old RQ3 campaign). Then, you thank him by giving POW to an enchant he is just performing.

Then that means you have a love or loyalty passion for your savior.  It works

i think passions are a great improvment in rqg

 

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

i think passions are a great improvment in rqg

I don't, but this a subject for another thread. It would be off topic here.

[Jokum]

How about the rune spell - Spirit teacher?

You can use the summoned ancestor as the shaman's fetch and shamans are allowed to use their fetch's POW as much as they like(althought all genuine fetch's POW originates from the shaman).

This is another case where we had to think about the consequences whether one of the friendly ancestors would have a POW 25 or so and that would Be used on one of the enchantments.

So to keep the game world in balance maybe all of the sacrificed points needed to be negotiated somehow or something as written here:

5 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Well I will add an house rules :

- you succeed in a passion roll aligned with the purpose of the sacrifice pow

(Love customer or god dévotion or hate ennemy of the target...)

then you cannot sacrifice your pow because it is requested, you need an higher reason, a personal reason, a true conviction

 

[Godlearner]

Quote

How about the rune spell - Spirit teacher?

This is what existed previously in RQ3. Not sure why this was taken out.

[Jokum]

33 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

This is what existed previously in RQ3. Not sure why this was taken out.

My book is from 2018 fourth Chaosium edition. I suppose it's different to RQ3 you talk about 🤔

https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-hardcover/

Edited December 23, 2020 by Jokum

[Lordabdul]

7 hours ago, Kloster said:

I don't think so, because you need to pay the enchanter for his work and you need to pay for the object. If you don't, a horse bone with protection 4 would cost the same as an iron sword with silver and gold ornaments enchanted with bladesharp 4.

Yes obviously I was talking only about the price of the enchantment, not the object... by Crom, you are nitpicky

 

1 hour ago, Jokum said:

How about the rune spell - Spirit teacher?

This concerns the broader issue of "what if we convince/compel someone to sacrifice their POW so we don't have to", whether this 3rd party is a stickpicker, slave, or spirit. I would probably just say "you can't do that" and move on, but if I was feeling mischievous (and that's one fun part of being a GM on occasion), I would look into a combination of:

1. "Corrupted POW": depending on the level of coercion, the resulting enchantment would be less reliable. Penalties to casting the spell from the spell matrix, or equivalent.
2. "Social taboo": if the 3rd party was only convinced (paid, etc.) and not coerced, the word of mouth would eventually spread. We previously compared sacrificing POW to donating blood... what would it look like if a rich guy was paying homeless people to donate blood for his eternal-youth science research or something? Probably not very good once it gets out!

AFAIC that lets me handle all the issues raised so far, I think.

 

1 hour ago, Godlearner said:

This is what existed previously in RQ3. Not sure why this was taken out.

Where is this in RQ3? I can't find anything relevant.

[Godlearner]

Quote

Where is this in RQ3? I can't find anything relevant.

This the now out of print Avalon Hills version of RQ. This is the spell as it was written at the time:

Quote

 

Spellteaching
1pt
Ritual Spell (Summon), Nonstackable, Reusable
Common

Through the use of this ritual the priest or initiate can summon a cult spell spirit from which a spirit spell can be learned. This ritual must be undertaken within a temple or other holy place, and the recipient of the ritual must be present for the ritual's entire duration. Other than the need for this special ritual, the process of learning a cult spirit spell is  the same as is described in the Learning Spells section of the Spirit Magic chapter.

 

 

[Kloster]

50 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Yes obviously I was talking only about the price of the enchantment, not the object... by Crom, you are nitpicky

Yes, I am. But what I wanted to say is that the cost of the object AND the work of the enchanter are extra. And for me, the enchanter can request what he wants (money, service, ...). And I agree with you, this should be expensive, as enchanters are scarce. Of course, if you are doing enchants for yourself or your buddies, you don't care about that part.

52 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

This concerns the broader issue of "what if we convince/compel someone to sacrifice their POW so we don't have to", whether this 3rd party is a stickpicker, slave, or spirit. I would probably just say "you can't do that" and move on, but if I was feeling mischievous (and that's one fun part of being a GM on occasion), I would look into a combination of:

1. "Corrupted POW": depending on the level of coercion, the resulting enchantment would be less reliable. Penalties to casting the spell from the spell matrix, or equivalent.
2. "Social taboo": if the 3rd party was only convinced (paid, etc.) and not coerced, the word of mouth would eventually spread. We previously compared sacrificing POW to donating blood... what would it look like if a rich guy was paying homeless people to donate blood for his eternal-youth science research or something? Probably not very good once it gets out!

AFAIC that lets me handle all the issues raised so far, I think.

Completely agree here. The fact I am defending it is possible and there should be a market (but not a stock exchange) does not mean it is socially or culturally acceptable. As we discussed earlier, for Lunars or Kralori, maybe, for others, much less.

40 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

This the now out of print Avalon Hills version of RQ. This is the spell as it was written at the time:

Yes, this was how (mechanically) spirit spells were taught by cults in RQ3. Now, Priests and Rune Lords can teach the spell they know, that's it. In our RQ3 campaigns, we ruled that this spell was mandatory to become priest.

[Godlearner]

Quote

Yes, this was how (mechanically) spirit spells were taught by cults in RQ3. Now, Priests and Rune Lords can teach the spell they know, that's it. In our RQ3 campaigns, we ruled that this spell was mandatory to become priest.

Same here, as well as some others like Worship, Initiate and Sanctify.