Purchasing magical items?

[Lordabdul]

40 minutes ago, Kloster said:

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, ...).

In Griffin Mountain, that cost was the 1000 L fixed cost (500 L in RQG money) that added up to the spell cost and item value, I think?

 

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.

I learned about this after reading RQG, in which I couldn't really understand why spirit magic was limited by CHA, and how that stat relates to "remembering" and "forgetting" spells (doesn't make much sense!). It was @David Scott who explained the whole thing about effectively stealing bits of spirits and integrating them into your being... which explains the CHA, and explains how you can forget/remember spells (it's not really related to memory, it's about which spirit-bits you have inside yourself, like mini-allied spirits, sort of). I'm kinda sad that this explanation wasn't included in RQG (I don't think it's in RBoM either?), but it sounds like it's still the current explanation behind the scenes. It doesn't change much mechanically speaking though, unless you wanted to play out the whole process of the teacher summoning spirits and defeating them for you and all that jazz...

Edited December 23, 2020 by lordabdul

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, Godlearner said:

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

Now that you remember me, same (it was soooo long ago).

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

In Griffin Mountain, that cost was the 1000 L fixed cost (500 L in RQG money) that added up to the spell cost and item value, I think?

My dead tree RQ2 stuff is 150 km away and I haven't purchased the pdf, so I can't check. But from memory, it seems correct.

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

I learned about this after reading RQG, in which I couldn't really understand why spirit magic was limited by CHA, and how that stat relates to "remembering" and "forgetting" spells (doesn't make much sense!). It was @David Scott who explained the whole thing about effectively stealing bits of spirits and integrating them into your being... which explains the CHA, and explains how you can forget/remember spells (it's not really related to memory, it's about which spirit-bits you have inside yourself, like mini-allied spirits, sort of). I'm kinda sad that this explanation wasn't included in RQG (I don't think it's in RBoM either?), but it sounds like it's still the current explanation behind the scenes. It doesn't change much mechanically speaking though, unless you wanted to play out the whole process of the teacher summoning spirits and defeating them for you and all that jazz...

Yes. On that part, RQ3 was more descriptive and RQG more quick to the result. This is part of the changes I like going from RQ3 to RQG. Even if I don't like the rationale (I prefer INT for having spells kept in memory), it works, and this is what I explain to players. Up to now, it worked, so I am ok.

[Shiningbrow]

21 hours ago, lordabdul said:

"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!

Not only do I completely disagree, I think the exact opposite! If some right guy was paying homeless people to donate blood for the eternal youth research, they'd be lining up at the door, and fighting to be let in to donate blood!
Especially if the money offered would pay for a good lifestyle for the next 2 years, and you'll be getting that blood back within a couple of weeks! (in RQG terms, perhaps in a season or 3).

 

It's clearly not a taboo, because every so often, the village or temple is going to want people to donate their POW (either for enchantments or for re-stocking the Wyter). So, if you really want to have an in-game reason to deny it (and, realistically, you should - otherwise you're just being a dick GM), then you'll have to come up with something more legit and plausible.

[Godlearner]

47 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Not only do I completely disagree, I think the exact opposite! If some right guy was paying homeless people to donate blood for the eternal youth research, they'd be lining up at the door, and fighting to be let in to donate blood!
Especially if the money offered would pay for a good lifestyle for the next 2 years, and you'll be getting that blood back within a couple of weeks! (in RQG terms, perhaps in a season or 3).

It's clearly not a taboo, because every so often, the village or temple is going to want people to donate their POW (either for enchantments or for re-stocking the Wyter). So, if you really want to have an in-game reason to deny it (and, realistically, you should - otherwise you're just being a dick GM), then you'll have to come up with something more legit and plausible.

I agree with you on this and we have seen stuff like this in RL many and many of times. The homeless have been used and taken advantage off for many illegal activities, as well as other groups. I do not want this to be even a possibility for PCs in games. That is why I am not allowing any kind of coerced contribution during ceremonies, unless "evil" magic is involved.

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Not only do I completely disagree, I think the exact opposite! If some right guy was paying homeless people to donate blood for the eternal youth research, they'd be lining up at the door, and fighting to be let in to donate blood!

Just to be clear, by "his eternal youth research or something", I meant : something that would only benefit the rich guy, and that is and will always completely be out of reach to the poor people donating blood. It wasn't a hypothetical scenario of "some rich guy invents eternal youth and then becomes a socialist who makes it available universally". I think it was obvious that I was talking about a selfish rich guy who only wants a one-off thing for himself.

Back to Glorantha: the enchanted item is only for the buyer, and the poor people donating POW would never see any benefit except, maybe, that the PCs who bought the enchanted item may stick around and use the item to protect the local community from dangers... in which case, donating POW for the clan's enchanter would be considered a communal duty like worship and not pay much or at all either anyway. In fact, if it's all kept inside the clan, I doubt there's any money exchange at all.

But hey, if you want people getting rich from donating POW, or lines of volunteers outside an enchanter's house, feel free to go crazy, I'll be curious to know where it leads. YGWV.

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by lordabdul

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, Godlearner said:

I do not want this to be even a possibility for PCs in games. That is why I am not allowing any kind of coerced contribution during ceremonies, unless "evil" magic is involved.

I agree but it wouldn’t be “coercion” if the enchanter is merely offering lots of money. Hence the other option of “corrupted POW”. Or, you know, just saying “you can’t do that”.

But I dislike arbitrary GM fiat that isn’t backed up by at least some kind of in world reasoning, hence my suggesting such reasons. I’m open to other reasons....

[Kloster]

17 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

I agree but it wouldn’t be “coercion” if the enchanter is merely offering lots of money. Hence the other option of “corrupted POW”. Or, you know, just saying “you can’t do that”.

But I dislike arbitrary GM fiat that isn’t backed up by at least some kind of in world reasoning, hence my suggesting such reasons. I’m open to other reasons....

Completely agree here.

[Akhôrahil]

3 hours ago, Kloster said:

Completely agree here.

Yeah, I mean either there’s a reason in-world why this doesn’t happen, or it should have a bunch of implications, not least that you should be able to obtain POW at far less than 200 L per point.

This goes for resurrection as well - we must either consider that the CA cult maintains a centrally controlled cartel-like stranglehold on reusable resurrection and comes down hard on any initiate that tries to undercut the standard rate, or Resurrection should be obtainable fairly cheaply as a 3 RP reusable spell going by supply and demand - it certainly shouldn’t cost more than a Healer’s seasonal income.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

55 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Yeah, I mean either there’s a reason in-world why this doesn’t happen, or it should have a bunch of implications, not least that you should be able to obtain POW at far less than 200 L per point.

Or, you're over-thinking the consequences of a simple game rule on the world. Which is fine, again, if that's what you want to do. But it's your choice to come to that conclusion.

And therefore your choice of solution, if you feel you need one.

Sure, of course it's possible to get 1 POW for less than 200 L. All you need is someone who will sell it for less than that. Simple. The "rule" is just a guide. If you really want to spend the time to hunt around the slums for a stickpicker to donate a point of POW to an enchantment, I'm sure it's not too hard. Is that what you want to do in your game? Fine. There's nothing in the rules that says the GM can't allow this.

Maybe this does happen all the time. Maybe that's why it's hard to find someone down on their luck with spare POW. Someone already thought of it and beat you to it, and that's partly why stickpickers have low POW.

"Here, I have some money to exchange for part of your soul. It will make you slightly less lucky, slightly less favoured by the Gods, slightly more susceptible to diseases and demonic possession, but hey, at least your belly will be full."

Edited December 24, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Bill the barbarian]

38 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Or, you're over-thinking the consequences of a simple game rule on the world. Which is fine, again, if that's what you want to do. But it's your choice to come to that conclusion.

 

Analogies and analogs, great teaching tools, great way of simplifying difficult concepts. or even codifying worlds to fit into a games system—poor substitutes for the real thing.

My fave physic teacher used to say all analogies will break down, the better ones take longer.

[PhilHibbs]

3 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

My fave physic teacher used to say all analogies will break down, the better ones take longer.

Analogies are like wasps. They will sting you if you poke them too much.

[Shiningbrow]

9 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Just to be clear, by "his eternal youth research or something", I meant : something that would only benefit the rich guy, and that is and will always completely be out of reach to the poor people donating blood. It wasn't a hypothetical scenario of "some rich guy invents eternal youth and then becomes a socialist who makes it available universally". I think it was obvious that I was talking about a selfish rich guy who only wants a one-off thing for himself.

Yes, this is exactly how I interpreted it! 

200L allows one to live like a noble for a year! That's about the equivalent of getting a million dollars (or perhaps, several) these days! If you're virtually homeless, that's amazing! 

So, as I said, those stickpickers would be literally lining up to donate their POW.

 

In game ways to limit this would be - making it hard to come up with the sort of cash or goods that are going to buy the sort of level of enchantment that's going to do much! The enchanter *needs* to provide the first point of POW, so unless they've got a whole bunch of money, it's going to be a personally hurtful experience. If you houserule that *every time* the enchantment is cast, the enchanter needs to use at least 1 point of their own POW, then it makes it even more frustrating.

So, if you want a Spirit Armouring enchantment 4, you'll need to acquire the spell somehow, it'll cost at least 1 point of your own POW, and then another 3 nobles' yearly incomes... Not something so easy to do!

[Lordabdul]

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Yes, this is exactly how I interpreted it! 

Ok so that doesn't change what I said, I think. Whether stickpickers line up or not, I was talking about social stigma on the enchanter. As in: the enchanter may upset the local priests, spirits, whatever. The stickpickers who could make some coins on the side might have been perfectly OK with it, but meanwhile the enchanter's shop may be torn down by angry spirits or Axe Sisters on a mission or whatever... Well, assuming this kind of action does indeed carry social stigma in your Glorantha. Again, I'm just spitting out possible ideas and everyone is free to accept or reject them for their own Glorantha. There's at least 3 or 4 ways to handle this now, in case your players want to start a magical item shop.

10 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

This goes for resurrection as well

I haven't looked closely but I'm not sure there's a problem here. Resurrection costs 3 RPs (which is a pretty high cost), has to be cast by a CA initiate on a case-by-case basis, there aren't that many CA healers around, and it's not always possible to bring the body back. CA temples are probably spending a lot of magical resources on more general healing (diseases, Chaos, etc.) so whatever's left is probably carefully allocated on people with a minimum reputation or someone vouching for them.

Edited December 25, 2020 by lordabdul

[Shiningbrow]

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Ok so that doesn't change what I said, I think. Whether stickpickers line up or not, I was talking about social stigma on the enchanter. As in: the enchanter may upset the local priests, spirits, whatever. The stickpickers who could make some coins on the side might have been perfectly OK with it, but meanwhile the enchanter's shop may be torn down by angry spirits or Axe Sisters on a mission or whatever... Well, assuming this kind of action does indeed carry social stigma in your Glorantha. Again, I'm just spitting out possible ideas and everyone is free to accept or reject them for their own Glorantha. There's at least 3 or 4 ways to handle this now, in case your players want to start a magical item shop.

Oooohhhh.... I definitely didn't get that from the original posts...

Well, I am presuming that the enchanter is a reasonably respected indivdual in the community - not a complete stranger (although, I can't see that being a great problem with the stickpickers). I can't see the local spirits giving a toss, unless they're losing something from it (highly unlikely). If the stickpickers are outcasts or dregs of society, there might be some comeback from the local villagers and nobles, because now you get the dregs coming into money and annoying said villagers and nobles. Not to mention, the villagers and nobles have now lost their cheap sticks...

As for Axe Sisters, I'd actually again say the opposite. If the stickpickers are all fully consenting adults, then they shouldn't have any beef with the enchanter.

To me, this whole debate is all about whether the PCs can take advantage of a system, and GMs who want to ruin their fun for no other reason than they don't like it... There's really no Glorantha world where such a situation would be greatly frowned upon, except where there's a ruling class that likes to control everything. Outsiders, maybe. But locals coming home and spending their hard fought money should be fine!

[Kloster]

12 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

If you houserule that *every time* the enchantment is cast, the enchanter needs to use at least 1 point of their own POW, then it makes it even more frustrating.

For me, it is not houseruling. As I understand it, it is RAW. Perhaps am I wrong.

12 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

So, if you want a Spirit Armouring enchantment 4, you'll need to acquire the spell somehow, it'll cost at least 1 point of your own POW, and then another 3 nobles' yearly incomes... Not something so easy to do!

Agreed. This is why I explain I see few (very few) potential buyers for POW.

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

To me, this whole debate is all about whether the PCs can take advantage of a system,

Completely agree.

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

There's really no Glorantha world where such a situation would be greatly frowned upon, except where there's a ruling class that likes to control everything.

This I don't know and has to be decided, either officially or in each of our Glorantha.

[Brootse]

19 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Yeah, I mean either there’s a reason in-world why this doesn’t happen, or it should have a bunch of implications, not least that you should be able to obtain POW at far less than 200 L per point.

This goes for resurrection as well - we must either consider that the CA cult maintains a centrally controlled cartel-like stranglehold on reusable resurrection and comes down hard on any initiate that tries to undercut the standard rate, or Resurrection should be obtainable fairly cheaply as a 3 RP reusable spell going by supply and demand - it certainly shouldn’t cost more than a Healer’s seasonal income.

The theory in my group is that the CA healers use their vast incomes on coke and hooker parties.

[Brootse]

On the whole, RQ and Glorantha are better than other fantasy rpgs and their worlds, but there are some absurd things in the rules, eg. CA resurrection costs, inflated bow prices, and stickpickers making fortunes from enchanting.

[PhilHibbs]

Rather than seeing a game mechanic and concluding "this has certain consequences that make no sense, therefore the rules/world makes no sense", I prefer to simply come to a different conclusion, and optionally figure out why the conclusion is incorrect. I don't spend too much time on it though.

There are plenty of possibilities mentioned already in this thread.

Edited December 25, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Eff]

It's worth noting that Death is just as much a part of the world as anything else, and resurrection is something that defies Death, and that seems like a very straightforward reason why access to Resurrection is not as available as the rules seem to imply. (Apart from the likelihood that many CA healers simply never learn how to Resurrect- POW gain rolls are a player-facing rule, and player characters are already exceptional people.)

[Shiningbrow]

14 hours ago, Kloster said:

For me, it is not houseruling. As I understand it, it is RAW. Perhaps am I wrong.

I read it that only the first point of POW needs to come from the enchanter, and all the rest - even at a later time when increasing the size of it - can come from others.

Although, I'm now,a little confused about increasing standard Variable Spirit Magic spells... Or even Stackable Rune Magic... 

[Glorion]

On 12/18/2020 at 2:52 AM, Akhôrahil said:

That’s one part of it, but another is that If we think that these rules actually describe how the world works, then it stands to reason that selling POW would be something that happens. The large supply (but unclear demand) makes me think you should be able to buy POW spends at well under 200 L per point.

A limited notion of how the world works. Only in a monetary economy, which, basically, Sartar is not. Pretty common in the Lunar empire, or Nochet perhaps, or the West, but not in most of Dragon Pass, to say nothing of Prax. 200L equals a lot of cows. Yes in theory you could get a lot of cows for a Runepoint, but in practice that could beggar your village, so it doesn't happen. And besides, how many enchanters are there anyway? Damn few. Basically, in Sartar for a rune point for the enchantment Queen Leika's enchanter has been planning for a couple years, you might get a big favor, you might thoroughly impress Queen Leika. 

[Glorion]

1 minute ago, Glorion said:

A limited notion of how the world works. Only in a monetary economy, which, basically, Sartar is not. Pretty common in the Lunar empire, or Nochet perhaps, or the West, but not in most of Dragon Pass, to say nothing of Prax. 200L equals a lot of cows. Yes in theory you could get a lot of cows for a Runepoint, but in practice that could beggar your village, so it doesn't happen. And besides, how many enchanters are there anyway? Damn few. Basically, in Sartar for a rune point for the enchantment Queen Leika's enchanter has been planning for a couple years, you might get a big favor, you might thoroughly impress Queen Leika. 

Come to think of it, in the West and in the Lunar Empire, there's a better method for the rich to drain power from the poor for all sorts of purposes. Namely Tap.

[Kloster]

5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I read it that only the first point of POW needs to come from the enchanter, and all the rest - even at a later time when increasing the size of it - can come from others.

Although, I'm now,a little confused about increasing standard Variable Spirit Magic spells... Or even Stackable Rune Magic... 

I've read it that the 1st point of each enchant has to be provided by the enchanter. That is, if the enchanter makes a 3 points enchantments, and then add 2 points to the enchantment, he will have to provide at least 2 points from his personal POW.  Now, after rereading your post and the rule, I think it can also be understood your way. One more clarification needed.

[Akhôrahil]

10 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I read it that only the first point of POW needs to come from the enchanter, and all the rest - even at a later time when increasing the size of it - can come from others.

Where are the rules about upgrading an existing enchantment?