Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

OK, so you'd prefer spells to be reduced to what you consider their "essential features" (it is some kind of energy projectile that does damage, it increases a characteristic, it provides some kind of armor, etc.) and consider RuneQuest's focus being how Gloranthans would group spells (rather than you) to be bad design

On the grounds I never said it was bad design - way to go taking the wrong end of context. What I did say was a design flaw was in there was no consistency in the rules of how the magic spells seem to be put together. And need I point out that this was a flaw pointed out out by another D100 Game Designer - not by me. My original premise was about consolidating the magic system.

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

OK, so you'd prefer spells to be reduced to what you consider their "essential features" (it is some kind of energy projectile that does damage, it increases a characteristic, it provides some kind of armor, etc.) and consider RuneQuest's focus being how Gloranthans would group spells (rather than you) to be bad design

Keeping core parts of the spells would be better, yes. Then include full rules of how to best bespoke say a protection spell, such that players can really make it sing in their game. If someone wants a shield of fire, great; or one of rose, fine; or one composed of writhing snakes. Brilliant!

But to my knowledge, the rules do not go into enough detail on this, unless I have missed something?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK, so you'd prefer spells to be reduced to what you consider their "essential features" (it is some kind of energy projectile that does damage, it increases a characteristic, it provides some kind of

I think the quirky variety of spells, and the lack of consistency in effect-per-point, is part of RuneQuest's charm. I am aware that it is one of the reasons that RuneQuest, and also Glorantha, is not

Nope, we need  more spells, not less.

6 minutes ago, RogerDee said:

On the grounds I never said it was bad design - way to go taking the wrong end of context. What I did say was a design flaw was in there was no consistency in the rules of how the magic spells seem to be put together. And need I point out that this was a flaw pointed out out by another D100 Game Designer - not by me. My original premise was about consolidating the magic system.

Keeping core parts of the spells would be better, yes. Then include full rules of how to best bespoke say a protection spell, such that players can really make it sing in their game. If someone wants a shield of fire, great; or one of rose, fine; or one composed of writhing snakes. Brilliant!

But to my knowledge, the rules do not go into enough detail on this, unless I have missed something?

 

I am quoting you - you called it bloat and bad design. As far as I can see there are no other game designers of note on this thread. I see nothing to gain by "consolidating the magic system" or having generic spells that you can then "bespoke". My opinion on mechanical consistency for magic is pretty much the same as my opinion of mechanical "game balance" for cults. I care about "setting balance" - does one cult have accessible power that doesn't work with how it is presented in the setting. But whether one cult has a spell similar (but not identical) to another spell is simply not a "problem" that requires a fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I am quoting you - you called it bloat and bad design. As far as I can see there are no other game designers of note on this thread. I see nothing to gain by "consolidating the magic system" or having generic spells that you can then "bespoke". My opinion on mechanical consistency for magic is pretty much the same as my opinion of mechanical "game balance" for cults. I care about "setting balance" - does one cult have accessible power that doesn't work with how it is presented in the setting. But whether one cult has a spell similar (but not identical) to another spell is simply not a "problem" that requires a fix.

No Jeff, what you are saying is somewhat disingenuous here. I did call it bloat, absolutely right; but the lack of consolidation I did not call that a design flaw.

11 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think the quirky variety of spells, and the lack of consistency in effect-per-point, is part of RuneQuest's charm. I am aware that it is one of the reasons that RuneQuest, and also Glorantha, is not everyone's cup of tea.

This is the D100 designer that said pointed out the lack of consistency, and they have never written any kind of D100 game in his life.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?author=Simon Phipp

Oh....wait....it appears that he might have.

11 hours ago, RogerDee said:

Not really, that is a design flaw, and something it has in common with Exalted, in that charms are not consistant.

Same should be true here.

And this was my response is above.  Which if true, in that spells design and mechanics are inconsistent I did absolutely say was a design flaw. The two points  are not the same thing, never have been, never will be.

 

 

 

 

Edited by RogerDee
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RogerDee said:

Shield though could literally be anything. Shield of fire, ice, light, scorpions. Literally anything.

what you are describing here has a name in glorantha. It is called sorcery.

Now we can have another magic in

  • do closed dammages
  • do ranged dammage
  • heal
  • detect

and.. well the rest is boring, don't care crops, don't care feeling, don't care passion, don't care .... blablabla

hey why  have spell doing dammage and weapon doing dammage ? that the same in fact, it does dammage. So we need only 6 characteristics for a consistent rpg :

HP / AP / cDmg / rDmg / Heal / Detect . And some people could have fun with that. And there are game design with that

That is just a question of cursor.

 

I want to know what cult is able to give me what coloured spell to paint a wall, and what cult is able to give me another spell to paint a paint, and don't forget the cult to make statues. It could be the same, it could be different . What I love in gorantha rpg is the colours. That is why I burn all my mp in 'translate in bad english my so smart opinion' spell

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to forgive us if it's tricky to pick apart what you are saying is bloat and what you are saying is a design flaw. You say the lack of consolidation is bloat, and the lack of power level consistency is a design flaw. The implication is that bloat is not a design flaw. Have I got it?

To be honest it makes little difference, and I disagree on both anyway. Well, I guess I can't disagree that it is bloat, that's pretty much objective, but really, there are only a small number of spells that are functionally identical with different flavour. Bladesharp & Bludgeon, Sword Trance & Axe Trance & Arrow Trance, I really can't think of any others. I think that, as Jeff said, giving the magic system a more in-world flavour is worth that.

And Bladesharp and Bludgeon have been in every edition of the game for over 40 years, it's a bit late to change that now. In every game group I ever played in, I don't remember anyone complaining.

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some say bloat.  Some say quirky charm.   If the game was streamlined to make everything and everybody equal, it would be astonishingly boring.  Also, this is a RPG, not a computer game.  Balance is neither necessary, nor appropriate, nor possible. 

My Yelmalio player attends every meeting, actively role plays at every opportunity, takes "good" risks during the game and winds up rewarded with the Spear of Sunshine.  He is now the butt-kicking bad@$$ of the party. 

My Humakt player attends most of the meetings, plays very risk averse, avoids dangerous things like heroquesting, and relies mainly on the power of the cult Runespells to be "powerful". 

(Note: Not real players, just examples)

Where is the balance here?  What does that mean in the context of the night of gaming?  Can the Humakt player slay more things than the very successful Yelmalio player?  Quite possibly, but not necessarily.  How do they stack up against the trickster player with Puppeteer troupe powers?  How do you measure that -- some meetings are completely free of combat.  Others may be skullduggery, cloak and dagger missions.  How does the glowing Yelmalian player deal with that -- is it imbalance? or a fun and likely comedic evening of roleplaying?  Clearly the trickster player will "have an advantage" in this specific situation, but what will she do -- steal it straight or subvert the mission at the expense of the other players?   How does her power in this sort of scenario "balance" against raw hack and slashery?

Some campaigns have a natural slant towards one type of gaming mechanic.  Combat is very popular because it is exciting. Everyone loves a good action movie.  RPG's are the same way.  But too much hacking and slashing makes Johnny a dull boy, and once out of pure combat the "balance" is totally lost.  Which is good, because balance is really only a good concept for multiplayer video games, or competitive board games. 

Some of my players' most powerful characters were some of the crappiest (objectively speaking) roll ups, but were played well, and went from zero to hero.   One of my closer friends (sadly now passed) specialized in doing this, and looked for oddball character concepts to champion.   Anything he played would be actively improved as he went, while many other players just sort of passively waited for rewards from the adventure.  His characters always wound up better in the end, the longer the campaign went, the more pronounced this was.

Balance is an illusion.

Edited by Dissolv
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing this apparent inconsistency with the rules... I see differences.

However, as a general question - do  you also think all spells should be available? If we keep the 3 systems, should there be an equivalent to each spell in each system? This 'consolidation' idea sounds like it should be a 'yes'...

As I've reacted above, I think that not only do we need more spells (with different and interesting quirks - which is what this consolidation would remove), but even more systems... I like the idea of shamanic charms and talismans, and covert possessions giving different powers and abilities.

(Of course, that's all just my opinion)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If we keep the 3 systems, should there be an equivalent to each spell in each system? This 'consolidation' idea sounds like it should be a 'yes'...

And I say 'no'. There should not be three different ways to get the exact same thing. Similar yes,  equivalent  no. Bladesharp should be different from Damage Boosting and different from Truesword. That is what makes things fun.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Captain Obvious here: hobby forums are a bad place for making bold statements purporting to be objective truth (give me some credit: I am aware of the irony of me just making a bold statement of objective truth on a hobby forum stating that ...... but work with me).

Readers and posters on rpg forums (fora?) tend to be opinionated, bright and calling upon their (our) experience of the rule or setting under discussion. The likelihood of those experiences and opinions aligning and there being agreement seems pretty low. That doesn't IMO mean that anyone is wrong though.

 

One of the best bits of advice that I received on said subject was: just read every post as if it begins with the words 'In My Opinion' because;

a) typing that in front of every statement would be boring and expecting anyone to do that would be unreasonable

b) reading that in front of every statement would get dull quickly and expecting anyone to do that would be unreasonable

c) of course we're all stating our personal opinions, it's not like there's some controlling intelligence telling us what to type

d) it makes it much easier to assume that fellow posters are going out of their way to say something hurtful or hateful if one just assumes that they are stating their personal opinion and are acknowledging it as such.

 

That said in response to OP:

I love all of the names for RQ/Glorantha/d100 spells

Although I tinker with game mechanics I'm a bit crap at them (mine and others) TBH

I've long since given up trying to keep on top of the multitude of cult spells and have no chance of working out which is the optimum choice in any encounter

 

So:

When I play in someone else's game I just pick a Cult that I think understand and like the look of and hence some Cult spells which seem interesting to me and marvel at a GM who can keep a track of what all the spells that their NPCs and our PCs are using

When I run a game I use a more freeform/stripped down set of magic rules (think 'roll table' from Elric! and you're 90% of the way there) but insist that the players give the spell/charm/enchantment they're using a suitable name; most of the time the name chosen will either come directly from or sound very similar to an RQ spellname.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Scott said:

The too many spells "problem" also applies other areas of RuneQuest Glorantha. My players have already said too many kinds of weapons and armour, they want more spells though. 

and the opposite way, there is a lot of "too many" problems and a lot of "not enough" problems

and these too many and not enough vary even in time for a same person

Years ago I considered Rolemaster as the "too many" (but there were / are people who like this system,for sure) and D&D as the "not enough" (but there were / are people who like this system, I believe...)

But now I m not so convinced about D&D system, after seeing some youtube episod with a french team of professional actor who show me a nice narrative approach (well I dislike the system however).

 

And here is my point (not for you @David Scott , a general point) don't say the design sucks because you like something else or dislike a point. If it sucks for you, don't use it and... that's all. No need to demonstrate designers are pityfull because it is only a personal opinion (thanks @Al. of the key word) And if you are right, well.. in few months the company or the product will closed down.

After half a century, runquest still exists (and evolve) that sounds like the design is not too bad (yes I know, it is perfectible, of course)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As per the title, as there too many spells in Runequest?

In "My RuneQuest" games, no. I like lots of spells; my players like lots of spells.

Quote

In some cases, certainly in earlier editions, the same spells were in spirit, rune, and sorcery, just written slightly differently. Is this really required?

Possibly not required in some cases. That said, it doesn't bother me if there is overlap in spell description and functionality.

Quote

I am musing this, as thinking of going Savage Worlds approach, and having a core set of spells that can do most of what the players want, with a bit of bespoke wording. Is anyone doing anything similar?

"Your RuneQuest" is "Your RuneQuest" and if you have the time to do the legwork of simplification or consolidation for your game, more power to you! The game rules are there to be modified to whatever you feel meets your personal requirements. What pleases you and your players may be antithetical to a different group's style. Personally, I don't have the time that I used to have to tinker (life speeds up) so "am not doing anything similar" in answer to your question.

By all means, however, should you do the work for "Your RuneQuest" and feel you want to share it in the Downloads section of these forums (subject to the important Intellectual Property do's and don'ts, of course!), I'm sure there are people here who would love to see what you come up. Alternatively, by all means come up with some examples of what you are musing over and post them for discussion.

Edited by Anunnaki
Clarification
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately lower case l (elle) and upper case I (eye) are the same in the font that most forums use.

So there I was thinking that I'd chosen the simplest user name possible (my name) and it's caused confusion ever since.

There must be a lesson there somewhere.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2021 at 8:33 PM, Al. said:

Unfortunately lower case l (elle) and upper case I (eye) are the same in the font that most forums use.

So there I was thinking that I'd chosen the simplest user name possible (my name) and it's caused confusion ever since.

There must be a lesson there somewhere.

😄 😄  😄 Sorry....  Blame the inventors of our current alphabet!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2021 at 10:50 AM, RogerDee said:

As per the title, as there too many spells in Runequest?

In some cases, certainly in earlier editions, the same spells were in spirit, rune, and sorcery, just written slightly differently. Is this really required?

I am musing this, as thinking of going Savage Worlds approach, and having a core set of spells that can do most of what the players want, with a bit of bespoke wording. Is anyone doing anything similar?

It's possible you want to look at a game like GURPS, or Hero/Champions.  They work more like you are describing...

Neither that way, nor RQ's way, is "better" (in any objective/absolute sense).

Some people prefer dark chocolate, some prefer milk chocolate, and a few benighted souls don't even like chocolate (do not trust such people, they are obviously possessed by demons who cannot abide the Food of the Gods).
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

😄 😄  😄 Sorry....  Blame the inventors of our current alphabet!

No apology required

Clearly we need to go to an easier system of numbers and smells 😜

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 2:01 AM, Shiningbrow said:

😄 😄  😄 Sorry....  Blame the inventors of our current alphabet!

Blame the proponents of mixing different alphabets to create upper and lower case. After all...

Roman period tended to favor what we would call block capitals (especially when carving inscriptions into capitols)

Carolingian Minuscule only uses what we would refer to as lower-case letters.

Uncial may be considered a Majuscule (all capitals) form, though I think many used a larger representation to emphasize initial capitals from the rest of the word/line. Though "half Uncial" looks to be a Minuscule form.

The less said about black-letter/gothic, the better (apparently the dotted i and j came about as one form of black-letter had strokes that made m, n, u look like a series of iii [without dots])

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 9:10 AM, g33k said:

It's possible you want to look at a game like GURPS, or Hero/Champions.  They work more like you are describing...

Neither that way, nor RQ's way, is "better" (in any objective/absolute sense).

Some people prefer dark chocolate, some prefer milk chocolate, and a few benighted souls don't even like chocolate (do not trust such people, they are obviously possessed by demons who cannot abide the Food of the Gods).
 

Actually baked beans on toast  are the Food of the Gods....or maybe a nice homemade curry

But chocolate is ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 4:10 AM, g33k said:

Some people prefer dark chocolate, some prefer milk chocolate, and a few benighted souls don't even like chocolate (do not trust such people, they are obviously possessed by demons who cannot abide the Food of the Gods).

And then there are the poor lost souls who partake of white chocolate, and we know that they are lost to the Gods altogether, victims of Eurmal.

But that takes us to a distant Hell, far from the OP.

Given the diverse range of interests in and approaches to Glorantha and RuneQuest, I don't think there will be any universal consensus for more or fewer spell choices.  RQG continues on the path from RQ2 and the diversity that came in the early Cults books.  When we GM our games, or develop content for Jonstown Compendium, we can explore those angles or options that we may individually prefer and see if others respond to them, or not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 1:10 AM, g33k said:

It's possible you want to look at a game like GURPS, or Hero/Champions.  They work more like you are describing...

Ironically enough, GURPS Magic has, like, 800 spells or something? (and that's not counting GURPS Thautmaturgy's custom magic systems) So I'm not sure about this recommendation 🙂

GURPS is pretty up-front about its entire point-buy economy being based on _some_ assumptions about the world the characters are living in, and the kind of core activities they're going to do in it. These costs are meant to be modified by the GM if the game world is vastly different from these assumptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...