Runequest and the bar of entry

[ffilz]

1 hour ago, Scorus said:

I think Glorantha is easy to play in but hard to GM, like EPT (I really miss playing in Tekumel!). For someone completely new to RQ, the GM boxed set that includes the main book, Bestiary, and GM Adventures and Six Seasons in Sartar from the Jonstown Compendium would give you what you need to get started! And to start the addiction that will make you buy more stuff! 🙂

I find Glorantha easy to GM. But I've been GMing it since 1978 and my Glorantha is not the cultural anthropology high myth Glorantha of today. My Glorantha more resembles a pseudo-medieval fantasy campaign (D&Dish) with some unique creatures and sentient beings and some interesting cults so I find it no harder to run than D&D using whatever setting. But that's me. Someone wanting to get into the Glorantha of today has more work, but I also think there are lots of great things to get started with and if you pick one of those and concentrate on the region that is set in, you can learn that little bit and you don't need to learn the cosmic mythology instantly. The Starter Set should be a great start!

[ffilz]

33 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

Well, you could say the same of D&D - lots of people know what Mind Flayers, Beholders, Perytons, Xorns, Kobolds are, and they are nothing like terrestrial creatures. Similarly for Hra, Jagji, Vringalu, Mrur, Serudla etc in Tekumel - once you know them you know them.  Hard thing no do, Do thing no hard.

Sure, it's no harder to learn those Tekumel monsters than the more esoteric D&D monsters. But D&D also has things that have shown up in a variety of fictional media in some way. Plus it has lions and tigers and bears. Tekumel doesn't have lions and tigers and bears... So if I wanted the PCs to stumble on something in the jungle, I don't know what it is other than being forced to use an exotic creature.

[RandomNumber]

11 hours ago, Stephen L said:

But it’s a question of GM style

You're spot on. This is a fascinating thread as it reveals quite a lot about where we like to focus (as players and GM's) that I hadn't thought much about before. There are many luminaries who have generously contributed to this thread having made great arguments for keeping NPC detail minimal as it gets in the way of where they do want to focus i.e. the setting and the grand drama of Glorantha's epic stories and settings. I agree with those points intellectually but not so much emotionally.

For me and my players the setting was always interesting but what was most appealing was the micro detail, including of individual NPC's. Perhaps why RQ2/3/G appealed to us was because the system facilitated detail in a way other systems did not. So whilst I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with NPC stat blocks they are essential for my group in providing a very rich layer of micro detail in which the players are typically no more or less exceptional than the NPC's with whom they interact.

Frankly, I'm glad it's the "big picture" GM's who are running the joint, acting as stewards of the canon and curating JC.  Left to the likes of me it would be a turgid, detailed mess. MGDV (My Glorantha Does Vary) not so much in the sweep of the setting but in where I choose to shine the spotlight as a GM. RQG and Glorantha work seamlessly to enable that approach without me feeling like I have to go find another system or setting to use. IMHO no one approach is better or worse than another; it's simply a matter of preference and RQG allows for them all.

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by RandomNumber
typo

[French Desperate WindChild]

6 hours ago, RandomNumber said:

IMHO no one approach is better or worse than another; it's simply a matter of preference and RQG allows for them all.

You are absolutely right.

 

[g33k]

@Adaras --

The classic advice(*) from grognards to those new to RQ (and this advice has been getting handed out for at least 20 years, so many of today's "old timers" cut their teeth on it!) is to start small.   😎

Pick a clan or tribe, or an individual Cult, and focus your starting stories there.  Encourage your players to create their PC's to be members of your focus, or at least sympathetic to the needs of that group and willing (or even eager) to help.  N.B. this implies that you NOT throw the setting wide-open to whatever the players want!  Get them to focus a bit, collaborate, pick something in common (or, as GM, pick something for them, to be that focal point).

Grow your Glorantha organically, with the adventures of the group.  You don't need to learn about Sartar to begin playing a bunch of Praxian Nomads, nor do you need to know about Prax to start in a stead near Clearwine, in Sartar; and NEITHER start needs to know about Esrolia, or Uz (Trolls), or Aldryami (Elves), or etc etc etc.

But when adventures take you to those exotic places, or exotic adventurers from those places come to you, then you can begin to learn about them...  And as the adventurers begin to grow and experience more of the world, so will the players.  And the GM only has to stay 1 adventure ahead of them!  😁

edit:  forgot to add my (*footnote):  the other classic grognard response is often a dizzying descent into the depths of Gloranthan nerdery and anthropowankery.

Edited May 22, 2021 by g33k

[g33k]

Also, I'm gonna give out a couple of +1's --

First up, +1 for the (free) Quickstart (PDF).  A nice little adventure, some sample PC's, a brief bit of the rules (ONLY the rules needed to run this advanture), and done.  Nothing on character-generation, advancement, or anything else (one of the PC's is extra-simplified, because she had access to the "Sorcery" magical method, deemed too complex for a Quickstart product; another PC, a shaman, is an "alternate" PC in a supplemental download).

Next, +1 for the (so-called) "GM Screen Pack."  This is an AWESOME resource!  I call it "so-called" because -- although the GM screen is indeed part of it, and very useful -- the pack has *TREMENDOUSLY* more content than just "the screen."  It has a sourcebook for the town of Clearwine, and the Ernaldori Tribe for whom Clearwine is the clan center.  It has several ready-to-run adventures.  It has enough plot-hooks that the whole thing is a nice little mini-sandbox setting that could legitimately offer YEARS of RL-weekly play.

Honestly, I think Chaosium missed a prime opportunity in how they named this product.  It should have been called the "Adventure Pack," or "Clearwine Resource Pack," or SOMETHING to give a better sense of the scope of the package.  Most gamers, when they see a product labeled as  "... screen..." anything, they assume the "screen" is the key item, the apex-product of the package.  But the 128 pages in the setting/adventure book is IMHO / IME vastly more valuable (and relevant to me, as a GM) than the mere "screen".

 

Honestly, the "slipcase set" -- core rulebook, bestiary, and GM Screen Pack, is a VERY nice package, with a HUGE amount of play-value.

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by g33k

[g33k]

On 5/21/2021 at 9:06 AM, Stephen L said:

Not to disagree with what Nick says, which makes excellent sense... but rather to give an alternative view from a GM who is challenged in keeping on-top of things, and why I find Stat blocks useful:

First, I like my foes to be distinguishable.  So, as they close for combat, I like to have a *very* brief description of the foe, (big and beefy, muscly, lithe, commanding...) and their arms/armour (but not too detailed).  Visible spells effects are really atmospheric as well.  A stat block gives me as a GM the detail I need to provide that flavour to the players...

I do both.

That is, I have the HIGHLY abbreviated stat-block, *AND* I call out individual NPC's -- "the big one," or "the lean one" or "the bling'ed-out one," or "the frothing maniac" (and so forth).

A faceless horde of mooks may be no more than Mook#1, #2, etc.  There likely ARE a bunch of essentially-indistinguishable members of a horde.  But in a group of... say, a dozen or so... a few (2-5) will likely have SOMETHING that stands out; very FEW faceless hordes will actually be entirely composed of distinguishable individuals.

Sometimes, the only distinguishing characteristic is "the one on the end" or something like that; or  (to a specific player) "the two guys who seem to be coming for YOU... one a bit to the left and one a bit to the right."
 

On 5/21/2021 at 9:06 AM, Stephen L said:

... 

But mainly a stat block is helpful is to keep a record of what’s happening in a combat, otherwise it all gets away from me as a GM really quickly.

Combat is rarely over is a single blow, often, it’s the state of weapons that critical (it’s when a shield or parrying weapon is damaged and not blocking much anymore that you’ve an opportunity to take someone out), or it’s a series of wounds that finish things (often by surrender, or breaking off).

As a GM, unless I write damage/wounds down, I lose track *instantly*.  And the stat block is where it goes.  I even have to write down (on the stat block) who is facing each foe!  I'm sad enough to put a tick for each melee round at the top of the page ...

For me, the critical bit of the "statblock" is the little figure of the individual with [ Location, HP/Loc, AP/Loc, d20/Loc ]... some prefer a table/list for the info, but I like the graphical humanoid (or whatever) layout (with the general-HP track at the bottom).

To this, I add the STR, DEX, & POW stats, DMG-bonus, a weapon or two (with dmg, SR, HP/AP etc), Cult, a key Rune, and Rune and/or Spirit magics... and (if relevant) a descriptor like "big" (and then maybe a SIZ stat!) or "lots of bling" (and a short list of the visible flashy elements); or any other detail, as relevant.

The key here is to be flexible.  To have that "minimal generic NPC" statblock (with an emphasis on "minimal"!) BUT with enough room to add a touch or two of customization when relevant -- even just "the one on the end."

On 5/21/2021 at 9:06 AM, Stephen L said:

...

But it’s a question of GM style.  For me detail light and winging it, doesn’t work for combat.  As soon as the fight is joined, as a referee, unless I record it, I wouldn’t (and didn’t) have a scooby what’s going on. 

However, outside combat, the detail of the stat block isn't useful.  I tend to transcribe NPCs for an non-combat encounter from the stat bock to a summary in a few key words, so I have them to hand all together, rather than having to search.

I reiterate here the theme of flexibility.  In a noncombat scenario, the combat-centric mini-statblock (described above) is essentially useless.

Here, I skip the Location-based figure that's at the core of the combat statblock, and lead with a skills-block; maybe social skills, or whatever the arena of conflict is.  CHA, INT, & POW, Cult, spells.  Visual descriptions are a bit expanded because you've got time (to really examine the fabric of the cloak (if "fabric" is an element your character might focus on), etc) over the course of bargaining with a merchant, negotiating with a bandit to pass without a fight, or during the singing contest, or whatever.