Jump to content

Runequest 2ed Questions


Scout

Recommended Posts

Page 26: Experience Check Example

"Shorban the Dumb, with an INT of 8, has a minus 3% to his chance of learning from experience."

Where's the -3% come from? There's an extra 3% for every point of INT above 12 (on page 25), but I can't find any rules about a -3%.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scout said:

Page 24: Rurik's Tavern Brawl (example)

"The cudgel lands on Herkan’s abdomen, for a roll of 10 out of the 12 a heavy mace (cudgel) can do."

Page 27: Weapon Statistics Table

Heavy Mace (cudgel) does 1d8+2 damage.

How could it do 12 damage if the Heavy Mace (cudgel) only does a maximum of 10? Is this errata?

 

Even ignoring that minor discrepancy, that whole chapter has some unreasonable items.

Consider the difference of Critical, Impale, and Parry of a Critical.

  • (unparried) Critical ignores armor -- but if the target is not wearing armor, that means the difficult-to-achieve critical is the same as a normal hit!
  • Impale (easier to achieve) does rolled damage (with damage bonus) PLUS MAX weapon damage, and "If the blow failed to penetrate armor, it is not stuck and
    there is no need to extract it."
    implies that against an unarmored opponent the impale does more damage than a critical.
  • Parried Critical -- the attack does DOUBLE ROLLED DAMAGE. For an unarmored opponent, with only a small parrying object (say a small shield), it may actually be better to NOT parry the attack. A small shield absorbs 8pts -- an attacker who does 8pts has as much damage go through the shield (double rolled => 16, minus 8 for shield) as would hit if unparried.

But any die roll that qualifies as a Critical should also qualify as an Impale -- so at simplest a critical should ignore armor AND do rolled damage PLUS max weapon damage.

And restricting "special" (20% of normal chance) to impale-only is somewhat unfair. It assumes weapon is lodged in the /armor/ (see above italicized clause). A large club could do much more damage than an "impaled" blade -- the latter may have penetrated armor, and slipped between, say, a pair of ribs, so may be stuck just cutting into a lung. The club could have broken multiple ribs, and driven the bones into the target's body where the bone fragments may continue to do damage as the target moves.

As a result -- the group(s) I used to play in basically used:

  • Critical: MAX DAMAGE and IGNORE ARMOR (I don't recall if we used double max damage, don't think so)
  • Special: /any/ weapon with a 20% of normal attack roll -- rolled damage plus max weapon damage, but account for armor; blades get impale detriment [having to roll to get weapon back]
  • Parried Critical -- nothing special, just a parry absorbing damage.

RQ:RiG applies (paraphrased):

  • Critical: Ignore armor, does maximum impale/slash/crush (per appropriate section of Special -- note that slash/impale is effectively double max weapon damage plus bonus, crush is max weapon plus double max bonus)
  • Special
  1. Crush: Normal damage + normal damage bonus + max damage bonus (so meaningless for characters with no damage bonus)
  2. Slash: Roll weapon damage twice and sum, add normal damage bonus, any magical bonus is also only added once
  3. Impale: as with Slash, but then has impale detriment

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scout said:

Page 24: Rurik's Tavern Brawl (example)

"The cudgel lands on Herkan’s abdomen, for a roll of 10 out of the 12 a heavy mace (cudgel) can do."

Page 27: Weapon Statistics Table

Heavy Mace (cudgel) does 1d8+2 damage.

How could it do 12 damage if the Heavy Mace (cudgel) only does a maximum of 10? Is this errata?

Yep, definitely errata. That example is probably a carryover from RuneQuest First Edition, where there was a two-handed heavy mace that inflicts 1D12 damage (the one-handed version inflicts 1D8 damage).

Weapon statistics were changed in RuneQuest Second Edition and that example was never updated to reflect the revised damage.

Change it to "... a roll of 10, the maximum a heavy mace (cudgel) can do ..." and that should work.

In the RQ1 version, the GM rules that the critical hit against no armor does double damage, thus Herkan took 20 points of damage and the fight was over. In the RQ2 version, the GM doesn't make that double damage ruling for the critical hit, so Rurik inflicts 10 points of damage -- which is 6 over Herkan's abdomen of 4 -- and the fight is still over.

And yeah, as PhilHibbs noted, kinda funny seeing an errata still kicking around from the good old days. Nice one! 🙂 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scout said:

Page 26: Experience Check Example

"Shorban the Dumb, with an INT of 8, has a minus 3% to his chance of learning from experience."

Where's the -3% come from? There's an extra 3% for every point of INT above 12 (on page 25), but I can't find any rules about a -3%.

You are on a roll. 😉 Again, this example comes across from RQ1, but doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere in either editions as a hard rule (only the increase of +3 per point of INT over 12).

The implication is that the -3 per point of INT less than 9 should be in the rules, hence the rule for "minimum chance equal to INT" that kicks in when you are trying for Experience Rolls for high-percentage improvements. That's in line with the way things work for other characteristics (+X for >12, -X for <9), but Your Glorantha Will Vary and all that.

You could probably just ignore this completely, other than retaining a "minimum chance of improvement equal to INT" and things will work out. That would make less INT characters improve at the same rate as high INT characters, but once things get into the >90% brackets, having a higher INT means improvement will be a little easier for those characters.

These older versions of current games always lead to a bunch of house rules for play, so by all means please continue to ask questions! Some of us have been playing this game for so long the line between what is in the game and what we assume can get a little blurry. 😄 But don't be afraid to set your own house rules for your own games. It's part of the charm of the thing! 

Anyways, hope this helps!
 

Edited by Anunnaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone!

New referee to 2e, running some new players through a moderately homebrewed campaign.

Had a couple logistical questions for the venerable grognards.

The cult requirements are a big one. They're all over the place, and some practically preclude adventuring as more than a hobby (looking at you, Lanhkor Mhy and The Seven Mothers). Do you enforce them? I've more or less decided on merely requiring tithes from initiates and rune level characters, the idea being that proper adventurers are rare and valuable commodities to cults. My players are averse to running a rotating cast of characters and, for the moment, I am too. Maybe when someone unceremoniously dies we'll change our minds.

Even requirements for being a lay worshipper can be stiff: mandatory attendance at weekly worship scenarios is tricky in a campaign where I'm enforcing travel times, and random encounters, bad weather and getting lost can all slow you down.

How do you handle cult/tribal relations? While the cults seem to be entities unto themselves, loyalty to one's tribe could come into conflict with cult loyalty. And for cults that are part of tribal life (Waha, Daka Fal, etc), what happens if your tribe comes into conflict with another tribe, but all the leaders are part of the same cult?

Lastly, I've been debating using the optional character creation rules for any replacement characters. But I've noticed sometimes you end up with a character who's ostensibly been trained in weapons they don't have the stats to wield. Any suggestions? Handwavium? Perhaps they were instead trained with a roughly analogous weapon?

Thank you for your wisdom Ancient Ones, and may Arachne Solara bless thee!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone help me with the Grapple rules on page 28, please? There seems to be a lot going on and I'm not sure of what happens when; I'm unsure of the sequence. 

(a) A successful grapple attack means that the attacker has caught the foe’s hit location rolled.

Got it.

A parry with a weapon means the weapon arm was caught instead, a parry with shield means the shield has been grasped.

So, the grappler says they will grapple and the defender says they will parry with their weapon or shield, thus if the grapple is successful, the weapon caught or the shield is grasped? 

Defense can be applied against the initial attack with this skill, and a parry with fist or grapple percentage will mean the hold was blocked.

"Initial attack", do they mean the very first grapple attempt? "With this skill", which skill exactly? What "percentage", exactly? I'm lost.

After a successful attack, the grappler may attempt to immobilize the limb grasped, or throw the foe in the next melee round. To do so he must (b) make another successful grapple attack. Failure means the hold has been broken.

So up to now, the grappler has successfully grappled some part of the defender and now they must make a second grapple attempt to immobilise or throw?

To immobilize a limb, the attacker must (c) also succeed in a STR versus STR roll on the Resistance Table in Chapter V. If this roll is not made, he still has hold of the limb, but it is not immobilized.

To throw his foe, he must (c) make a roll on the Resistance Table of his STR+DEX versus the SIZ+DEX of the foe. Again, failure of this roll means he did not manage to throw his foe, although he still maintains a grip.

It seems to me you have to (a) Initially Grapple the target to grab hold of them (b) Grapple the target a second time to immobilise or throw the target (c) Make a third roll using the Resistance Table to immobilise or throw the target. 

It feels that (c), rolling on the Resistance Table, is a bit redundant, because you've just done the rolling to immobilise/thrown, in (b). 

At first I thought (c) was just expanding on (b), but they seem to be two different ways of rolling (i.e. the Grapple roll and the Resistance Table roll). 

Thanks all. 

Edited by Scout
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 29: Two Weapon Fighting

I just need some clarification on two weapon fighting (entry number 6, last sentence). 

 “Or he may attack one at ½ attack ability with one weapon and the other at ½ attack ability"

 Is “the other” referring to the second weapon or a second target?

"...with that weapon and"

 Which weapon, specifically, is “that weapon”?

"with full ability with the other weapon.”

 Which foe can he attack with “full ability with the other weapon”? I think it is referring to the second foe, but I’m not sure.

Thank all. 

Edited by Scout
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Grappling the initial attack works very closely to the same as any other attack. It can be parried, and if so the attack hits the parrying arm/shield. Defence can be used against this attack as normal.

In subsequent rounds to carry out a hold or throw you have to make a successful Grapple roll again, and make a resistance roll. I think the skill roll is to execute the technique correctly, and the resistance table roll is to overcome the opposition of the target.

This is the full text of paragraph 6 on two weapon use:

Quote

6. A character using 2 weapons at 100% or more with each weapon may attack one foe twice at full attack percentage (once with each weapon). He may attack 2 foes twice at 1⁄2 normal attack percentage (each being attacked once with each weapon). Or he may attack one at 1⁄2 attack ability with one weapon and the other at 1⁄2 attack ability with that weapon and with full ability with the other weapon.

The bit I put in bold, which you quoted, is all talking about the same weapon. The character is making a 1/2 chance attacks against a target with one weapon, a 1/2 chance attack with the same weapon against a second target, and a full chance attack against the second target with their other weapon.

Edited by simonh
  • Thanks 1

Check out the Runequest Glorantha Wiki for RQ links and resources. Any updates or contributions welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scout said:

Could someone help me with the Grapple rules on page 28, please? There seems to be a lot going on and I'm not sure of what happens when; I'm unsure of the sequence. 

(a) A successful grapple attack means that the attacker has caught the foe’s hit location rolled.

Got it.

A parry with a weapon means the weapon arm was caught instead, a parry with shield means the shield has been grasped.

So, the grappler says they will grapple and the defender says they will parry with their weapon or shield, thus if the grapple is successful, the weapon arm is caught or the shield is grasped?

Minor correction...

Quote

Defense can be applied against the initial attack with this skill, and a parry with fist or grapple percentage will mean the hold was blocked.

"Initial attack", do they mean the very first grapple attempt? "With this skill", which skill exactly? What "percentage", exactly? I'm lost.

Defense can be applied against pretty much ANY attack skill. Since you are referencing a section specific to Grappling, "this skill" is a stand-in for "grappling"

"Initial attack" has to be read against the following grapple actions...

Quote

After a successful attack, the grappler may attempt to immobilize the limb grasped, or throw the foe in the next melee round. To do so he must (b) make another successful grapple attack. Failure means the hold has been broken.

So up to now, the grappler has successfully grappled some part of the defender and now they must make a second grapple attempt to immobilise or throw?

... The initial grapple means you NOW have a grip/grasp on part of the opponent. Subsequent rounds require successful grapple to keep that hold (the opponent can not use defense as you already have a hold on them -- "defense" is, in this sense, a "dodge the grapple") and to allow you to ATTEMPT some other action. Failing the subsequent grapple implies the opponent has twisted out of your grip (or, in the case of having grappled a shield, maybe slipped his arm out of the shield straps).

Quote

To immobilize a limb, the attacker must (c) also succeed in a STR versus STR roll on the Resistance Table in Chapter V. If this roll is not made, he still has hold of the limb, but it is not immobilized.

To throw his foe, he must (c) make a roll on the Resistance Table of his STR+DEX versus the SIZ+DEX of the foe. Again, failure of this roll means he did not manage to throw his foe, although he still maintains a grip.

The Grapple roll is to retain the grip, the resistance roll is to do something with that grip

Quote

It seems to me you have to (a) Initially Grapple the target to grab hold of them (b) Grapple the target a second time to immobilise or throw the target (c) Make a third roll using the Resistance Table to immobilise or throw the target. 

It feels that (c), rolling on the Resistance Table, is a bit redundant, because you've just done the rolling to immobilise/thrown, in (b). 

At first I thought (c) was just expanding on (b), but they seem to be two different ways of rolling (i.e. the Grapple roll and the Resistance Table roll). 

Thanks all. 

A : Grapple to get the initial grip on the target -- target may use Defense and/or Parry the grapple
B : Grapple to MAINTAIN the hold in the new melee round -- target is presumed to be tugging you around trying to break free
C : Resistance roll to do something with the hold you have (twist arm behind target's back)

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Raebon said:

Hi everyone!

New referee to 2e, running some new players through a moderately homebrewed campaign.

Had a couple logistical questions for the venerable grognards.

The cult requirements are a big one. They're all over the place, and some practically preclude adventuring as more than a hobby (looking at you, Lanhkor Mhy and The Seven Mothers). Do you enforce them? I've more or less decided on merely requiring tithes from initiates and rune level characters, the idea being that proper adventurers are rare and valuable commodities to cults. My players are averse to running a rotating cast of characters and, for the moment, I am too. Maybe when someone unceremoniously dies we'll change our minds.

Even requirements for being a lay worshipper can be stiff: mandatory attendance at weekly worship scenarios is tricky in a campaign where I'm enforcing travel times, and random encounters, bad weather and getting lost can all slow you down.

How do you handle cult/tribal relations? While the cults seem to be entities unto themselves, loyalty to one's tribe could come into conflict with cult loyalty. And for cults that are part of tribal life (Waha, Daka Fal, etc), what happens if your tribe comes into conflict with another tribe, but all the leaders are part of the same cult?

Lastly, I've been debating using the optional character creation rules for any replacement characters. But I've noticed sometimes you end up with a character who's ostensibly been trained in weapons they don't have the stats to wield. Any suggestions? Handwavium? Perhaps they were instead trained with a roughly analogous weapon?

Thank you for your wisdom Ancient Ones, and may Arachne Solara bless thee!

 

I don't do a very good job of enforcing attendance and such... I guess in my campaign adventurers are exempt... I would definitely agree that lay members should not have much obligation other than in a few very select cults. I've had an adventuring Lhankor Mhy before, though I'm not sure the PC ever made initiate, or if she did, it was near the end of the campaign. Since i never got into the cultural anthropology aspects of Glorantha, the tribal stuff really a factor.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2021 at 4:52 PM, Raebon said:

The cult requirements are a big one. They're all over the place, and some practically preclude adventuring as more than a hobby (looking at you, Lanhkor Mhy and The Seven Mothers). Do you enforce them? I've more or less decided on merely requiring tithes from initiates and rune level characters, the idea being that proper adventurers are rare and valuable commodities to cults. My players are averse to running a rotating cast of characters and, for the moment, I am too. Maybe when someone unceremoniously dies we'll change our minds.

Even requirements for being a lay worshipper can be stiff: mandatory attendance at weekly worship scenarios is tricky in a campaign where I'm enforcing travel times, and random encounters, bad weather and getting lost can all slow you down.

 

We never really found these a problem. Often the characters would be notionally on cult business anyway, and even if they weren't there's generally an "if at all possible" caveat that's a handy get-out clause. If you're in the middle of the wastes, clearly it's not at all possible to be at a Temple. Maybe a bit of fudging going on, but as long as the character put in some extra effort to stay good with the cult, it was fine.

To be honest back in the early days we didn't think about tribal politics because we didn't know it existed. The only social context the game gave us was the cult relationships so that's what we focused on, that and chafing against Lunar rule. Yes of course we realised there was a political situation, but at the time the Lunars ruled Sartar and Pavis so we assumed it was a period of relative stability.

Edited by simonh
  • Thanks 1

Check out the Runequest Glorantha Wiki for RQ links and resources. Any updates or contributions welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ffilz said:

I don't do a very good job of enforcing attendance and such... I guess in my campaign adventurers are exempt... I would definitely agree that lay members should not have much obligation other than in a few very select cults. I've had an adventuring Lhankor Mhy before, though I'm not sure the PC ever made initiate, or if she did, it was near the end of the campaign. Since i never got into the cultural anthropology aspects of Glorantha, the tribal stuff really a factor.

 

1 hour ago, simonh said:

We never really found these a problem. Often the characters would be notionally on cult business anyway, and even if they weren't there's generally an "if at all possible" caveat that's a handy get-out clause. If you're in the middle of the wastes, clearly it's not at all possible to be at a Temple. Maybe a bit of fudging going on, but as long as the character put in some extra effort to stay good with the cult, it was fine.

To be honest back in the early days we didn't think about tribal politics because we didn't know it existed. The only social context the game gave us was the cult relationships so that's what we focused on, that and chafing against Lunar rule. Yes of course we realised there was a political situation, but at the time the Lunars ruled Sartar and Pavis so we assumed it was a period of relative stability.

Fair enough! Helps to know other people had fairly similar thoughts on how to run things.

Couple of rules questions: does training in non-combat skills require learning by experience in between? It seemed ... odd that if you wanted to improve map making or alchemy, you needed to do it while trying to dodge arrows at the same time.

How did people handle shamans back in the day? Could they become rune level characters? It seemed strange to me that there'd be a career that could never get rune magic. I've basically just inserted shamans in place of priests for some of the tribal cults and created a system for them to acquire rune magic by fighting spirits for it.

Thanks y'all! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I have been running RQ1, the shaman rules didn't really make sense so we never used them. The shaman rules in RQ2 make a lot more sense. I think there is supposed to be a way for shamans to get rune magic but it never made sense. You might want to look at the shaman rules from RQG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Raebon said:

How did people handle shamans back in the day? Could they become rune level characters? It seemed strange to me that there'd be a career that could never get rune magic. I've basically just inserted shamans in place of priests for some of the tribal cults and created a system for them to acquire rune magic by fighting spirits for it.

In RQ2 shamans generally got no reusable rune magic. Their power was in their impressive spirit magic, the fetch, spirit combat and the ability to wield spirits and elementals. Don't worry, they are plenty powerful enough. In Cults of Prax it implies that priests of Daka Fal are shamans. It's not really explicitly clear exactly how that works I don't think, but it's not all that hard to reconcile either. It never stopped us.

RQ 3 clarified this by creating the category of Spirit Cults with a Shaman status that were also effectively priests. This gave them reusable rune magic, but they generally only got access to a small subset of the common rune magic, some rune spells specific to shamanic practices (Axis Mundi for example) and magic for their specific cult (e.g. shape changing spells for hsunchen). A lot of cults that had rune priests and rune lords in RQ2 switched to this structure, such as all the native Praxian cults. I remember players asking what would happen to their Priest of Storm Bull when they converted their character to RQ3.

EDIT - Going through the RQ2 classic books again for this thread makes me super nostalgic. In some ways RQ2 was pretty crude, but it's also incredibly atmospheric and is such a great little game. Once you figured out how to handle some of it's odd kinks it was a ton of fun.

Edited by simonh

Check out the Runequest Glorantha Wiki for RQ links and resources. Any updates or contributions welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, simonh said:

EDIT - Going through the RQ2 classic books again for this thread makes me super nostalgic. In some ways RQ2 was pretty crude, but it's also incredibly atmospheric and is such a great little game. Once you figured out how to handle some of it's odd kinks it was a ton of fun.

Man, right? I took my group straight from 5e DnD and they seem to behaving a whale of a time not murdering everything they meet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2021 at 4:52 PM, Raebon said:

The cult requirements are a big one. They're all over the place, and some practically preclude adventuring as more than a hobby (looking at you, Lanhkor Mhy and The Seven Mothers). Do you enforce them? I've more or less decided on merely requiring tithes from initiates and rune level characters, the idea being that proper adventurers are rare and valuable commodities to cults.

As Simon says, "cult business" can cover this if the cult is explicitly acting as a patron on an adventure-by-adventure basis, or if they have the status of community champions and get broad licence.

This is only a credibility stretch if the cults are wildly incompatible or actually hostile:  why would the Seven Mothers and Storm Bull be co-sponsoring the same random bunch of adventurers, say?  But that's the sort of thing you can just iron out (or decide how best to hand-wave!) in session zero, I think, if you have buy-in from the players to having PCs from the same community, or otherwise having a clearly understood common purpose of some kind.

On 9/20/2021 at 4:52 PM, Raebon said:

Even requirements for being a lay worshipper can be stiff: mandatory attendance at weekly worship scenarios is tricky in a campaign where I'm enforcing travel times, and random encounters, bad weather and getting lost can all slow you down.

For lay members, even fairly major back-sliding is going to have more social than magical consequences.  So if you have either permission or forgiveness from the mundane hierarchy, you're fine.

On 9/20/2021 at 4:52 PM, Raebon said:

How do you handle cult/tribal relations? While the cults seem to be entities unto themselves, loyalty to one's tribe could come into conflict with cult loyalty. And for cults that are part of tribal life (Waha, Daka Fal, etc), what happens if your tribe comes into conflict with another tribe, but all the leaders are part of the same cult?

This is situation normal.  Praxian tribes are constantly at war with each other, and most of the warriors are Waha cultists.  Likewise Sartarite cattle raids:  Orlanth-on-Orlanth crime.  Evidently not a metaphysical problem for the god for his followers to be knocking lumps out of each other.  In social terms, priests are very much primarily loyal to their tribes rather than any separate religious hierarchy, which doesn't really exist anyway.  Except for cults like Paps-Eiritha...  who're not the ones doing the drive-by stabbing, anyway.  Only if the cultists break religious norms (acting against cult virtues, breaking ritual taboos) would they get any sort of religious pushback.  Humakti killing each other in honorable combat:  mythically correct behaviour!  Humakti breaking oaths to each other, nooooo.

  • Like 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2021 at 5:16 PM, Alex said:

As Simon says, "cult business" can cover this if the cult is explicitly acting as a patron on an adventure-by-adventure basis, or if they have the status of community champions and get broad licence.

This is only a credibility stretch if the cults are wildly incompatible or actually hostile:  why would the Seven Mothers and Storm Bull be co-sponsoring the same random bunch of adventurers, say?  But that's the sort of thing you can just iron out (or decide how best to hand-wave!) in session zero, I think, if you have buy-in from the players to having PCs from the same community, or otherwise having a clearly understood common purpose of some kind.

For lay members, even fairly major back-sliding is going to have more social than magical consequences.  So if you have either permission or forgiveness from the mundane hierarchy, you're fine.

This is situation normal.  Praxian tribes are constantly at war with each other, and most of the warriors are Waha cultists.  Likewise Sartarite cattle raids:  Orlanth-on-Orlanth crime.  Evidently not a metaphysical problem for the god for his followers to be knocking lumps out of each other.  In social terms, priests are very much primarily loyal to their tribes rather than any separate religious hierarchy, which doesn't really exist anyway.  Except for cults like Paps-Eiritha...  who're not the ones doing the drive-by stabbing, anyway.  Only if the cultists break religious norms (acting against cult virtues, breaking ritual taboos) would they get any sort of religious pushback.  Humakti killing each other in honorable combat:  mythically correct behaviour!  Humakti breaking oaths to each other, nooooo.

Much obliged! I think I'm going to err on the side of cult priority. The origins of my group's characters are ill-defined, so cult loyalty works better methinks. Probably I'll tie it down locally, to an extent. Loyalty order might be: temple-cult-city, or something like that.

One rule question I'm trying to nail down: do you need to learn by experience in between training of non-combat skills? The rulebook didn't seem totally clear on this point to me,and I could see the logic going either way tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Raebon said:

Much obliged! I think I'm going to err on the side of cult priority. The origins of my group's characters are ill-defined, so cult loyalty works better methinks. Probably I'll tie it down locally, to an extent. Loyalty order might be: temple-cult-city, or something like that.

You're welcome!  I think some sort of 'session zero' exercise is very useful for establishing this sort of thing.  Could be something like a relationship map, a 'community questionnaire' type thing, or just a running-stuff-up-the-flagpole exercise.  "So peeps, I'm thinking of structuring things around Fubar the Windy, High Storm Voice of Somelocation, being the main patron for your PCs -- that work for youse?"

32 minutes ago, Raebon said:

One rule question I'm trying to nail down: do you need to learn by experience in between training of non-combat skills? The rulebook didn't seem totally clear on this point to me,and I could see the logic going either way tbh.

As far as I'm aware, there's no restriction of this sort-- unless I've missed such a thing entirely.  My meta-logic would also be that it'd be a bad idea if there were, as it'd be a whole extra and fairly unnecessary bookkeeping exercise to track skills-I-need-to-improve-with-a-tick vs ones-I'm-able-to-train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, simonh said:

The restriction on having to learn by experience before you can buy another 5% training is specific to combat skills.

Oops.  That feeling when you've spend an embarrassingly long time looking for a rule in RQG, as opposed to 2s looking at the "RQ2" in the thread title...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Alex said:

You're welcome!  I think some sort of 'session zero' exercise is very useful for establishing this sort of thing.  Could be something like a relationship map, a 'community questionnaire' type thing, or just a running-stuff-up-the-flagpole exercise.  "So peeps, I'm thinking of structuring things around Fubar the Windy, High Storm Voice of Somelocation, being the main patron for your PCs -- that work for youse?"

Yeah, most def! I did a session zero but more to set the stage of Glorantha and make sure everyone was cool with dying horribly because a trollkin got a lucky roll. Nobody's died yet, but one player almost died twice in the first session: two rock toads nearly ripped her in half (one had the left leg; the other had the right arm), and then a baboon pegged her in the chest with a stone hard enough to put her down, bleeding to death.

So far they're cool with wandering around finding work where they can. Got an initiate of Lankhor Mhy, two Daka Fal aspirants going to find a shaman, and a would-be Black Fang Brotherhood assassin about to get his first job.

11 hours ago, simonh said:

The restriction on having to learn by experience before you can buy another 5% training is specific to combat skills.

On 9/22/2021 at 5:16 PM, Alex said:

 

Ah, boosh! Thanks Simon! I couldn't settle on a way to handle it and it would have fairly major implications on the game, so it's nice to have that settled.

Also because my lankhor mhy initiate only became one because he spent 45 weeks solid training up his alchemy skill 😛

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Raebon said:

Yeah, most def! I did a session zero but more to set the stage of Glorantha and make sure everyone was cool with dying horribly because a trollkin got a lucky roll.

Sometimes you do a session zero and you realize you needed to do a session -1, maybe a session -2, etc, too. 🙂  (Or maybe like the casinos, and a 0, then a 00, a 000...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Not a rules question, but I heard Jeff Richard mention the Xeno Gang and how Greg Stafford would be sure to have a couple of drinks before role-playing the gorilla, just to make sure his reactions were authentic.

Now, I know of the Xeno Gang, I'm sure I've seen them statted up, but I can't for the life of me recall where. Can anyone tell me where I can find the Gang? I'd love to set them on my players! 😆

 

UPDATE: Found them, but not where I expected - RQ3 monster book featured a vignette by Lisa Free of the Xeno Gang!

Edited by EMH
Link to comment
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...