Runequest 2ed Questions

[PhilHibbs]

On 9/24/2021 at 3:22 AM, Alex said:

You're welcome!  I think some sort of 'session zero' exercise is very useful for establishing this sort of thing.

RQ2 didn't have Sessions Zero!

Mumble grumble back in my day...

[g33k]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:18 PM, NickMiddleton said:

What you have is a raw, entirely untrained 15-16 year old. If you look at pages 25, 34 and others (in the Classic edition) you can see how starting characters can get credit with various bodies for training:

It’s a tad fiddly, and scattered through various chapters, but you can get a chunk of training to lift starting skills (and some initial magic): but it leaves you with significant debts to various guilds… …which gives a solid reason for characters to be taking risky but rewarding jobs to try to pay off those debts!

Compared to other parts of char-gen, I don't find these rules "fiddly" at all.
As you say -- motivation to go find rewarding adventures!

Also:  links to guilds... some of which are just the commercial/secular faces of Cults.

 

On 9/14/2021 at 11:18 PM, NickMiddleton said:

...

As far as I can recall, we always used the Appendix H rules and had starting characters who were early twenties, rather than kids fresh off the farm.

Us, too.

[g33k]

On 9/21/2021 at 1:26 PM, Raebon said:

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.

I think the idea is, using those specific skills for-real instead of in-class; practical/applied skill vs theoretical.

So if you're map-making, did it help the person you gave your map to?

If you're doing alchemy, did you gather the correct herbs and other ingredients, process them correctly to be used in your alchemy?

etc...

[g33k]

On 9/24/2021 at 7:17 AM, simonh said:

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

Huh.
I recall the GM applying it to (at least some) other skills...

[g33k]

On 9/22/2021 at 2:16 PM, Alex said:

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.

Worth noting, though, is that while actual *warfare* among Praxians is pretty common, the cattle-raiding in Sartar should always avoid bloodshed.

Better to come home without the cattle, than come home stained with dishonorable blood...

[simonh]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

Huh.
I recall the GM applying it to (at least some) other skills...

This was frequently house ruled or just misunderstood. The rule on this just says this is what you do for combat skills, it doesn't explicitly exclude it for other skills.

I think the theory is that for combat skills you need practical experience in a stressed situation to really learn, but that argument could be also applied to many non-combat physical skills often done under stressful circumstances.

I think that's post-hoc justification though and suspect the real reason is that having the characters go from mediocre fighters to expert duellists entirely through buying training isn't any fun. On the other hand combat skills get lots of use in RQ, while other skills are much more rarely used, so the same rule applied to them would mean those skills would very soon lag behind combat skills.

If that's correct and this is aimed at improving game play, then if your game is atypical in this respect then it would make sense to adjust the rule.

[Alex]

On 10/20/2021 at 6:48 AM, g33k said:

Worth noting, though, is that while actual *warfare* among Praxians is pretty common, the cattle-raiding in Sartar should always avoid bloodshed.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.  YGWV, but if I might quote from a certain "post-canonical" source:

Quote

Feuding clans raid each other often.  Such raids often turn into deadly skirmishes, although even the most sedate raid can erupt into a pitched battle.

 

On 10/20/2021 at 6:48 AM, g33k said:

Better to come home without the cattle, than come home stained with dishonorable blood...

Why would the "blood" option necessarily be the dishonorable one?  Assumes facts not in evidence.  See especially the "feuding clans" part.  And how such feuds can start in the first place.

You're already on someone else's territory, attempting to <yoink!> their property.  Either you have some theory of the case as to why this is an Honourable thing to do (they owe us tribute/wergeld/recompense for some other wrong, and won't pay up, the dogs!), and hence Violence is Always an Option if it comes to that, or that ship sailed as soon as you started.

[Alex]

On 10/17/2021 at 2:53 PM, PhilHibbs said:

RQ2 didn't have Sessions Zero!

Mumble grumble back in my day...

Session Zero was when the rules arguments in your old game you went a li'l bit Khmer Rouge.  "If we're not gonna play it right, I'm gonna ragequit and run it myself!"

[g33k]

On 10/23/2021 at 9:02 PM, Alex said:

Why would the "blood" option necessarily be the dishonorable one?  Assumes facts not in evidence.  See especially the "feuding clans" part.  And how such feuds can start in the first place.

You're already on someone else's territory, attempting to <yoink!> their property.  Either you have some theory of the case as to why this is an Honourable thing to do (they owe us tribute/wergeld/recompense for some other wrong, and won't pay up, the dogs!), and hence Violence is Always an Option if it comes to that, or that ship sailed as soon as you started.

The whole premise of the "Broken Tower" is that the raiding warriors *killed* the herders, and That Was Very Bad Of Them (then another killing -- one of their own! -- as they ran; even more shocking).

Not saying it's NEVER done, but most cattle-raids "should" avoid murder.

Unless the herdsmen turn out to be warriors themselves, of course, and respond with deadly force on their own part...  😉
 

[Alex]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

The whole premise of the "Broken Tower" is that the raiding warriors *killed* the herders, and That Was Very Bad Of Them (then another killing -- one of their own! -- as they ran; even more shocking).

Not saying it's NEVER done, but most cattle-raids "should" avoid murder.

You're combining and apparently conflating three entirely different things there.  Common-or-garden killings, secret murder, and kinslaying.  Two of those are chaos-festering capital crimes;  the other ain't.  (Start a feud, continue a feud, pay wergeld, deduct it from your local or personal mental tally of what those people had coming to them, etc.)

 

2 hours ago, g33k said:

Unless the herdsmen turn out to be warriors themselves, of course, and respond with deadly force on their own part...  😉

Or those warriors show up in response and give pursuit, which is so situation-normal that the aforementioned post-canonical supplement includes a contest for it happening every single time.

I think we're some distance away from the original point, which was "conflict with another tribe, but all the leaders are part of the same cult", which I exemplified with "Sartarite cattle raids:  Orlanth-on-Orlanth crime".  If that doesn't routinely describe the situation in Sartar (and pretty much everywhere else Theyalan), our G's have V'ied rather a lot.  Even just starting with the "armed robbery" part itself, indeed, whether or not we ever get to the "actual bodily harm", and whether or not that involves whatever degree of homicide in whatever circumstances.

[Bren]

16 hours ago, Alex said:

You're combining and apparently conflating three entirely different things there.  Common-or-garden killings, secret murder, and kinslaying.  Two of those are chaos-festering capital crimes;  the other ain't.  (Start a feud, continue a feud, pay wergeld, deduct it from your local or personal mental tally of what those people had coming to them, etc.)

What was done is worse than killing in combat. It's killing captives. Here's what the adventure says:

Spoiler

Quote

If Lannike is asked for an explanation of what happened,
she says that with Danakos Son of Ergost, she and four other
Greydogs—Mitrolar, Desonil, Theydinna, and Varanik—went along
with his scheme, hoping to earn some fame and status within their
clan with such a daring raid. They thought they’d simply ambush
and tie up the Colymar herders, but Danakos surprised them by
killing the captives.