Introducing the RuneQuest Wiki: rules and setting overview, as well as quick-reference for your gaming table, all in once place!

[MOB]

Introducing the RuneQuest Wiki!

Learn about the RuneQuest roleplaying game system and the World of Glorantha: rules and setting overview, as well as quick-reference for your gaming table, all in once place!

Check it out here: The RuneQuest RPG Wiki

Edited December 7, 2021 by MOB

[RandomNumber]

I really enjoy the full-fat character generation in RQG.  Even so, the light-touch version in the wiki is a very handy addition.  Thank you.

[PhilHibbs]

My first reaction was "Great, an official Wiki, I can move appropriate stuff over from the other one and shut it down", but it isn't that kind of wiki is it?

I have added a link to the official wiki, and some words to distinguish the two.

Edited December 7, 2021 by MOB

[PhilHibbs]

Where do you want us to post corrections? All the category mod tables are broken, the contents are offset by one column compared to the headings.

Edited December 7, 2021 by PhilHibbs

[Scotty]

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Where do you want us to post corrections? All the category mod tables are broken, the contents are offset by one column compared to the headings.

Please use this link: https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-wiki-feedback-page/

You can also find the link on the wiki here: https://rqwiki.chaosium.com/about/

 

[Kloster]

On page https://rqwiki.chaosium.com/rules/rules-for-play.html#dice  is written "The dice included in this box are used ...". RQG is not sold in a box, and there is no dice.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Kloster

[Scotty]

Please use this form to report any corrections or issues with the RuneQuest Wiki: https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-wiki-feedback-page/

You can also find the link on the wiki here: https://rqwiki.chaosium.com/about/

[Steve]

This is a fantastic initiative.

However, I do wonder about it being called a Wiki, since it doesn't appear (unless I've misunderstood) to follow the conventional definition of a Wiki, which is collaboratively edited by anyone who wants to.

It's a great resource, but I think the name gives the wrong impression.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Steve

[Kloster]

4 hours ago, Scotty said:

Please use this form to report any corrections or issues with the RuneQuest Wiki: https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-wiki-feedback-page/

You can also find the link on the wiki here: https://rqwiki.chaosium.com/about/

Done.

[svensson]

WONDERFUL!
This will be a huge help in sorting through all the apocrypha, ephemera, ret-conned, rewritten, and wrong stuff that's built up over all this time.

Over in the 'Are bats chaotic' thread, we ended up segueing into information that was announced as 'not canon' and that confused the issue a great deal. Having a reference where 'canon' and 'non-canon' can be parsed will be something to look forward to.

[PhilHibbs]

11 hours ago, svensson said:

WONDERFUL!
This will be a huge help in sorting through all the apocrypha, ephemera, ret-conned, rewritten, and wrong stuff that's built up over all this time.

Over in the 'Are bats chaotic' thread, we ended up segueing into information that was announced as 'not canon' and that confused the issue a great deal. Having a reference where 'canon' and 'non-canon' can be parsed will be something to look forward to.

It is a RuneQuest Rules resource, not Glorantha Lore.

[Alex]

4 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

It is a RuneQuest Rules resource, not Glorantha Lore.

There is of course a "fandom" site for the latter, if you can tolerate Wikia's cookie-force-feeding practices.  I don't think it aims to cover anything 'post-canonical'.

[Steve]

17 hours ago, svensson said:

This will be a huge help in sorting through all the apocrypha, ephemera, ret-conned, rewritten, and wrong stuff that's built up over all this time.

This appears to help illustrate my point that calling it a Wiki creates totally the wrong impression.

[Joerg]

  I suppose it is based on a wiki platform with a very limited team of editors.

There is a communication form for suggested improvements, reporting problems in the text, or even just typos. At least mine was taken care of quite promptly, about as fast as a moderated edit would have taken.

20 hours ago, svensson said:

WONDERFUL!
This will be a huge help in sorting through all the apocrypha, ephemera, ret-conned, rewritten, and wrong stuff that's built up over all this time.

Once upon a time there was such an online tool, the Buserian interface by Charles Corrigan for a database created mostly by myself, starting as a lexicalic collection of facts with page numbers and tags in ASCII format, supported by some indexing work by others. By the time it went online it had about 30,000 entries, with crosslinks, page numbers, explanatory texts of varying length and quality, and thousands of direct quotations invisible to most of the public (but available to editors and to authors writing for Glorantha).

There was a comment function open to the public, and people could become editors (few did).

What the tool did not have was an entry level version where short, newbie-friendly answers would shield users from the rabbit-holes of deeper or even diverging information.

I should still have the precursor data on an old hard-disk, but the work I put in once the tool was online may have been lost when a migration too many between providers for glorantha.com made the database disappear.

The tool had its weaknesses, among those editorial bias (mine, as it started out as my journey to understand the setting), but I was told it was helpful in accumulating Gloranthan knowledge for various projects.

[Richard S.]

Well this is a surprise, releasing what's essentially a starter set+ for free. Can't say I don't enjoy it though, this'll make introducing my friends to it a lot easier.

[Ryan Kent]

The wiki provides:

This also applies to combat, with a natural combat skill of 100%+ being used to reduce an opponent’s chance of attacking and parrying by the same amount. Bonuses from inspiration, etc. are not used to modify the opponent’s chance of success.

If against multiple competitors or opponents, the penalty must be distributed amongst the opponents as determined by the player, so an adventurer with a 125% could reduce two opponents’ skills by an amount totaling 25%, whether –20% to one and –5% to the other, –13% and –12%, or –25% and –0%.

Vasana, through a combination of her Broadsword 90%, inspiration from a Passion (+20%), a spell (+10% from Bladesharp 2, cast by a friend), has a 120% chance of success. She cannot modify an opponent’s chance of success. If she raised her Broadsword to 105% normally, with those modifiers her chance of success would be 135%. She could then reduce an opponent’s chance of success by 5% (for her skill above 100%) and would roll with a modified skill of 130%.

There is no analog for the bolded rules quoted above regarding augments, etc. not counting in combat and having to divide the reduction between opponents. What are the RAI?

[PhilHibbs]

16 hours ago, Ryan Kent said:

If against multiple competitors or opponents, the penalty must be distributed amongst the opponents as determined by the player,...

There is no analog for the bolded rules quoted above regarding augments, etc. not counting in combat and having to divide the reduction between opponents. What are the RAI?

What a mess. That rule is nonsense. I'm inclined to ignore the >100% reduction entirely and just rely on the higher special and critical chances to break the tie.

The problem with the rule is you don't really know at the start of the round how many attacks might be coming in, so you don't know how to distribute the points. Parries are reactive, you decide as and when the attack happens whether or not to parry. Even if you do all declarations up front, the person who declared an attack might be dead before they get to roll so you might waste most of your reduction points on them.

[Ryan Kent]

I have been waffling on ignoring the the >100 reduction myself. It makes sword trance, etc. too powerful IMO. It seems these wiki additions are an attempt to address that issue.

[PhilHibbs]

4 hours ago, Ryan Kent said:

I have been waffling on ignoring the the >100 reduction myself. It makes sword trance, etc. too powerful IMO. It seems these wiki additions are an attempt to address that issue.

I feel that the >100 rule reduces the power of Truesword. The main use case for getting that huge skill is getting specials and criticals to do that big hit that punches through big armour values. As soon as they parry or dodge, you are back down to 20% special and 5% critical.

Edited February 5, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[Ryan Kent]

I am thinking about a house rule:

If your combat skill is over 100% for whatever reason, you can choose to reduce it to 100% in order to reduce 1 opponent's attack by a like amount or reduce 1 opponent's defense by a like amount. That way, if you reduce the opponent's defense to get past a high parry or dodge, they can still threaten you with an unmodified attack. Alternatively, you can reduce their attack to avoid injury, but still allow them an unmodified defense. Finally, you can choose not to modify it to go for a better chance of specials and criticals.  

[AndreJarosch]

32 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I feel that the >100 rule reduces the power of Truesword. The main use case for getting that huge skill is getting specials and criticals to do that big hit that punches through big armour values. As soon as they parry or dodge, you are back down to 20% special and 5% critical.

RQG page 202, second paragraph: 
"While the actual chance of hitting remains no better than 95% (due to rolls of 96–00 failing), the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase or decrease, based on the final modified chance of success. As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles. Thus, a Wind Lord with a 150% sword skill has a 30% of a special success, and an 8% chance of a critical hit."
 

Your special and critical is NOT reduced with the skill reducion. 

[Ryan Kent]

10 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

RQG page 202, second paragraph: 
"While the actual chance of hitting remains no better than 95% (due to rolls of 96–00 failing), the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase or decrease, based on the final modified chance of success. As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles. Thus, a Wind Lord with a 150% sword skill has a 30% of a special success, and an 8% chance of a critical hit."
 

Your special and critical is NOT reduced with the skill reducion. 

I interpret the text to mean the converse.  "As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles."

[Bill the barbarian]

21 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

Your special and critical is NOT reduced with the skill reducion. 

This is correct.

Cheers

[PhilHibbs]

25 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

RQG page 202, second paragraph: 
"While the actual chance of hitting remains no better than 95% (due to rolls of 96–00 failing), the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase or decrease, based on the final modified chance of success. As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles. Thus, a Wind Lord with a 150% sword skill has a 30% of a special success, and an 8% chance of a critical hit."
 

Your special and critical is NOT reduced with the skill reducion. 

That section is not talking about skill reduction. That's just the "96-00 is always a fail" rule, clarifying that you calculate the special based on the "full" chance, not the 95% chance of success.

14 minutes ago, Ryan Kent said:

I interpret the text to mean the converse.  "As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles."

Correct.

[PhilHibbs]

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-players-book-print/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-qa-by-chapter/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-chapter-08-combat/#ib-toc-anchor-34

Quote

Change

Thus, a Wind Lord with a 150% sword skill, reduces their opponent by 50%, making their modified skill 100% and so has a 20% of a special success, and an 5% chance of a critical hit.

Note that I don't like this rule, and am considering not using it at all.

Also, that example really should say "reduces their opponent by 50% if their skill is opposed, such as an attack versus a parry".

Edited February 5, 2022 by PhilHibbs