Is there a limit to the PC's involvement in the Hero Wars? (Was 'high level opponents')

[icebrand]

9 minutes ago, Ludovic aka Lordabdul said:

Seriously, 90% of the questions in this thread (and many other similar threads) can be answered by playing a CoC campaign or two

And the answer to those questions is "you die" (alternative: you go insane)

12 minutes ago, Ludovic aka Lordabdul said:

and the reason CoC is a great teaching experience is because you don't have any other choice than to figure it out. It's not like "SuperCallOfCthulhu" is even a thing, and you can't just shrug and go dungeon crawling or whatever. You either play CoC or you don't.

Oh man, i hate to be the one to tell you this, but its 2022, and that means you can punch cthulhu in the face...

https://www.chaosium.com/pulp-cthulhu-pdf/

(He's even getting SHOT AT in the cover, ROFL)

 

[Nick Brooke]

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

Now, i assume since harrek is a thing, Jon Pol Joni can be a thing too right? 

YGWV, @icebrand. Knock yourself out. (I'm told Derek the Troll is way tougher than Harrek, anyway)

[icebrand]

5 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

YGWV, @icebrand. Knock yourself out. (I'm told Derek the Troll is way tougher than Harrek, anyway)

Of course Derek is tougher, that Harrek guy is a poser!!!

Btw, do you think Derek would be interested in a gig playing the drums?

Edited May 17, 2022 by icebrand

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, Ludovic aka Lordabdul said:

I've often said half jokingly that Call of Cthulhu (or any other sort of cosmic horror investigative RPG) should be required playing. It's got everything you need to learn to deal with:

• Super powerful monsters that you can't possibly beat with your puny weapon: you have to find ancient artifacts, acquire forgotten magic, and perform cosmic rituals at specific places and times to get around the problem.
• Player characters that are "unbalanced": did I say you had a puny weapon? Maybe you don't even have that! I'm looking at you, journalists and history professors and antiquarians. All extremely fun and useful characters to play in CoC.
• Meta plots: you're up against Nazi scientists and archaeologists in 1937, trying to stop them from acquiring Mi-Go technology to use on their U-boat programs, or forging an alliance with Deep Ones, or whatever. Even though you know WW2 will happen, it's still fun and there's plenty to do, with plenty of player agency to go around.
• Very important NPCs: you can get missions from British generals and American presidents, you can spy on leaders of worldwide Mythos cult organizations, you can face centuries-old sorcerers.
• ... and more! (ask me something, I'm sure I can spin it as something CoC teaches you!)

Seriously, 90% of the questions in this thread (and many other similar threads) can be answered by playing a CoC campaign or two -- and the reason CoC is a great teaching experience is because you don't have any other choice than to figure it out. It's not like "SuperCallOfCthulhu" is even a thing, and you can't just shrug and go dungeon crawling or whatever. You either play CoC or you don't.

Yes, and not surprisingly CoC, RuneQuest, and Pendragon all share many of these elements. Almost as if the same team worked on them all!

[Eff]

1 hour ago, Ludovic aka Lordabdul said:

I've often said half jokingly that Call of Cthulhu (or any other sort of cosmic horror investigative RPG) should be required playing. It's got everything you need to learn to deal with:

• Super powerful monsters that you can't possibly beat with your puny weapon: you have to find ancient artifacts, acquire forgotten magic, and perform cosmic rituals at specific places and times to get around the problem.
• Player characters that are "unbalanced": did I say you had a puny weapon? Maybe you don't even have that! I'm looking at you, journalists and history professors and antiquarians. All extremely fun and useful characters to play in CoC.
• Meta plots: you're up against Nazi scientists and archaeologists in 1937, trying to stop them from acquiring Mi-Go technology to use on their U-boat programs, or forging an alliance with Deep Ones, or whatever. Even though you know WW2 will happen, it's still fun and there's plenty to do, with plenty of player agency to go around.
• Very important NPCs: you can get missions from British generals and American presidents, you can spy on leaders of worldwide Mythos cult organizations, you can face centuries-old sorcerers.
• ... and more! (ask me something, I'm sure I can spin it as something CoC teaches you!)

Seriously, 90% of the questions in this thread (and many other similar threads) can be answered by playing a CoC campaign or two -- and the reason CoC is a great teaching experience is because you don't have any other choice than to figure it out. It's not like "SuperCallOfCthulhu" is even a thing, and you can't just shrug and go dungeon crawling or whatever. You either play CoC or you don't.

I mean, characterizing interacting with the setting of Glorantha as an experience of alienating cosmic horror which is an inevitable downward spiral into having your speech patterns be described as "gibbering", your language turning into a jargon nigh-incomprehensible to outsiders, your apparent morals warping like chocolate bars on a summer day as you casually joke about cannibalism... that's silly. That's what happens to the players, not to the characters! 

But there are fairly clear questions of genre here, of course. Cosmic horror as it is typically framed is very specifically modernist. You can't change the conditions of the world you live in, because you're a product of those conditions and their inevitable puppet, as Thomas Ligotti went all-in on for "The Last Feast of Harlequin". And Glorantha is ostensibly heroic fantasy, where the world is malleable and reshapable by human effort. Indeed, it's even postmodernist enough to make the world something consciously created continuously! So I dunno if this comparison works well. 

[JonL]

<Roll 1D6. Decrease SAN and increase %chance of Illumination by the same amount.>

Edited May 17, 2022 by JonL

[Lordabdul]

4 minutes ago, Eff said:

And Glorantha is ostensibly heroic fantasy, where the world is malleable and reshapable by human effort. [...] So I dunno if this comparison works well.

That's because you're looking at it from a thematic and/or narrative angle. My comparison is strictly on a gameplay level. Sure there are also differences in gameplay (SAN mechanics and such), but really, I guarantee you, CoC gamemasters have had to figure out the hard way how to answer a lot of the questions in this thread.

Now, the reason I said it answers "only" 90% of the questions is indeed because, unlike the cosmic horror of the Mythos that is supposed to make you feel helpless and only delaying the inevitable, the heroic setting of Glorantha is supposed to accomodate player characters who rise up as leaders who actually do something about stuff. In CoC you will most probably never be the military leader of a small European country, but in Glorantha you could become the leader of some large warband, a tribal king, and even higher than that if that's what your group decided the campaign would be about.

To be come a super-hero like Argrath or Harrek, I would just take a look at what these NPCs did. They didn't go treasure hunting in the Big Rubble until they got all their cult's Rune Spells, or until their POW gain rolls maxed out at 21. That doesn't get you anywhere besides Rune Level. Nope, they did other stuff. They heroquested repeatedly and allied or bound or stole powers from gods and powerful spirits. Then they used these powers to gain more powers, or to build up an army or a pirate fleet or whatever. Their rise to super-herodom took years -- in the case of Harrek, there's enough for at least two big RQ campaigns before he slays and binds the White Bear.

So if I wanted a super-hero game, I would do that. Every time I heroquest I can sacrifice some POW to store in the Hero Plane and after a few years I too can have POW 40 or whatever Harrek has. And at the same time I also get a dozen big rules-breaking powers, because that's what heroquesting is for. And then I can use these powers to lead larger and larger factions and go into even crazier adventures that yield bigger rules-breaking abilities. I'm sure it wouldn't take too long before I'm on par with most second tier NPCs like Kallyr Starbrow or Harvar Ironfist. And then why not continue? A player could realistically become the next Feathered Horse Queen or Prince of Sartar if, again, we agreed that's the kind of power level we wanted to get to. What's preventing anybody from doing that in their game? Nothing.

[Eff]

1 minute ago, Ludovic aka Lordabdul said:

So if I wanted a super-hero game, I would do that. Every time I heroquest I can sacrifice some POW to store in the Hero Plane and after a few years I too can have POW 40 or whatever Harrek has. And at the same time I also get a dozen big rules-breaking powers, because that's what heroquesting is for. And then I can use these powers to lead larger and larger factions and go into even crazier adventures that yield bigger rules-breaking abilities. I'm sure it wouldn't take too long before I'm on par with most second tier NPCs like Kallyr Starbrow or Harvar Ironfist. And then why not continue? A player could realistically become the next Feathered Horse Queen or Prince of Sartar if, again, we agreed that's the kind of power level we wanted to get to. What's preventing anybody from doing that in their game? Nothing.

Yeah. It mostly comes down to the need for a session 0 or session -1 to figure out just what kind of game you want to run here- scamps scavenging some ruins, salt-of-the-earth clan folks interacting with the magic of the Otherworld and the mystery of the outside world, getting to be spear-carriers or midbosses with some memorable lines, being movers and shakers on a material level, or going into the psychocosmic. 

[g33k]

15 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

...

If RQG PCs are meant to get into spiritual worlds “fast and early,” that information should be in the core book you published four years ago. That information might be helpful to RuneQuest GMs, but, alas, there’s no GMing section in the core book.

13th Age Glorantha (I’ll abbreviate to 13G in future) was published in the same year as RQG and they’ve got Heroquesting rules in their book! The Heroquesting rules in 13th Age Glorantha are designed to be used with low-level characters. One of the prewritten hero quests published in the book is expressly for low-level characters. The designers explicitly tell the GM that in the text:

Your name is in the credits of 13G, @Jeff. You knew they were doing that and you could have done the same if you thought that heroquesting should happen “fast and early” in an RQG game.

Spilt milk under the bridge, or something like that; but I hope you can look at this without getting too defensive, @Jeff...

According to your own words, the RQG core book is (and bear with me, here) essentially not ready for play !   It has absolutely zero support, information, or advice about " throw(ing) characters into the realm of Heroes fast and early" (unlike, as painfully pointed out, 13G has).  If this is supposed to be "how to play in Glorantha," then the RQG core book ... does not cover "how to play in Glorantha."

I mean... that's silly hyperbole, of course.  I'm playing it right now, with another tentative campaign in planning stages (though a different (non-RQ) BRP game will take precedence); and keeping an eye open for opportunities to play (not just GM), as well.  Other folks are also using it ... so obviously, it IS "ready for play!"

But I think you have to admit... there's a very-key piece missing from the core rules.  I think the RQG core should have had one more section/chapter:  on heroquesting (necessarily incomplete), akin to the (similarly incomplete, and subject to later revision) sorcery rules.  Arguably, the heroquesting would actually have been much more relevant, and should have been there instead (if it were either/or)!


On the other hand:

16 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

...

What’s telling about how 13G is that their heroquesting rules are designed to work with the rest of the rules. None of this nonsense about discarding skills and items, and shifting to just using POW, CON, Runes, and Hero Points (whatever those are). 13G reflects a design ethos that prizes the game’s rules as tools to produce the sort of experiences you imagine your game to be about.

...

While I think there's a lot of merit in the prior-quoted section, I disagree on this one.

I actually (rather intensely) dislike the notion that other-world / metaphysical spirit-quest type activity is closely tied to all the real-world / mundane stuff (skills, items, &c).

That said, I think there are some "keystone" or "signature" skills & abilities, things that are primary go-to elements of the character, which SHOULD be reflected in a "spiritual" reflection of the character.  I'm holding-off on trying to implement this, exactly (until I actually get the "official" rules into my hot li'l hands), but I (tentatively) plan to do "something special" for skills-over-100%, for heirloom weapons, etc.

Other skills & gear?  Worthless dross, left behind with all the other mundane constraints...

I want to return and highlight this bit:
 

Quote

None of this nonsense about discarding skills and items ... 13G reflects a design ethos that prizes the game’s rules as tools to produce the sort of experiences you imagine your game to be about.

I have no problem whatsoever with (in fact, I LIKE!) the notion that "Hero Questing" has its own mechanical subsystem...  Spirit Magic has MP's and daily refresh; Rune Magic has per-deity Rune Pools with restricted spell-availablity, and Refresh-at-Worship-Service; Sorcery has intellectual study and slow/difficult spell-casting...

The idea that you should use the mundane-world adventuring criteria for Hero-Plane adventuring is something I find to be... eh, "uninspiring" (if I'm feeling generous).

[g33k]

3 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

Harrek is Mary Sue's more incredible cousin.... Let me pitch you my OC adventurer, then tell me if you would allow him 

...

Now, i assume since harrek is a thing, Jon Pol Joni can be a thing too right? 

A bit hyperbolic, eh?

But to be blunt:  NO.

Over the whole course of his career?  Well... yeah.  In fact, HELL YEAH !
(n.b. at least one campaign I know of, the PC's got to Argrath before he went WhiteBull, and sidetracked him into becoming a minor regional warlord, muttering "I coulda been a contender!" into his mead)
 

I hope you see the difference between a  brand-new character  trashing the entire setting, vs. a PC growing through their career and and organically -- piece by piece, adventure by adventure -- trashing the entire setting (aka the players making it their own, at the table).

So I would absolutely say "no" to the backstory you presented, and absolutely say "YES, PLEASE!" if it were presented as your character's ambition.

[Lordabdul]

5 minutes ago, Eff said:

Yeah. It mostly comes down to the need for a session 0 or session -1

Yep, and not only in terms of discussing the tone/power level/goals for the campaign, but also time-frames: a campaign where you rise up to be the Khan of the Bison Tribe or whatever might be played over several years (in-game), which might require regularly skipping entire seasons (depending on the group's gaming schedule and play style). This might lean towards an almost Pendragon-like game framework, which is the classic template for grand sagas. There are alternative frameworks, of course, but anyway, it's a conscious choice.

[Wheel Shield]

@EpicureanDM I can't be part of your fight. Because it's not my fight. Ultimately, I had a question for the @Jeff and he answered it. I will be able to run Runequest the way that I want. I have waited for heroquesting since 1980 (give or take a few years). I can wait a few more months. I don't write that to lecture you or to curry favor with the Powers That Be, for me, it's just a fact. They're running a business here and I've no desire to make trouble.

Getting any more worked up about it than I did yesterday doesn't do anybody any good. Especially me. I hope the Game Master's book helps you when it comes.

***************

@Nick Brooke I had hoped that our exchange could have ended on a more positive note. But I understand your reaction and accept your indifference.
(aint no time for internet randos and their massive wall of text and silly wrathposting, and so on) 
Fair. I deserve it. We move on.

But I'm making a brief reply because that's the nature of having a conversation (or exchange of communication) in front of a live studio audience. You don't have to care or even listen but someone else is going to read it and I'll speak to them if not you.

I misunderstood what you were saying. That became clear when the replies started coming in. And yeah, I really regretted posting but that ship has sailed. Is it wrong to say I didn't understand your posts because you're talking to select group of people and it's laden with pop culture references?

It is important to me to know the scope of Runequest Glorantha, because I don't need another game that goes to the point that RQ3 did and just stops. I appreciate that Jeff and Co. made the game more authentically Gloranthan and made playing easier, but I wanted to know if game system was going to let my players interact with 'the Hero Wars OR, if this was a system best used for running the 1979 version Snakepipe Hollow or.. grubbing for armor with baboons. Mr. Richard answered that question for me. And there is nothing wrong with the latter, but I don't need another edition of Runequest for that.

Again, I misunderstood what you were saying.

This is Internet Rando signing out! I'll catch ya later Mister Moderator.

[Nick Brooke]

29 minutes ago, Wheel Shield said:

@Nick Brooke I had hoped that our exchange could have ended on a more positive note. But I understand your reaction and accept your indifference. Fair. I deserve it. We move on... I misunderstood what you were saying. That became clear when the replies started coming in. And yeah, I really regretted posting but that ship has sailed.

Hey, we’re all friends here. Thanks for being honest enough to admit you screwed up. (Not many people are)

If you want to see how I run my own RuneQuest sessions involving Personalities of the Hero Wars, I’ve published two scenarios so far (The Duel at Dangerford & Black Spear), and I commend them to you. They’re more interesting to read than my theory posts, anyway.

Did you pick up the slipcase set, in the end?

[Wheel Shield]

2 hours ago, Ludovic aka Lordabdul said:

To be come a super-hero like Argrath or Harrek, I would just take a look at what these NPCs did. They didn't go treasure hunting in the Big Rubble until they got all their cult's Rune Spells, or until their POW gain rolls maxed out at 21. That doesn't get you anywhere besides Rune Level. Nope, they did other stuff. They heroquested repeatedly and allied or bound or stole powers from gods and powerful spirits. Then they used these powers to gain more powers, or to build up an army or a pirate fleet or whatever. Their rise to super-herodom took years -- in the case of Harrek, there's enough for at least two big RQ campaigns before he slays and binds the White Bear.

As the OP, I wanted to chime in here and say that I like this description of the process to become a Hero. I got side-tracked when I posted. I had a lot of years of frustration with Runequest built up over the years. My objective in posting was to find out if this new edition would allow this kind of play that you're describing in the quote above. It was common knowledge that heroquest rules were coming, but I had become uncertain what exactly that meant and what exactly you can do with them. Obviously I have a better idea now.
Yet I started a new thread because I didn't want to get into the mechanics of it and I didn't want go into some of the issues (about this super runequest stuff) to carry over. I feel like the topic "Can PCs become Heroes?" morphed into "How Quickly Can the PCS Become Heroes?" I don't know where that comes from but I never wanted to take the conversation in that direction.
So, let me use your example. Say, if I had the time, energy, and players to run two big RQ Campaigns, could a player slay and bind something like the White Bear? Or would I have to abstract that because game doesn't really handle that level of play.  [EDIT: And Jeff answered this for me.]

But in asking that question the response feels like, "Sure, if you want to suddenly kill gods and dumb stuff like that you can do whatever."
 

That wasn't the question. Or some wrong conclusion was jumped to. I don't know. Please understand I am not talking about you or things you've written specifically but in generalities of reactions.

2 hours ago, Ludovic aka Lordabdul said:

So if I wanted a super-hero game, I would do that.

Certainly. I just wanted to know what the long term scope of the game is now. I get that there are skeptics who think "he really won't run a campaign for years and years in real time." Maybe I won't honestly. As a player I never got past initiate. But now, I would be GM and I want to know what the system will allow me to do. Because, and I have not said this before, I don't want to make the system up myself and I'm cautious of fan based variants.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Wheel Shield
missed a word and added a short sentence

[Wheel Shield]

4 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

Hey, we’re all friends here. Thanks for being honest enough to admit you screwed up. (Not many people are)

If you want to see how I run my own RuneQuest sessions involving Personalities of the Hero Wars, I’ve published two scenarios so far (The Duel at Dangerford & Black Spear), and I commend them to you. They’re more interesting to read than my theory posts, anyway.

Did you pick up the slipcase set, in the end?

I think I have to now!
<<big smile>>
I think this kind post just sealed the deal actually.
 

I've looked at your adventures on DriveThru and planned to get them. Along with In the Company of Dragons. I already own Six Seasons in Sartar and the Core Rules in PDF format.

Thanks man. I really appreciate ending on a good note.

[Lordabdul]

2 hours ago, Wheel Shield said:

So, let me use your example. Say, if I had the time, energy, and players to run two big RQ Campaigns, could a player slay and bind something like the White Bear? Or would I have to abstract that because game doesn't really handle that level of play.  [EDIT: And Jeff answered this for me.]

That's a totally valid question.  To be honest, the answer at this time is mostly "you can if you do most of the work". The game doesn't have heroquest mechanics, doesn't show what superhero stat-blocks and powers might look like, etc. The former was supposed to be fixed with the release of the Gamemaster Guide this year but it sounds like it might not be in our hands until next year. The latter may or may not be addressed with the upcoming Dragon Pass/Hero Wars campaign book, which is probably a couple years away.

It's not so bad though, especially if you like playing around with house rules. Some of us have had some experience with the upcoming heroquest rules during public playtests at conventions and such, so we can provide notes on how that works (send me a PM if you're interested). Other things you'll have to make up as you go, but on the other hand you'd have to make it up as you go anyway: the published material can't anticipate what kind of crazy scheme your players might want to do (do they want to resurrect an old Orlanthi hero? do they want to contact a Seshnelan goddess? do they want to kill and bind a East Isles deity?)  Of course, you could wait until someone publishes a specific "grand superhero campaign" but there's none that I know in the works. And I guess this leads us into your next point:

 

2 hours ago, Wheel Shield said:

I just wanted to know what the long term scope of the game is now.

AFAICT Chaosium's direction is to cater to more mid-high-level gameplay: you get to be a companion of Argrath, but you're not his peer. You might be a peer of, say, Leika (for which we do have stat blocks) and other powerful Rune Level NPCs, but not higher than that. I don't totally know what Chaosium has up its sleeves though.

[icebrand]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

A bit hyperbolic, eh?

But to be blunt:  NO.

Over the whole course of his career?  Well... yeah.  In fact, HELL YEAH !

Ok, i dreamt too big! Ill settle starting with the six-string of storms (which is Made of vingas hair, btw vinga is my mother) and having kicked gramps orlanth in the nuts. The rest can come later!

[Rodney Dangerduck]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

That said, I think there are some "keystone" or "signature" skills & abilities, things that are primary go-to elements of the character, which SHOULD be reflected in a "spiritual" reflection of the character. 

Much agree.  I'm ok with throwing out most of a PCs skills when Heroquesting.  But not all.  A "signature skill" (or two), particularly if it isn't super powerful in ordinary game play, should count.

I've used this analogy a lot, but if Eric Clapton goes Heroquesting he better be able to use Play Guitar somehow.

My PC is ~125% at Sing.  That proves that she loves singing and put in a lot of work to get there.  We never bothered tracking some nebulous singing passion that would be a pain to track, duplication of effort, and tops out at 100%.

Sometimes the skill proves the Passion.  HQ rules should recognize this.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Rodney Dangerduck

[Nick Brooke]

I think you know this already, but whatevs. When I run heroquests, quite often my players end up rolling vs. their raw Runes or Passions, and augmenting with Skills. You’ll see this in Black Spear and in my first Manifesto. So a 125% Sing skill is dead handy, for augmentation rolls.

While that deliberately and disconcertingly reverses the way things work in the mundane world, everything on your players’ character sheets is still available and relevant, and you don’t need to define loads of new abstract skills and techniques (that nobody yet has on their character sheet) to run a fun game.

If your GM runs heroquests a different way, more power to their elbow, and I hope they left you a way to use that Sing skill. Because your Vingan rocks.

[g33k]

10 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

... Because your Vingan rocks.

except when she croons...

[Rodney Dangerduck]

15 minutes ago, Nick Brooke said:

rolling vs. their raw Runes or Passions, and augmenting with Skills

My impression was that Chaosiums' draft HQ rules ignored skills.  I'll await the official release.  And then, no matter what, try your excellent idea of reversing things so that skills augment Runes or Passions.

[EpicureanDM]

23 hours ago, Wheel Shield said:

It is important to me to know the scope of Runequest Glorantha, because I don't need another game that goes to the point that RQ3 did and just stops. I appreciate that Jeff and Co. made the game more authentically Gloranthan and made playing easier, but I wanted to know if game system was going to let my players interact with 'the Hero Wars OR, if this was a system best used for running the 1979 version Snakepipe Hollow or.. grubbing for armor with baboons. Mr. Richard answered that question for me. And there is nothing wrong with the latter, but I don't need another edition of Runequest for that.

You may not realize how close to the truth you are.

Under Chaosium’s current management, RQG and Glorantha have a strong conservative streak. Not politically, but in the sense of being traditional, resistant to change. This manifests in both the game’s design and the setting’s development.

As far as game design goes, RQG is essentially RQ2 with a little Pendragon/Stormbringer bolted onto it at an obvious angle. If you remember your history, RQ2’s main competitor when it was first released was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, i.e. AD&D 1e. So in The Year of Our Lord 2018, Chaosium decided to essentially reprint a game designed in 1979 with better art.

A lot has happened in RPG design since 1979, especially after 2000. We have all of the games that emerged from the Gaming Outpost/Forge/Story Game era, including Burning Wheel, Powered by the Apocalypse, FUDGE/Fate, Cortex Prime, and Blades in the Dark. We even have a series of games descended from RQ2 that tried to build and improve on what Steve Perrin and Greg Stafford began: RuneQuest 3, Mongoose RQ, Runequest 6, and Mythras. But the designers in charge of RQG both ignored the last 40 years of RPG development and rejected the design efforts of folks who tried to improve RQ while preserving what made it unique. They went all the way back to 1979 and basically printed that game again. I don’t know how to describe that except as deeply conservative.

I concede that RQG made some cosmetic, largely quality-of-life changes to how RQ2 works. But how it plays is pure 1979. You see that reflected in the published scenarios. I mean, they’ve republished classic RQ2 scenarios like Apple Lane and Rainbow Mounds. RQG characters resolve those RQ2 scenarios the same way the RQ2 characters would in 1979. Those are the scenarios that Chaosium explicitly marks as being for beginners and newcomers to the game.

I’ve watched Actual Play YouTube videos in which Jeff and Jason Durall, another credited RQG designer, have introduced RQG to new players. In both cases, RQG’s putative game designers avoided using the Strike Rank system when the PCs got into a fight. They just managed the battle narratively, coordinating actions based on the fiction and player enthusiasm. In one case (I can’t remember which), one of the designers answered a combat-related rules question by quoting the RQ2 rule rather than the new version of that rule in RQG.

It’s telling to me that the people who controlled what rules would be printed in RQG didn’t want to use those rules with new players. Who better than the game’s own designers to shepherd newcomers through the rules that they endorsed and published? Why not use Strike Ranks, their game’s centerpiece rules about combat, the ones that structure combat itself? My answer is that the game’s own designers probably don’t use the rules they’ve published. They probably house-rule or handwave parts of it. They just rely on the traditions and memories they’ve built up over forty years of playing RQ2.

Based on what’s been published so far by RQG, I see no reason to think that the people steering the ship have any intention of moving the focus of play too far from where it sat in the RQ2 days. Are they going to design (or approve freelance designs) rules that expand the mechanical powers of PCs to include things that only Gloranthan Heroes can do? It looks unlikely to me. RQG’s designers don’t seem interested in any sort of game design that happened after the mid-80’s. So we probably won’t see anything terribly new. When RQ players try to model Heroic characters within RQG’s current rules design, Jeff and RQ’s other defenders sneer about the desire for PCs with skills at 500%, “Super RuneQuest”, and red herrings about a return to the bad, old days of Deities & Demigods. Deities & Demigods was published in 1980. That’s the frame of reference for RQG’s current stewards.

Is Chaosium going to take a chance and publish some new, innovative rules for heroquesting so that your PCs can stand on the same footing as Jar-Eel? Given the disdain for high skill ratings and Super RuneQuest, we’d need rules that are very different than RQG’s old chassis from 1979. I can imagine a set of heroquesting rules that draw strong inspiration from how Heroquest (now QuestWorlds) works. Didn’t I read that Andrew Montgomery is designing the upcoming rules for heroquesting? That guy loves HeroQuest. But if you’ve got to translate your RQG’s character’s stats into quasi-HeroQuest stats in order to do the new heroquesting stuff, then we’re not really playing RQ2/RQG anymore, are we? And RQG’s current designers really seem to like RQ2 and that mode of play. Ironically, creating heroquesting rules that work more like the old HeroQuest game seems like how the game’s current designers and fans actually play RQG. But there doesn’t seem to be any awareness or consciousness of this (mild) irony in the halls of Chaosium.

So I don’t know what in this thread reassures you that Things Are Going To Be Different, @Wheel Shield. From where I’m sitting, I think you’ll end up where you don’t want to be: back in RQ2.

[soltakss]

6 minutes ago, EpicureanDM said:

Based on what’s been published so far by RQG, I see no reason to think that the people steering the ship have any intention of moving the focus of play too far from where it sat in the RQ2 days. Are they going to design (or approve freelance designs) rules that expand the mechanical powers of PCs to include things that only Gloranthan Heroes can do? It looks unlikely to me. RQG’s designers don’t seem interested in any sort of game design that happened after the mid-80’s. So we probably won’t see anything terribly new. When RQ players try to model Heroic characters within RQG’s current rules design, Jeff and RQ’s other defenders sneer about the desire for PCs with skills at 500%, “Super RuneQuest”, and red herrings about a return to the bad, old days of Deities & Demigods. Deities & Demigods was published in 1980. That’s the frame of reference for RQG’s current stewards.

Is Chaosium going to take a chance and publish some new, innovative rules for heroquesting so that your PCs can stand on the same footing as Jar-Eel? Given the disdain for high skill ratings and Super RuneQuest, we’d need rules that are very different than RQG’s old chassis from 1979. I can imagine a set of heroquesting rules that draw strong inspiration from how Heroquest (now QuestWorlds) works. Didn’t I read that Andrew Montgomery is designing the upcoming rules for heroquesting? That guy loves HeroQuest. But if you’ve got to translate your RQG’s character’s stats into quasi-HeroQuest stats in order to do the new heroquesting stuff, then we’re not really playing RQ2/RQG anymore, are we? And RQG’s current designers really seem to like RQ2 and that mode of play. Ironically, creating heroquesting rules that work more like the old HeroQuest game seems like how the game’s current designers and fans actually play RQG. But there doesn’t seem to be any awareness or consciousness of this (mild) irony in the halls of Chaosium.

Let's give the HeroQuesting rules a chance.

I, for one, am eagerly waiting to see how they work and what we can do with them.

As for Super RuneQuest, that isn't how I run HeroQuests, so I am not wed to them at all.

[icebrand]

49 minutes ago, EpicureanDM said:

You may not realize how close to the truth you are.

Under Chaosium’s current management, RQG and Glorantha have a strong conservative streak. Not politically, but in the sense of being traditional, resistant to change. This manifests in both the game’s design and the setting’s development.

As far as game design goes, RQG is essentially RQ2 with a little Pendragon/Stormbringer bolted onto it at an obvious angle. If you remember your history, RQ2’s main competitor when it was first released was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, i.e. AD&D 1e. So in The Year of Our Lord 2018, Chaosium decided to essentially reprint a game designed in 1979 with better art.

A lot has happened in RPG design since 1979, especially after 2000. We have all of the games that emerged from the Gaming Outpost/Forge/Story Game era, including Burning Wheel, Powered by the Apocalypse, FUDGE/Fate, Cortex Prime, and Blades in the Dark. We even have a series of games descended from RQ2 that tried to build and improve on what Steve Perrin and Greg Stafford began: RuneQuest 3, Mongoose RQ, Runequest 6, and Mythras. But the designers in charge of RQG both ignored the last 40 years of RPG development and rejected the design efforts of folks who tried to improve RQ while preserving what made it unique. They went all the way back to 1979 and basically printed that game again. I don’t know how to describe that except as deeply conservative.

I concede that RQG made some cosmetic, largely quality-of-life changes to how RQ2 works. But how it plays is pure 1979. You see that reflected in the published scenarios. I mean, they’ve republished classic RQ2 scenarios like Apple Lane and Rainbow Mounds. RQG characters resolve those RQ2 scenarios the same way the RQ2 characters would in 1979. Those are the scenarios that Chaosium explicitly marks as being for beginners and newcomers to the game.

I’ve watched Actual Play YouTube videos in which Jeff and Jason Durall, another credited RQG designer, have introduced RQG to new players. In both cases, RQG’s putative game designers avoided using the Strike Rank system when the PCs got into a fight. They just managed the battle narratively, coordinating actions based on the fiction and player enthusiasm. In one case (I can’t remember which), one of the designers answered a combat-related rules question by quoting the RQ2 rule rather than the new version of that rule in RQG.

It’s telling to me that the people who controlled what rules would be printed in RQG didn’t want to use those rules with new players. Who better than the game’s own designers to shepherd newcomers through the rules that they endorsed and published? Why not use Strike Ranks, their game’s centerpiece rules about combat, the ones that structure combat itself? My answer is that the game’s own designers probably don’t use the rules they’ve published. They probably house-rule or handwave parts of it. They just rely on the traditions and memories they’ve built up over forty years of playing RQ2.

Based on what’s been published so far by RQG, I see no reason to think that the people steering the ship have any intention of moving the focus of play too far from where it sat in the RQ2 days. Are they going to design (or approve freelance designs) rules that expand the mechanical powers of PCs to include things that only Gloranthan Heroes can do? It looks unlikely to me. RQG’s designers don’t seem interested in any sort of game design that happened after the mid-80’s. So we probably won’t see anything terribly new. When RQ players try to model Heroic characters within RQG’s current rules design, Jeff and RQ’s other defenders sneer about the desire for PCs with skills at 500%, “Super RuneQuest”, and red herrings about a return to the bad, old days of Deities & Demigods. Deities & Demigods was published in 1980. That’s the frame of reference for RQG’s current stewards.

Is Chaosium going to take a chance and publish some new, innovative rules for heroquesting so that your PCs can stand on the same footing as Jar-Eel? Given the disdain for high skill ratings and Super RuneQuest, we’d need rules that are very different than RQG’s old chassis from 1979. I can imagine a set of heroquesting rules that draw strong inspiration from how Heroquest (now QuestWorlds) works. Didn’t I read that Andrew Montgomery is designing the upcoming rules for heroquesting? That guy loves HeroQuest. But if you’ve got to translate your RQG’s character’s stats into quasi-HeroQuest stats in order to do the new heroquesting stuff, then we’re not really playing RQ2/RQG anymore, are we? And RQG’s current designers really seem to like RQ2 and that mode of play. Ironically, creating heroquesting rules that work more like the old HeroQuest game seems like how the game’s current designers and fans actually play RQG. But there doesn’t seem to be any awareness or consciousness of this (mild) irony in the halls of Chaosium.

So I don’t know what in this thread reassures you that Things Are Going To Be Different, @Wheel Shield. From where I’m sitting, I think you’ll end up where you don’t want to be: back in RQ2.

So, im basically writing a handbook for my players (they are new to rq) explaining mechanics and combat and Magic.

The sr part was as long and the rest of the damn combat rules. It's overly complicated!

I did this..

DEX RANKS! it's like, chaosium themselves fixed this in the 90s!!!

 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by icebrand

[soltakss]

8 minutes ago, icebrand said:

The sr part was as long and the rest of the damn combat rules. It's overly complicated!

People say this, but I don't understand.

Personally, I find Strike Ranks intuitive and very easy to follow.

The only bit I don't like is the big/fast Adventurer with a long weapon acting on SR 1 and then not doing anything for the rest of the round. That is the only unsatisfying part, for me. The rest is OK.