Advice to GMs on how to efficiently organize battles

[Beoferret]

Does anyone preprogram a breaking point or morale mechanic into their larger battles? When do your NPC opponents decide that enough is enough (keeping in mind that that's going to be different for a trollkin vs a broo vs a ZZ Runelord)?

[jajagappa]

3 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

It's not a skirmish, not a slugfest, it's a breaktrough.  Use the initiate trolls to hold the Adventurers while the Rune Lord gets his beetles to the target.

A key here is for the GM to understand the NPC leader's motivation(s). As you note, the goal is to infest the tree with eggs, not to slaughter the PC's - the PC's are inconsequential and need to be diverted so they do not interfere.

3 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

The Gorakiki Rune Lord is already specified to have cast his cult Rune spells, which give him extra limbs and head bite = added attacks.  All the GM needs to do is execute

Trollkin are expendable. A Gorakiki Rune Lore is not (assuming that they are important community leaders). The Rune Lore will help take out high-level foes, but if stymied, will likely retreat, not fight until the end.  He may pull back if the initial attack is blunted to reassess or strike again. This could mean waiting an hour or more to ensure that PC's rune magic ends (it may mean the Gorakiki Rune Lord's does as well, but he's still got 9 RP to draw upon, so could readily wait and strike at least two more times).  If he cannot retreat, he will offer surrender. (A ZZ Rune Lord is likely to be different and embrace Death as an option.)

3 hours ago, Eff said:

And then when you get up into the more experienced characters with much higher skill %s, what's more likely to happen is that both combatants are more likely to parry each other, which means that weapon damage becomes far more of a factor and round-to-round combat becomes even riskier- but you're eased into it. 

One of the longest RQG fights I've had was a duel between an NPC Rune Lord and a close-to-Rune Lord PC. For the duel they agreed to no magic, which put everything on augments + base skills. Parries were the significant factor that kept it going in this instance.  You really need magic buffs/exploits to tip the balance.

 

[jajagappa]

3 minutes ago, Beoferret said:

Does anyone preprogram a breaking point or morale mechanic into their larger battles? When do your NPC opponents decide that enough is enough (keeping in mind that that's going to be different for a trollkin vs a broo vs a ZZ Runelord)?

Yes, I usually have such in mind.  For significant NPC's, it's likely to be: 1) loss of limb or incapacitating injury; or 2) loss of 1/2 or more THP.  

For hordes (e.g. trollkin who are likely to break), it may be 1/4 of their number killed or incapacitated.  Broo or scorpionmen, though, may well fight to the death.

[Beoferret]

5 hours ago, jajagappa said:

One of the longest RQG fights I've had was a duel between an NPC Rune Lord and a close-to-Rune Lord PC. For the duel they agreed to no magic, which put everything on augments + base skills. Parries were the significant factor that kept it going in this instance.  You really need magic buffs/exploits to tip the balance.

Understanding motivations for NPCs is so important to running a good game - even if the motivation is just to kill the PCs.

As for long slog fights between PCs and foes, a) it's kinda cinematic, if you step back and look at it as a whole, and/or b) it calls for innovative/imaginative combat tactics (knockdown attempts, grapples, kicking sand into wimpy dark troll's faces, etc.)

[EpicureanDM]

Here’s my take on the warparty.

The Rune Lord’s a very powerful threat. Physically, it’s got at least 8 points of armor (or more) everywhere, and has a 120% chance to dish out 1d8+6+2d6 damage on SR3. It’s also got a maul at 85% that does 2d8+4+2d6 on SR1. (These figures include Bludgeon 4 adding +20% and +4 damage along with +10% plus an extra +1d6 STR damage die from Strength, both spells cast by one of the Rune Lord’s bound spirits.) Most importantly on the melee front, it’s using Sprout Arms, which gives it a free, extra attack and parry before penalties start to add up. I would put the Rune Lord’s mace and shield in its armored arms and the maul in its Sprouted arms. (The Sprouted arms are more vulnerable, so the Rune Lord would put its weakest weapon there in case something happens to the Sprouted arms.) Anyone who square’s off against the Rune Lord could be facing two attacks per round: the mace and the maul. That multiple parry penalty’s going to stack up. The Rune Lord’s probably smart enough to swing second with the maul, knowing their opponent will defend at a penalty.

Magically, there’s a lot going on due to the allied and bound spirits. That effectively gives the Rune Lord three extra actions per turn, something that PCs without similar resources can’t equal. The Rune Lord’s basic benefits are obviously his ability to resist spells with POW 21 (his racial maximum) and the ability to obtain easy Divine Intervention. The text notes that the Rune Lord has already cast Carapace, Transform Head, and Sprout Arms. By my math, that’s 5 Rune points, not the 3 given in the text. So, the Rune Lord should be starting with 10 Gorakiki Rune points, not 12. That’s still plenty combined with the 3 Kyger points. Absorption’s not compatible with Countermagic, so he should start the fight with Absorption stacked 3 times. His allied spirit can cast Countermagic 3 on him once Absorption’s gone. If he sees a powerful threat, such as someone casting a powerful Rune spell, he’ll target them with a stacked Blinding 2. That gives him POW 21 in the Blinding resistance roll. He will have cast Silence and Shimmer on himself. Shimmer doesn’t stack with Countermagic, but it does stack with Absorption.

The allied and bound spirits are a huge benefit. It will primarily use Disrupt Magic 7 to peel away the PCs Rune spells. It has access to Heal 6 and Slow from the Rune Lord. It can also use the Rune Lord’s Heal Wound. One bound spirit’s stronger than the other and it’s the stronger that has spells that may affect PCs, such as Demoralize. The other bound spirit’s main job is to cast Extinguish if circumstances warrant. Otherwise, it’s a bit of a dud.

For the dark troll Kyger Litor initiates, they’re more straightforward. Heavy armor almost everywhere (8 points), along with a Mace (85%, 1d8+4+1d6, SR3) and perhaps a Maul (80%, 2d8+2+1d6, SR1). There are three initiates, so I’d give one a maul while the other two use mace and shield.  (Weapon stats include Bludgeon 2.) Physical, they’re pretty strong, but perhaps not on par with a combat-focused PC. These are Kyger Litor initiates, not Zorak Zorani. But they’ve got heavy armor and high hit points, so they can take a couple of hits. Against non-combat-oriented PCs, these guys are dangerous. Their damage is very high and some PCs might only have light armor. An average hit with a mace is 11-12 damage. Unparried, that’s probably going to drop someone in lighter armor. One hit from the maul will almost certainly annihilate a lightly-armored PC.

Magically, the initiates also have Blinding, but their POW is just 12. They won’t have as good a chance in the resistance roll as the Rune Lord does. With only 3 Rune points, they might spend 2 on Blinding 2 and leave 1 in reserve for Heal Wound. Blinding 2 gives them an effective POW 17, which is much better odds on the resistance table. It might be worth the gamble and Rune points if an initiate takes a strong hit and reconsiders their opponent’s mettle. On the spirit magic side, they all have Darkwall. Darkwall’s mobile, albeit at a slow pace. They probably all cast Darkwalls before the ambush and advanced behind them, screening their force from vision. The trollkin will probably launch their attacks from behind the initiates’ Darkwalls, making return fire from the PCs impossible without light magic or some other clever solution.

The trollkin themselves are not effectual fighters, especially with their slings, but some do have Speedart. That boosts their pathetic Sling 35% to 50% and the damage to 1d8+3. The initial round of sling stones will have Speedart on them, if possible. That makes a couple of the shots more dangerous. Their weapon skills are 50%, which isn’t great, but it’s all about forcing extra parries from the PCs, so it’s mostly a numbers game. There are four trollkin, so each probably pairs up with an initiate once melee starts. The leader might move from engagement to engagement using Heal 2.

The giant beetles are tough, but straightforward. Heavy armor, massive damage, but they attack late in the round. Still, that’s the point where some other parries might have already occurred, so the PC facing a giant beetle might be a little worried that it “only” has a 50% chance to hit. If a beetle does hit, its 1d10+2d6 damage is devastating. Sadly, the Rune Lord’s bound spirit has Ironhand rather than Ironbite, so it can’t boost the beetles’ melee attacks. Adding a giant beetle to an existing melee against an initiate adds greatly to the possible danger.

That's an analysis of the enemies, but it's more important for people to describe the PCs who would face this Gorakiki war party in a fair fight. So often, and especially in The Smoking Ruin, we see advice to the GM about assessing the difficulty of a battle or warning players about when a battle might be too tough for them. On pg. 173 in the "Balancing The Encounter" sidebar, it says, "[This warparty] might be more than the adventurers can handle!" On pg. In the Runequest Bestiary, in a section titled "Game Balance and RuneQuest", the first bullet reads, "Give the players some warning of the deadliness of the encounter. They might not understand that a band of dark trolls backed up by a mob of trollkin and a great troll are more than a match for their adventurers, but their adventurers probably would!" How can a GM properly give this advice if they don't know how to compare a group of PCs to groups of enemies? If the players don't know how dangerous a fight might be, but their "adventurers" do, who at the table represents the "adventurers" in that moment? The GM!  If the GM doesn't know how to compare their PCs abilities to a group of proposed enemies - because they haven't been exposed to the sort of rules explanations I'm pointing towards - then it's the blind leading the blind.

My next post will tackle the first two bullets in the challenge I proposed: what does a party with a fair chance of defeating this warparty look like in terms of skills, spells, gear, etc. and what spells and tactics would they use to defeat the warparty. It's the other side of this equation and equally important if the community (and the game's publishers) are interested in developing new RQ GMs.

[EpicureanDM]

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

Using the default setup, there are 11 combatants, ranging from weak to strong. Some people (not me) do play with 8, but IME a party for a combat-heavy campaign like this requires 2 to 4 combat specialists and 0 to 3 support characters.  For the sake of the example, we will assume 2 and 2.

I will also assume a four-person party. Almost all of the RQ actual play videos I see on YouTube, including those involving Chaosium, have four players. Sometimes it's 3 combat specialists and 1 support characters, other times is 2 and 2. Even the support characters in RQ have decent combat skills, but often lack heavy armor and that makes them more fragile. Still, either the 3/1 or 2/2 ratio seems right to me as well.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

in the fight, there are, in jeff's terminology, two encounters. These may happen multiple times each, if not decisive.

That's a good way of arranging things so that they're manageable. It's implied in the scenario text, but not clearly enough, especially if the idea is that the second encounter doesn't step on the first's toes in order to avoid overwhelming the PCs. An experienced RQ GM would know this, but should the scenario assume that experience? Not if Chaosium wants to grow the game's audience.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

In the first, the 8 enemies than can use missiles attack. 1d2 engaging each PC. the others are counted as out of position. The trolls have the numbers here, but this is unlikely to prove a decisive advantage as missile fire can be freely healed from. If light magic is available, facing a skilled archer, or one using ranged Rune magic, they will likely take losses. Meanwhile, the PCs, realising they are outnumbered, should call for help.

If the attacks come from behind Darkwalls, a skilled archer or strong, ranged Rune magic won't be helpful if there's no light magic. It's weird that the scenario's drenched in Light Sons and Yelmalio initiates and one of them isn't assigned to the party as a helper, especially if trolls are expected at night. The part of the glade where the Light Son's fighting is probably quite bright.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:23 AM, radmonger said:

Combat starts with the PCs picking their foes; any who don't get selected then get to choose a PC to engage. it proceeds until one side gets a 2-man advantage. For those without allied spirits, healing is not available unless that side has an unengaged combatant with the right magic.  It also ends early if the troll rune lord is taken out, but that is unlikely as he does have an allied spirit.

Good nuance. I think we disagree about how the warparty would split up for its melee waves, but the big benefit of this thread is seeing different angles on things.

23 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Anyway, the only things I would add are:

This is all solid gold. Couched very explicitly and specifically in the rules of the game itself, the rules that will be used at the table when this adventure is used by real people. Love in particular the idea of characterizing this as a "breakthrough battle."

What I want to highlight is that I find it impossible to imagine any of the game's actual designers and publisherswriting in this way. I've never seen them do it and they go out of their way to avoid coming close to talking about the game they make this way. 

Analyses like the ones seen so far in this thread are just trying to use the game's published rules to run a fight that's in a published RuneQuest book. I can understand if RQ veterans are weary of the excesses of something like RQ3 sorcery, where Arlaten The Magus in Strangers In Prax spawned a gorp-like profusion of forum threads that they forced themselves to litigate back in the Usenet days. But the baby's been thrown out with the bath water at this point. The game's designers and the books they publish give me no indication that they particularly like or enjoy these rules they've published. But their books and scenarios are full of these rules! It feels like monks in the Dark Ages invoking Latin phrases without understanding them.

EDIT: In a previous version of this post, I tagged members of Chaosium staff who, in hindsight, will have little interest in this post and don't want to be dragged into it. I should have exercised more restraint. I've edited my post to remove those direct mentions and apologize to the folks I tagged.

Edited February 24, 2023 by EpicureanDM

[EpicureanDM]

10 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

3) Remember that trolls have Darksense, so I don't know why the scenario says they waste RP on Darksee.

I meant to call this out specifically as a small blunder in the text, too.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

5 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

How can a GM properly give this advice if they don't know how to compare a group of PCs to groups of enemies?

I think that RQG system, which is, for better or worse, pretty fast and loose (or just plain fuzzy) about a lot of the rules, many of which get ignored, makes very large demands upon the GM in many many ways.  Don't have any real advice here other than "get used to it".

As for some of the tactics described, I agree with most.  Darkwall is nasty.  Dismissing the PCs' magic is dull and boring, I tend to avoid it as GM as "not fun", but it is very intelligent.  At a minimum, Dismiss the obvious stuff - in my mind, True Sword, Sword Trance, and any Light spells!  Maybe leave up the Shield 4s, that costs a lot of MP, and will piss off your players, especially if you pick on one.  My Vingan PC had TWO separate Shield 3s dismissed and I felt "picked on".  Though I can't blame the GM, she was the best target...  But, anyway, some spells are overpowered, you know which ones, and must be dismissed as soon as "reasonable" by the GM.

I haven't read the scenario, but if the trolls have Strength spells, that would often be more effective than Bludgeon and IronHand and so forth.  Strength typically adds +10% to hit and +d6 damage, so it's kind of like a Bludgeon 2.  It also adds to parries and dodges.  And, most importantly, it applies to all of those multiple limbs!

[Dr. Devici]

5 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

Magically, there’s a lot going on due to the allied and bound spirits. That effectively gives the Rune Lord three extra actions per turn, something that PCs without similar resources can’t equal.

My reading of the RQG rules is that bound spirits cannot cast spells on their own, though the wording is a little vague. Pg. 366 has: "The binder of a spirit can use any spirit magic the spirit possesses and the magic points of the spirit to fuel spells." I wish the wording were more clear (it is in RQ2!), but I still comfortably interpret that as the binder casts the spell, using the MP and knowledge of the spirit. This would cut the Rune Lord's action economy in half.

[EpicureanDM]

8 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

As for some of the tactics described, I agree with most.  Darkwall is nasty.  Dismissing the PCs' magic is dull and boring, I tend to avoid it as GM as "not fun", but it is very intelligent.

Agreed. My post on the warparty largely analyzed what they can do at the expense of focusing on what they should do. If I had more time, it would be more practical to take a second pass at that post and reframe it in terms of proper advice about what capabilities to use at what points in the battle.

8 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

At a minimum, Dismiss the obvious stuff - in my mind, True Sword, Sword Trance, and any Light spells!  Maybe leave up the Shield 4s, that costs a lot of MP, and will piss off your players, especially if you pick on one.  My Vingan PC had TWO separate Shield 3s dismissed and I felt "picked on".  Though I can't blame the GM, she was the best target...  But, anyway, some spells are overpowered, you know which ones, and must be dismissed as soon as "reasonable" by the GM.

Yes, this advice is better than mine, since it's directly applicable during play. 😉

6 hours ago, Dr. Devici said:

My reading of the RQG rules is that bound spirits cannot cast spells on their own, though the wording is a little vague. Pg. 366 has: "The binder of a spirit can use any spirit magic the spirit possesses and the magic points of the spirit to fuel spells." I wish the wording were more clear (it is in RQ2!), but I still comfortably interpret that as the binder casts the spell, using the MP and knowledge of the spirit. This would cut the Rune Lord's action economy in half.

Point taken. Your reading's probably correct. Only one of those bound spirits would have been a proper threat (the one with Demoralize), but you're right that it knocks the Rune Lord down a peg.

Edited February 24, 2023 by EpicureanDM

[EpicureanDM]

9 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

I think that RQG system, which is, for better or worse, pretty fast and loose (or just plain fuzzy) about a lot of the rules, many of which get ignored, makes very large demands upon the GM in many many ways.  Don't have any real advice here other than "get used to it".

Sure, but there's no need to revive a rules system that makes very large demands upon your customers if you don't think your customers should actually honor those demands. 

[radmonger]

it's the bane of all Mostali that the current state of Glorantha is a result of a series of catastrophes and partial recoveries, from the earliest myths to recent history. It is not a thing that would ever have been created by following sound engineering practices.

The same rather applies to the Runequest combat rule system.

Of course, another Mostali principle is that nothing is so broken it cannot be fixed, so long as the knowledge of what it should be like remains.

 

 

 

[Dr. Devici]

14 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

I think that RQG system, which is, for better or worse, pretty fast and loose (or just plain fuzzy) about a lot of the rules, many of which get ignored, makes very large demands upon the GM in many many ways.

I would call this aspect of it strictly for the worse. Despite some hangups, I do broadly like the core mechanics of RQG combat (or at least how I think they're intended to work), and think its relative grittiness and meticulousness is a nice balance to the more out-there elements of Glorantha as a setting. But man, every handful of months I give the combat chapter a re-read and I always finish more confused than when I started.

Sure, maybe starting with more powerful PCs throws the GM into the deep end of combat complexity much sooner, but the real barrier I worry about for new GMs is how much of a struggle it is to learn all those rules in the first place given how frequently unhelpful the rulebook is. I have played more complicated games than RQG and found them easier to run because they are much more clearly written and better organized, and that's despite me being three years deep into running RQG at this point.

[Barak Shathur]

On 2/23/2023 at 4:17 PM, Bill the barbarian said:

This is why I use the Encumberance system.

I don't quite see how this helps with the problem of ping pong fights. The point of a fatigue system is that the combatants' combat skill gradually deteriorates the longer the fight goes on. Presumably one of them is more susceptible to fatigue than the other, possibly leading to quicker resolution of an otherwise endless combat between two highly skilled opponents. RQG's ENC system doesn't function like this.

[Beoferret]

1 hour ago, Dr. Devici said:

I would call this aspect of it strictly for the worse. Despite some hangups, I do broadly like the core mechanics of RQG combat (or at least how I think they're intended to work), and think its relative grittiness and meticulousness is a nice balance to the more out-there elements of Glorantha as a setting. But man, every handful of months I give the combat chapter a re-read and I always finish more confused than when I started.

Sure, maybe starting with more powerful PCs throws the GM into the deep end of combat complexity much sooner, but the real barrier I worry about for new GMs is how much of a struggle it is to learn all those rules in the first place given how frequently unhelpful the rulebook is. I have played more complicated games than RQG and found them easier to run because they are much more clearly written and better organized, and that's despite me being three years deep into running RQG at this point.

What do you think about how the Starter Set explains the rules, especially combat?

[Dr. Devici]

1 hour ago, Beoferret said:

What do you think about how the Starter Set explains the rules, especially combat?

I reread the combat section of the starter set. The organization is much cleaner, which is convenient for parsing information. Including the results of damage directly in the combat section instead of burying it in the chapter prior is also a welcome change. It is very trimmed down compared to the core rules, but this is probably part of why it feels more consistent.

It does still share some of the same unclear passages that the core rules have. For example, it says that a character in melee cannot both attack physically and attack magically in the same round. Does that mean a character can cast a spell and attack physically as long as the spell isn't an attack? And in that case what exactly counts as an attack spell? The text suggests bladesharp and fireblade don't require a free hand and thus just add your DEX + MP cost as an SR modifier in melee, but that section's heading suggests they're considered magical attacks??? And none of these distinctions make much sense anyways, because the limitation on casting and attacking implies this is because physically attacking is a full round action and doesn't leave you time for anything else besides defending. So why would it matter whether the spell I'm casting is shield or thunderbolt? I shouldn't have the time for either based on the stated justification.

This is a pretty big issue. A brand new GM going purely by the printed rules isn't being given clear information regarding a core element of the game's action economy.

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 2/23/2023 at 12:10 PM, Beoferret said:

Does anyone preprogram a breaking point or morale mechanic into their larger battles? When do your NPC opponents decide that enough is enough (keeping in mind that that's going to be different for a trollkin vs a broo vs a ZZ Runelord)?

When there is a big setback like a standard taken or 50% casualties I start rolling against their Loyalty passion.

And come to think of it, when there is a spectacular event like someone getting their head cut off, I have rolled then too.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Squaredeal Sten
Come to think of it...

[glarkhag]

On 2/22/2023 at 7:58 PM, Jeff said:

SELECT ENCOUNTER

 

After making their Battle rolls, adventurers who rolled successes take turns (from highest CHA to lowest) selecting a Foe Encounter. An adventurer who rolls a special or critical success on Battle may opt to select an Opportunity instead. Regardless of the adventurer’s rolls, the Gamemaster always selects an Encounter as well.

Once all selections are made, make an opposed roll against the battle’s Intensity rating.

Sorry if I have missed the answer elsewhere but what is used to oppose the battle intensity? Battle skill?

[kalidor]

10 hours ago, glarkhag said:

Sorry if I have missed the answer elsewhere but what is used to oppose the battle intensity? Battle skill?

Yep

[davecake]

My general practices:

I try to have stats done before hand, but I’m awfully good at improvising by now. 
If I have a little bit of time to prepare, all you really need are hit points and armour per location, and effective weapon % and damage, and you can improvise things like spells. 
for enemies that are organised, like soldiers used to fighting together with a smart commander, I like to have squad character sheets that take into account tactics (eg if they are in a shield wall, indicate armor per location including passive shielding), spells pre-cast (and listing weapon attacks with all the magic etc included) etc. The ones in The Cradle are an example. Also a couple of notes on tactics - will try to cast Demoralise if unengaged, or will open with a Speedart volley. 

I have a single sheet of paper or text file that keep track of bad guy combatants.
It starts usually blank. Once an enemy enters the fight, then they get an entry on the sheet, which may say something like hoplite 4 or scorpion man 1, or big broo. Or their name. 

On that you record things once it starts happening, including hp loss per location per location. So after a round or two it might say Soldier 2 Demoralized, -4 R. Arm. I used to sketch out a hot location chart for every opponent, but I seldom bother. I may note temporary things like ‘can’t attack next two rounds)’ or just remember them. I only record general hit points if it’s not just from wounds. 

That’s pretty much how I do skirmishes up to small battles. 

- for one on one duels, use all the rules, and adjudicate and improvise on the fly the details of fumbles, terrain effects, etc. let your players try to use tactics like feints and deception, encourage inspiration. 

for a battle big enough that there are too many on either side to keep track of, I either use Battle skill and treat it like Battle in Pendragon - you do somewhat abstracted individual combats against presentative enemies - or treat it as a chain of smaller skirmishes. 

I usually go full theatre of the mind and we just discuss what’s going on, sometimes we add some mud maps, we usually aren’t bothered with using minis or VTT etc. works well when we do. 

 

[davecake]

Balancing battles is hard, and should be - tactics make a huge difference in RQ, and you can never be sure what your players will do, and how effective they will be. If, for example, PCs have the enemy attackers have to walk into a volley of missile fire, they can decide the battle very quickly. But if a PC charges the enemy with out backup, they can succeed gloriously, but more often get themselves in bad trouble quickly, taking an injury with no backup to let them get a chance to heal or regroup. 

One of the games I run is a Sandheart game, where the PCs are mostly trained to fight in a pike phalanx, and can be very effective when they do, but it’s also very impractical most of the time. Often how generous I am to them about their tactical situation is more important than how tough the opponents are. 

Having your PCs think about their tactical choices among themselves quite a bit is IMHO a very RuneQuest thing, part of the fun. 
 

[davecake]

On 2/24/2023 at 3:59 PM, Dr. Devici said:

My reading of the RQG rules is that bound spirits cannot cast spells on their own, though the wording is a little vague. Pg. 366 has: "The binder of a spirit can use any spirit magic the spirit possesses and the magic points of the spirit to fuel spells." I wish the wording were more clear (it is in RQ2!), but I still comfortably interpret that as the binder casts the spell, using the MP and knowledge of the spirit. This would cut the Rune Lord's action economy in half.

I generally treat bound spirits that way, but allied spirits are a different story, and can and do cast magic themselves - so your rune lords generally do have a spirit that casts magic on them in combat at least, and if in a creature rather than an item fully independently targets magic. Having an allied spirit is a big bonus.
Pacted spirits for shamans often the same, though not quite as proactive.