Spirit Cults Rune magic questions

[Akhôrahil]

25 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

the big issue in my opinion is how awesome would be an initiate of "the lightbringers" (of course it may be less than 10 like the seven mothers but pretty sure some people will complain there is not this one, or this one)

I don't think very, if we follow the 7M model. You don't just gain access to everything from the constituent cults. It's probably fine, but you get only the more generalized spells from each cult. No Lightning or Thunderbolt from Orlanth, for instance.

[AndreasDavour]

Didn't I post in this thread already? I must have been dreaming. Anyway.

If it's a rules question, it's of course of use in your game. But, I find sometimes people talk about Glorantha as if the RQ rules describe how the world works. I think it can led to some weird results. I mean, do people in your Glorantha really talk about "bladesharp" and so on?

Remember, play with HeroQuests and some of these "problems" are no longer problems. Just leaving it out there.

[Akhôrahil]

9 minutes ago, AndreasDavour said:

If it's a rules question, it's of course of use in your game. But, I find sometimes people talk about Glorantha as if the RQ rules describe how the world works. I think it can led to some weird results. I mean, do people in your Glorantha really talk about "bladesharp" and so on?

Sources differ. Paulis Longvale not only names the spells, but also the size (such as someone casting Xenoheal 4). This is probably excessive, though.

I would assume the name of the spell at least often is used in-world. No need to not call a thunderbolt a Thunderbolt.

[AndreasDavour]

Someone in the world casting Xenoheal 4 I would classify as "sometimes people talk about Glorantha as if the RQ rules describe how the world works". It has the potential to be absurd. But YGMW, of course,

[JRE]

The names will change, depending on the teacher and users, but the main spirit magic will be well known, whether it is called sharsword, sharpaxe, cutting song, bloody cuts, enhance edge, strike one, cut thrice or cut, cut cut! Adding numbers is silly, but IMG people will know if it is small (1-2) medium power (3-4), large, (5-6), huge (7-9) and ridiculous (10+).

Returning to the main question, a problem with spirit cults is that opportunity to recover Rune points are rare, and unless you are the officiating shaman recovery will usually be limited. So societies give you more flexibility with your runepool (several spells rather than one) and more opportunities to recover them, even if I consider it mainly as associate worship.

So I would have a Riverhorse spirit cultist attending the yearly ceremony, in one of their sacred places (oasis, flash flood torrent or spring), in sea season, movement week, waterday, recover 2D6 runepoints with a succesful worship, and with limited bonuses compared to a theist, and it would require someone able to summon River Horse in the physical plane to get an extra recovery that year.

A Thirstless society member would recover only 1D6, but they would have also an opportunity with Frog woman or Dew maid and more importantly, in Zola Fel's holy days in a Zola fel sacred site, which probably includes most temples.

[Godlearner]

On 7/6/2023 at 5:29 AM, AndreasDavour said:

I mean, do people in your Glorantha really talk about "bladesharp" and so on?

Yes

[French Desperate WindChild]

On 7/6/2023 at 11:29 AM, AndreasDavour said:

I mean, do people in your Glorantha really talk about "bladesharp" and so on?

My gloranthan don't speak english, so I m proud to say  : no they don't say "bladesharp" 😛

however, as it is not innate, when they want to learn the effect, they have to say something to explain what they want to shamans or priests or any teachers.

And as it is a knowlege, priests, sorcerers or other scholars have even recorded the spells/prayers/spirits their heroes/target/followers used in their libraries. So of course there are words for that.

Have you already eaten something without any word (not something you don't know, but something nobody knows ?). And in that case, do you think someone aware about this "unamed" thing will not say "hey I have a name for that !" ?

 

that is not a question of magic, otherworld, or anything, it is just a question of practical. A lot of people (I believe everybody) name things, concepts, effects, etc.. when they interact, know or create them

[AndreasDavour]

Maybe there's a language barrier involved here. Let me try again. Do people talk in game term in your Glorantha? For me that is to cram a big world into a very small RQ box. But YGWW.

[French Desperate WindChild]

2 hours ago, AndreasDavour said:

Do people talk in game term in your Glorantha?

in game design term no, of course. but they are smart enough to notice that a worship in major holydays with great ceremonial and sacrifice in a great temple helps them to call their god more often and more powerfully than if they stay in their little shrine with just an apple to feed their god

they don't know if this cliff requires a climb roll with a -80% malus and they don't know if they have 50% or 40%, but except the fools, they estimate (or know from experience) that it will be very hard to climb even for the best of the clan without the winds spirits and gods help.

 

 

[JRE]

I consider it was the First Council who remarked that all the weapon enhancement spirit magics that people used were very similar, despite the many different names, and popularized the Theyalan equivalents to the spell names in the rules. But I still use local names as people are people and spirit magic is the reliable personal magic everyone uses, powered by your own spirit, more of a tool than a wonder, so no matter what the priestess called it, people will change it for their personal use.

I also find that bludgeon / bladesharp / ironhand is probably a single magical effect, enhance weapon, but people unconsciously apply limitations depending on how they have been taught. But that is IMG.

 

[David Scott]

We know from the Book of Red Magic (page 2) that the Revised Red Book was the first time the God Learners synthesized different spells with near-identical effects into a common spell with a descriptive name. Bladesharp is specifically mentioned: the label Bladesharp comprised a thousand different spirit techniques for enhancing the deadliness of a bladed weapon. So it's likely that cult specific names still exist (for those wanting to complicate their games). At my table, Bladesharp is routinely called the 5% sword buff. 

[Godlearner]

18 hours ago, AndreasDavour said:

Maybe there's a language barrier involved here. Let me try again. Do people talk in game term in your Glorantha? For me that is to cram a big world into a very small RQ box. But YGWW.

IMG yes they do, because my game is GAME centric. People, intellegent beings, see cause and effect and make deductions based on observations. 

[Shiningbrow]

13 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

IMG yes they do, because my game is GAME centric. People, intellegent beings, see cause and effect and make deductions based on observations. 

What about the numeric value of variable spells? How do they deal with that? (or, is it not necessary?)

Also, what I would consider a fairly obvious question - how would any Gloranthan know they need to use, say, a Heal 3 rather than just a Heal 2 (assuming they had higher than Heal 2)?

[Godlearner]

26 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

What about the numeric value of variable spells? How do they deal with that? (or, is it not necessary?)

This being a game, I do not worry bout that.

[Lordabdul]

23 hours ago, AndreasDavour said:

Maybe there's a language barrier involved here. Let me try again. Do people talk in game term in your Glorantha? For me that is to cram a big world into a very small RQ box. But YGWW.

People don't talk in game terms in my Glorantha. I don't think anybody's Glorantha involves Gloranthans talking in game terms. The question you're really asking isn't about Gloranthans. It's about the GM and players' portrayal of Gloranthans. What I think you're really asking is "do you always speak completely in character?"

When your PCs/NPCs say "I can sell you a very good Bladesharp spell for 120 Lunars, just come to the Orlanth Adventurous temple around 8AM tomorrow", you've got a way bigger problem than just whether Gloranthans would call the spell "Bladesharp" or not.

• For instance, do Gloranthans speak English? No. So you're already several degrees of separation removed from how "real" Gloranthans speak, whatever the fuck that means. I don't assume you want to invent whatever Sartarite or Tarshite sounds like. We already know that colloquial terms like "Prince" are vague approximations because the (quote-unquote) "original" term in Sartarite has a different gendered connotation (which is why we say "Prince Kallyr").
• Do Gloranthans talk in terms of Lunars? Maybe? Depends on the region? There are many "actual" types of coins minted by various dynasties, and many people would also accept payment in kind. But because your players probably keep track of their finances in Lunars, you'll have to boil it down to "120 L please, Alice" for resource tracking.
• Do Gloranthans talk about "the Orlanth Adventurous temple", or does that temple have a local name? Does the deity itself have a local name? Zeus, as worshipped in various places around Ancient Greece, had a shitload of local names, even if everybody knew it was indeed Zeus. If an NPC says "let's meet at the Temple of Orlanth Sandal-stealer", your players will most probably ask "err wait is that a new sub-cult or is that just a fancy name for my own cult?" if they planned to do worship or acquire new spells. And then you have to explain it, and actually add that "oh actually it's just a shrine, mechanically speaking".
• Do Gloranthans talk about meeting at 8AM? Certainly not. Maybe they'd say "an hour after sunrise", or "when the market opens", or whatever. But wait 10 seconds and your players will ask you "ok so what time does the sun rise in Sea Season?" or "what time does the market open in Jonstown usually?".

And so many more examples. So unless your players naturally speak your own version of "fancy in-world lingo", you'll have to talk in game terms anyway as a complement, to clarify things. The only thing is whether you want to sprinkle it with cool immersive details... which would be great!  You can say: "I shall go to the temple of Orlanth Sandal-stealer to learn the secrets of Humakt's Whetstone! I will be meditating, burning incense and animal offerings to my God from the time the Priests of the Talking God open the market place, to the time they close it. You will see me again in a week, my sword imbued with enough power to break a troll's helmet in a single blow!"   That's great roleplay! And you can even write down in your notes that this specific Orlantha Adventurous temple has, I don't know, sandal motifs on its walls, and a mural of Orlanth stealing shit from the trolls, and so on. It helps with the worldbuilding!  But also, maybe, just maybe, this is only good at small doses (depending on your table... I don't know!). Maybe other times it's just easier to say "hey guys I'm going to the Orlanth Adventurous temple to learn Bladesharp 4. See you later".

[AndreasDavour]

I think my original point seems to be totally lost, but a well written post there Ludo!

[mfbrandi]

On 7/6/2023 at 10:29 AM, AndreasDavour said:

I find sometimes people talk about Glorantha as if the RQ rules describe how the world works. I think it can led to some weird results.

On 7/9/2023 at 7:32 PM, Lordabdul said:

What I think you're really asking is "do you always speak completely in character?"

2 hours ago, AndreasDavour said:

I think my original point seems to be totally lost

I think I get it. Forget rôleplaying and characters talking. Imagine a wargame representing WW2: a tank unit might have “firepower = 4”. That is fine as an abstraction for a game, but if you were going into the physics and engineering of the tanks represented, you wouldn’t find “firepower = 4” in any of your natural laws or engineering manuals, because that is not how the real world works and not because they just call it something different — it is not a real thing in the world, it is just a game abstraction, an artefact of the simulation.

So the question is not whether Gloranthans say “bladesharp 4” (or a Theyalan translation thereof) but whether the spell bladesharp 4 even exists in Glorantha (under any description) — perhaps Gloranthan magic is more freeform and maps poorly onto RQ rules. Right, Andreas?

Shouldn’t be hard: no one thinks hit points are a “real thing” in Glorantha, right? (Or QuestWorlds story points , for that matter.)

Edited July 13, 2023 by mfbrandi
missing comma // name -> description // hit points

[DrGoth]

On 7/13/2023 at 7:19 PM, mfbrandi said:

I think I get it. Forget rôleplaying and characters talking. Imagine a wargame representing WW2: a tank unit might have “firepower = 4”. That is fine as an abstraction for a game, but if you were going into the physics and engineering of the tanks represented, you wouldn’t find “firepower = 4” in any of your natural laws or engineering manuals, because that is not how the real world works and not because they just call it something different — it is not a real thing in the world, it is just a game abstraction, an artefact of the simulation.

So the question is not whether Gloranthans say “bladesharp 4” (or a Theyalan translation thereof) but whether the spell bladesharp 4 even exists in Glorantha (under any description) — perhaps Gloranthan magic is more freeform and maps poorly onto RQ rules. Right, Andreas?

Shouldn’t be hard: no one thinks hit points are a “real thing” in Glorantha, right? (Or QuestWorlds story points , for that matter.)

It's interesting. HPs are obviously an out of game world abstraction. And no one (well, no one sane) would in world think their skills are on a 100 pt scale.  But the number of steps involved in spells. They could exist in world in those increments. It's conceivable that in world someone might say "I learnt bladesharp. Then improved it three times".

Of course, the reverse could be argued as well, that it's all just game abstraction. "X levels of bladesharp" makes no sense if you take a hero/quest/world/wars lens on Glorantha.

Edited July 14, 2023 by DrGoth

[mfbrandi]

3 hours ago, DrGoth said:

It's conceivable that in world someone might say "I learnt bladesharp. Then improved it three times".

Sure, it is conceivable, and maybe Gloranthan sages have spell-teaching books and staged examinations — “I have piano grade 8” and all that. I am not taking a stand on that.

I was just trying to get at how Andreas and Ludo may have been failing to communicate effectively. It is very easy to slide into “of course people wouldn’t talk that way” when the real issue is that the thing may not be there to talk about. Imagine people did talk that way in Glorantha, but they were wrong — in the real world, circular orbits for the planets, phlogiston, or the luminiferous aether — we spoke as if these things existed and that was how the world worked, but we were wrong.

3 hours ago, DrGoth said:

And no one … sane would in world think their skills are on a 100 pt scale.

And that is maybe where it gets interesting.

Maybe (and maybe he is right) @AndreasDavour thinks that if a person in Glorantha proposed such a theory, they would never be able to assign skills and skill levels to people and difficulties to tasks in a way that had predictive power; they would never be able to turn it into an empirical theory, and definitely not one that would satisfy a Gloranthan Karl Popper. (Or perhaps their theory would be so rigid and determinate that it was falsified right away. Who knows?)

But what if a character in RuneQuest formed such a theory? They drew up charts of AP, and HP, relative proportions of hits and impalements, weapon damages, and the rest, then they went out and field tested it. Would they find that the RQ rules made a pretty good “theory of everything”? We speak as if minmaxing is possible: by making smart choices based on the rules, we think that we can improve our characters’ chances of succeeding. If we find that confirmed by the course of play, wouldn’t a character who conjectured what we read in the rule books find it confirmed in the course of their life? I don’t know, but maybe crazy inhabitant of Glorantha and crazy RQ character don’t line up too well.

And so maybe we end up saying that a simulation can be bad even when it is a simulation of something that does not exist. Or so some god of lies whispered in my ear.

Edited July 14, 2023 by mfbrandi
deleted one comma

[French Desperate WindChild]

2 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

But what if a character in RuneQuest formed such a theory? They drew up charts of AP, and HP, relative proportions of hits and impalements, weapon damages, and the rest, then they went out and field tested it. Would they find that the RQ rules made a pretty good “theory of everything”? We speak as if minmaxing is possible: by making smart choices based on the rules, we think that we can improve our characters’ chances of succeeding. If we find that confirmed by the course of play, wouldn’t a character who conjectured what we read in the rule books, find it confirmed in the course of their life? I don’t know, but maybe crazy inhabitant of Glorantha and crazy RQ character don’t line up too well.

in my opinion it is possible but at a small level.

If you study, for example, the different musculation trainings, with number of reps, series, etc. depending on your target (volume, stamina, power)  I m not sure that the programs 50years or more ago  were totaly defined by a modern science based approch (and even if now some studies seem to validate options) but more by experimentation that bronze age people may have been able to do (if they had nothing else more important to do like find food, build house, etc...)

So yes a sartrape or a esrolian grand mother would be able to engage resources to find something. Now... that's for one topic, not all the scope of life. Because life is not only focus on your priorities (I hope nobody think I'm going to give lessons, but reading my words, I prefer to explain, that's my thought demonstration, not a lesson about life, who I am for that !)

3 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

And so maybe we end up saying that a simulation can be bad even when it is a simulation of something that does not exist.

For me rules are just a model. Bad or good is more what people do with the rules. And I will not say bad or good as a truth, but more as a taste depending on the table.

For example I dislike to play or gm with people who, trying to become priest or this idea,  will find shaman to summon a spirit of 14-16 POW because that is the range the most efficient to have the POW check.  And once they have reach their goal, bye bye, no more spiritual activies. Now focus on the devotion passion because these f**^ rules require a 90% so let's try to invoke the god in any circumstance. Ha it is done, at least 90%... No more need to call the god for the next years (don't want to fail a roll, after all, the risk to lose % is too important !), let's focus on climb or swim, or maul, or ...

But in the opposite way, I'm lost (a little, just a little) and dislike to not have a lot of specialities (5 characteriscs are enough to rpg ? pouah, not for me, who says d&d ?), a lot, but not too much (who says rolemaster ?)

 

that's not my taste, but others may like this or that. And probably they dislike how I see roleplaying. But I m not bad, and they are not bad, we are just different (like uz and human... .... not alrdryami ... of course they are bad, who could say the opposite ?)

 

 

[mfbrandi]

3 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Bad or good is more what people do with the rules.

Don’t worry: I wasn’t trying to suggest they were bad rules. 😉

[AndreasDavour]

Thanks @mfbrandi for attempting to parse it. You present a better view of the thrust of my posts than me, apparently. In my view of Glorantha, it does not necessarily match up to RQ rules, no.

[mfbrandi]

1 hour ago, AndreasDavour said:

You present a better view of the thrust of my posts than me, apparently.

I am sure that is not true.

1 hour ago, AndreasDavour said:

In my view of Glorantha, it does not necessarily match up to RQ rules, no.

I think everybody agrees with you on that — “the map is not the territory” and so on — but understandably, people are not always sure which bits are Glorantha and which bits are game artefacts. Given that — as Ludo said — people don’t ever talk completely in character, that we are always floating somewhere between acting and describing our game move, that is probably fine, most of the time. But equally, if one has a strong conception of Glorantha, the rule set might sometimes grate.

To say any more would be to drift even further OT, so time to stop.

[Shiningbrow]

17 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

Maybe (and maybe he is right) @AndreasDavour thinks that if a person in Glorantha proposed such a theory, they would never be able to assign skills and skill levels to people and difficulties to tasks in a way that had predictive power; they would never be able to turn it into an empirical theory, and definitely not one that would satisfy a Gloranthan Karl Popper. (Or perhaps their theory would be so rigid and determinate that it was falsified right away. Who knows?)

But what if a character in RuneQuest formed such a theory? They drew up charts of AP, and HP, relative proportions of hits and impalements, weapon damages, and the rest, then they went out and field tested it. Would they find that the RQ rules made a pretty good “theory of everything”? We speak as if minmaxing is possible: by making smart choices based on the rules, we think that we can improve our characters’ chances of succeeding. If we find that confirmed by the course of play, wouldn’t a character who conjectured what we read in the rule books find it confirmed in the course of their life? I don’t know, but maybe crazy inhabitant of Glorantha and crazy RQ character don’t line up too well.

I disagree (of course :p)

"I have piano grade 8" actually makes sense to us. It has a real world meaning from which prediction is possible (anyone who is aware of piano exams adn training will know what such a person with grade 8 should be capable of, and have an idea of what they need to do in order to advance to grade 9).

Similarly, we operate the same way with education in general. We would be confident that a grade 6 level of education is not capable of doing as well as someone who has Grade 12 (usually).

Also, it is also meaningful to say that I know about X% of a language.

We also speak in levels and grades for some occupations - Administration Officer level 9. We use descriptors for ranks in the various services.

And we could also meaningfully say that a spell increases one's ability to hit by about 5%, 10%, 20% etc. Again, this is something that already happens in the real world. And teachers are constantly giving grades on reports, often in a percentage value.

think o

We could do that with characteristics. Certainly we use a numerical value for intelligence - IQ. We could do that with strength, based on our lifting or carrying capacity. Size is easy. For all of these things, we already generalise (well below average to well above average).

We could do that with HP and AP - and we know this because it has meaning for us when we sit at the table, and there is no confusion.

So, I think Gloranthans could speak like that - if it was built into their culture.

However, rather than speaking quantitively, I think they'd do what we would, and be qualitative. I can imagine someone saying that they've learnt the first level of Bladesharp, and next week will learn the second and third levels. However, I would be more inclined to think they'd use 'minor', 'lessor', etc

For characteristics, we talk about 'very strong' or 'quite weak' - and we could  put numerical values on it....

 

However - I doubt that they actually do use numerical values (although, maybe, just maybe they might for variable spells! Level 1 or 3 etc)

14 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

For example I dislike to play or gm with people who, trying to become priest or this idea,  will find shaman to summon a spirit of 14-16 POW because that is the range the most efficient to have the POW check.  And once they have reach their goal, bye bye, no more spiritual activies. Now focus on the devotion passion because these f**^ rules require a 90% so let's try to invoke the god in any circumstance. Ha it is done, at least 90%... No more need to call the god for the next years (don't want to fail a roll, after all, the risk to lose % is too important !), let's focus on climb or swim, or maul, or ...

Personally (and that's all it is), I have to partly disagree with this. If the character would actually have the ambition to become a Rune Priest or Rune Lord (or even just an initiate of a different cult), then I do think they would actively seek out the relevant (and efficient) ways to improve what needs improving. It would be silly not to. Just like in our real world, if someone needs to get a certain qualification, they take various courses, or attempt to get certain amounts of experience... and quite possibly, never look back on it again!

Think of going to university and all the subjects one might have to pass just to graduate...

[French Desperate WindChild]

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Personally (and that's all it is), I have to partly disagree with this. If the character would actually have the ambition to become a Rune Priest or Rune Lord (or even just an initiate of a different cult), then I do think they would actively seek out the relevant (and efficient) ways to improve what needs improving. It would be silly not to

to clarify:

my point was not about reaching a status but how to do it. Training a sword is fine, no issue for that, I would even say it is just "normal" if you have enough money to live (food, etc...) and train yourself. Calling the god until your target  (= 90%) then nothing more (or anything involving someone as a "tool" for your experience check, then forget them) in a pure mechanic optimization is what I dislike. Playing against your passion is what I dislike (I say I, other may have different taste, no issue).

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Think of going to university and all the subjects one might have to pass just to graduate...

I understand

however, it doesn't work in my opinion. Because the purpose of university is to teach, then bye bye except for those who choose the academic carrer.

So, imo of course, yes studying weapon, ride, read/write, orate and some knowledge could be "consume", with money (or cow, or ...). Skills of your cult and your actual occupation too (of course it is included in your background)

But if you want an exotic skill, or something deeper (POW ...) then you may become an "apprentice" (priest / shaman / smith / skill master ...) . Find a master, obey, serve and learn (gain loyalty, ... or hate 😛 , change your occupation according to your master,... assistant priest / assistant shaman / smith / skill apprentice ...) but that would imply your background and how it changes your pc's view of the world. That should not play like "hey I learn 2% with this postcast! star wars yes, (my) glorantha no 😛

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by French Desperate WindChild