Flight Spell IMG: A Ramble

[Aurelius]

When I was young, I loved Flight spells in all role-playing games. Whether it was from Orlanth, from Sorcery, or from DnD magic users, it was always so good. It allowed all sorts of shenanigans from pulling down objects on enemies to replacing half of the non-combat skills of Runequest. Sneaking, climbing, running, swimming, jumping... sometimes it replaced riding, and even hiding, and turned combat encounters into exercises about whether your composite bow can turn a monster into a porcupine from 100m altitude before time runs out or it finds a non-flyable hiding place. 

So powerful. So good. Always the best. Well, together with invisibility and teleportation spells maybe. 

Later on I became a GM, and I started hating it. What's more imbalanced than one spell that is great in most non-combat non-social situations, and also in tons of combat situations on top of that. Google Barrelmancy in Larian games and you get into the exploit zone of where it was used: Instead of pulling a boulder on enemies, it turned a boulder into a hammer that would be dropped on enemies ten times. Gary Gygax would call it a great creative player invention, I'd call it a repetitive exploit pattern that bored me to death. The actual strategy was about whether you should fly the enemy to 150m and drop it, or teleport it there and drop it -- a bit like sever spirit but leaving more mangled corpses. 

So what was the problem? I think the root of the problem is that all these three flight spells -- Orlanthi Flight, Sorcerous Fly (I think we used Sandy's), and DnD Fly -- are described so tersely that they become do-all spells. "The caster may transport one object weighing up to SIZ 6 through the air for the duration of the spell." Honestly, that's not very Orlanthi / Sartarite / Gloranthan to me. 

In my Glorantha, Orlanthi Flight is about invoking and embodying the power of the Storm God.

1. You can't hover, or even go slowly, or even turn on a dime. Winds pick you up and there we go. 

2. It's not quiet -- except on a windy day when it's unnoticeable. 

3. Gusts of wind follow you like they do a truck on a highway. You can't play Quidditch, because you don't want to mess up with other players trail turbulence either.

4. It doesn't work indoors or underground, because there's no space for Orlanth's wind to pick you up. Stack enough points though, and the whole roof will fly off with you. The Red Emperor's throne room might be big enough for flying around, but there are no building big enough in Sartar. 

5. It's not exact. Flying by an apple tree and picking an apple should be about as easy as doing the same driving fast a bicycle.

6. If I made the game, you couldn't pick up objects with Flight, but sure the rules accept it. Anyway, Orlanths winds are too clumsy to pick up anything smaller than small dog. 

At the same time, Sorcerous flight is completely different. 

1. It is exact and geometric, all about acceleration and deceleration and rotation, which is exact but clumsy. You can hover and take your time though.

2. Concentration requirement is terrible when you fly high. It's terrifying to be in 20m, and your character is unlikely to be the tightrope walker. There are no guardrails, so if you fall, you die.

3. Controlling multiple objects going in multiple directions is as hard as juggling equally many balls. You probably drop them all. 

4. In my Glorantha, Sorcery also generates some light, so its not handy for hiding in the dark.

That way, Orlanthi Flight replaces a lot of Agility skills in a lot of situations, and Sorcerous flight a lot of other Agility skill is other situations, but neither of them replaces climbing, sneaking, running and throwing. I love the picture of a levitating Lunar mystic with a mirror in one of the HW books, where the astonished crowd below is portrayed from really scary altitude.

I think the original design error of both spells is the way they waste too much design space. Orlanthi Flight is so all-encompassing it's hard to justify any other Rune Spells that would fly things around, and that's why pretty much all flight is Orlanth's alone (I think some folks can grow wings but that's about it). 

I'd love if that kind of Gloranthan flavour would be infused into all magic rules text throughout the game. Would make the game more fun and more tasty for the likes of me. And allow selling beefier splat books for cults and cultures.

[PhilHibbs]

Yeah, I'm a fan of Orlanth flight being wind-based, but not in a literal physics-based sense. You become one with the wind, part of it, the wind is all around you, and yes it's disruptive, but not as much as if the winds were actually creating the force required to hold you up.

[Alex]

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yeah, I'm a fan of Orlanth flight being wind-based, but not in a literal physics-based sense.

Physics in Glorantha is pretty much a self-negating concept.  Unless you're going to reify it as...  the contents of a small Dyson sphere-type orbital?  Yelm as a compact fusion reactor?  Chaos as fluidic space?

Would not recommend.

[Shiningbrow]

I like the thinking! Especially the last paragraph:

14 hours ago, Aurelius said:

I'd love if that kind of Gloranthan flavour would be infused into all magic rules text throughout the game. Would make the game more fun and more tasty for the likes of me. And allow selling beefier splat books for cults and cultures.

Although, I'm not quite sold on the Orlanth Flight, as while Orlanth is indeed the god of storms, he's also the god of the Air Rune... and that includes the air you breath, which doesn't equate simply to the more tumultuous stuff. (Granted, there are other gods for this - perhaps? Umbrol, Umath, Bratalos...)

I definitely agree with the Sorcerous Fly, especially with the much needed concentration (checks needed!), but after a while, I'm sure any competent sorcerer will be ok with the heights - and that probably associated with skill level in the spell.

[Akhôrahil]

I always found it odd that Fly in RQG is really Telekinesis. It makes a great attack spell, as you can lift an opponent arbitrarily high and either hold him up there or let him fall to the ground - repeatedly!

[Aurelius]

On 9/15/2024 at 6:32 AM, Akhôrahil said:

I always found it odd that Fly in RQG is really Telekinesis. It makes a great attack spell, as you can lift an opponent arbitrarily high and either hold him up there or let him fall to the ground - repeatedly!

In Runequest it is a standard that you lose battle if you fail a POW vs. POW roll, just like in D&D the standard is that you lose if you fail a saving throw. 

Until you start swinging around with a boulder hammer which sure, might cost you more than 3 points of Flight. 

Perhaps fortunately in 2024 many of us have flown remote controlled drones around a bit, and learned that judging the distance between a flying drone and an incoming enemy warrior is extremely hard. Back in the 80s I imagine a lot of GM's would have thought it's trivial to drop a boulder on your enemies. In 2024, amateur drone pilots know its super hard.

[Geoff R Evil]

In addition to the limiting factor of pow vs pow and overcoming countermagic, there is always the fun bit of dispel magic, and most cults have access to the common spell dismiss magic, and if you play the spell description as is, there is no pow vs pow to dismiss the flight spell.

So your porcupine arrow firer needs to be 150m away to be safe…and that’s out of range or at big penalties even for a comp bow. 
 

So plenty of consequences for players getting too creative and seeing flight as a solve all.

[Aurelius]

On 9/19/2024 at 1:33 PM, Geoff R Evil said:

In addition to the limiting factor of pow vs pow and overcoming countermagic, there is always the fun bit of dispel magic, and most cults have access to the common spell dismiss magic, and if you play the spell description as is, there is no pow vs pow to dismiss the flight spell.

So your porcupine arrow firer needs to be 150m away to be safe…and that’s out of range or at big penalties even for a comp bow. 

So plenty of consequences for players getting too creative and seeing flight as a solve all.

The problem with this kind of an Arms Race Argument is that it concedes that the existing rules are good, and the invisible hand will solve issues that emerge.

There are two problems: 

First, often the issues that emerge do not get solved. Lunar Empire testudos turn into porcupines three days a week outside the Glowline because they cannot muster a 3-point Dispel, and tons of chaotic and non-sentient monsters also fall for it. 

But the second, bigger reason is that the Arms Race Argument concedes that the dynamics that emerge from those rules are "nice". That falling to death is a common cause of death among Wind Lords, that Lunar Empire phalanxes retain non-Lunar spellcasters to deal with all the un-dispellable 3+ point spells three days a week, and so on. 

Also, if Dispel becomes a necessary solution to various imbalances of the magic system, then Dispel also becomes a do-all spell. YMMV, but personally I think Dispelling is so un-Gloranthan way of solving magical conflicts I'd design a ton of rules to discourage it. 

[Aurelius]

Anyway, the point of this thread was to make the argument that Runequest is the actual monomyth.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

30 minutes ago, Aurelius said:

Also, if Dispel becomes a necessary solution to various imbalances of the magic system, then Dispel also becomes a do-all spell. YMMV, but personally I think Dispelling is so un-Gloranthan way of solving magical conflicts I'd design a ton of rules to discourage it. 

As a wargamer I believe that Dispel is an excellent counter to game imbalances.  You must dispel an enemy Weapon Trance, and should dispell Truesword on a 2H weapon.  There are others...  I had a couple of very _effective_ PCs based on Dispel.

As a player or GM it's often boring, generally uncreative, and often just annoying bookkeeping of rune points.

[Geoff R Evil]

Personally I dislike dispel, and in my game require pow vs pow to use it.

and I agree GMs need to be careful how they allow PCs to use spells like flight, and I agree wind powered spells cannot be that accurate. But I would still allow the spell in my game as it just makes sense when contrasted with so many other rune spells.

[Aurelius]

9 hours ago, Geoff R Evil said:

Personally I dislike dispel, and in my game require pow vs pow to use it.

and I agree GMs need to be careful how they allow PCs to use spells like flight, and I agree wind powered spells cannot be that accurate. But I would still allow the spell in my game as it just makes sense when contrasted with so many other rune spells.

Yeah I guess it is a necessary pressure valve in the current situation. PowPow roll is a good compromise I guess, as the rules already accept that 2-3 RP plus failed PowPow anyway equals a lost battle. 

[Scorus]

Except for those designed to obfuscate, no rune or spirit magic spells should be quiet or transparent. Magic is loud and very showy!

[Akhôrahil]

On 9/22/2024 at 10:50 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

As a wargamer I believe that Dispel is an excellent counter to game imbalances.  You must dispel an enemy Weapon Trance, and should dispell Truesword on a 2H weapon.  There are others...  I had a couple of very _effective_ PCs based on Dispel.

As a player or GM it's often boring, generally uncreative, and often just annoying bookkeeping of rune points.

Agree - it's great that Dispel exists, or else the unbalanced Rune Spells would be even harder to counter. This way, if someone (PC or opponent) puts up some absurdly big Shield spell or something, at least you can chop it down with multiple Dispel castings, and you at least have a threat against that crazypants big Sword Trance. This is also why I'm not really a fan of Defensive Boosting, and I would definitely not require POW v. POW.

Keeping Rune points in reserve for Dispels is perfectly legitimate, and I imagine a Dispel-Shaman using Spell Barrage and Spirit Magic dispels could be extremely useful in some encounters.

Edited 12 hours ago by Akhôrahil