Jump to content
Oracle

Crowd Source Editing: HeroQuest Glorantha

Recommended Posts

p.16 – Law rune listed as a Power rune. Power runes are organized in antagonistic pairs – so what would be the antagonist to Law? And the Guide to Glorantha lists Law as a Condition rune (on p.149).

p.53 – The Ambitious Noble: “She spends [nine] of her ability points to raise various abilities; she keeps [three] in reserve “just in case.””

p.53 – Character Sheet: “Ability Points: [3]”
           To summarize: Earth +3, Life +1, Noble +4, Ambitious +1 = 9

p.53 – Character Sheet: “Air 11W Devotee of Orlanth (passionate, proud, unpredictable, violent) Lightning Spear +1 Feat Thunderer +1 [Proud +1]
(He already gets Proud at 11W through the Air Rune even if he doesn’t take it as a breakout ability, thus it doesn’t make a lot of sense to take it as a breakout ability from the Mastery Rune at a lower rating of 18, doesn’t it?!? Thus, Air 11W Proud +1)

p.54 – The Proud Thane: “He adds his distinguishing characteristic, proud, as a breakout ability of his [Air] Rune.”

p.54 – The Proud Thane: “As additional abilities, Neil takes an allied spirit as a companion; a magical lightning spear (a breakout ability of the Air Rune); and a [relationship (Lunars killed my wife)].”
(According to the feat rules on p. 146, as a newly-minted devotee Vargast got his Thunderer feat for free. Besides, his “Lunars killed my wife” ability also has to be accounted for.)

p.63, point 6 – can you spend more than one Hero Point on one dice roll or just one? p.60 says that one per dice roll is the maximum but p.63 appears to contradict this by saying “any number”.

Quote

Harald Smith in old glorantha.com forum, July 5, 2015 at 9:53 pm:

In my game, we use the rule on p.60 – one HP per die roll maximum (whether single contest or a given round/exchange within an extended contest). Others may do differently.

Addendum: in point 4 on p.63 Hero Points are also mentioned as a means to create bumps for successful die rolls. This remark is not in the (quite similar) list description of Simple Contests in the HeroQuest Core Rules. HQ:CR allows using multiple Hero Points for bumping Simple Contest results (HQ:CR, p.23), whereas HeroQuest Glorantha does not (p. HQ:G, p. 60). So this leaves the impression, that this is a copy/paste/not modified error, i.e. point 6 should be deleted from the list on p. 63 completely ...

p.68 – Samastina’s Saga: Meeting with the Queen: “”The base difficulty is 14 plus […] W2 (for being Nearly Impossible), bringing the difficulty to [14]W2. Claudia declares, “You have a difficulty of [14]W2.” Everyone gasps. “It is well known that Samastina’s clan and Hendira’s political faction are at odds with each other, and Hendira deeply distrusts this ambitious girl. You need to overcome the difficulty of [14]W2 with your 6W, your mastery cancels out one of mine, giving me an [14]W against your rating of only 6.””

p.68 – “Meeting with the Queen”, I don’t understand why the difficulty modifier for Samastina’s Nearly Impossible task is 2W2. p113 shows the modifier for Nearly Impossible as Base+W2. Am I missing something?

The base difficulty is 14 plus W2 (for being Nearly Impossible), bringing the difficulty to 14W2.

Difficulty should be +W2 for Nearly Impossible (instead of +2W2).

p.128 - Another rules question, this time about the example tables on p128, particularly the second one for the resources of Nochet after the siege.

Quote

Steve Hammatt in old glorantha.com forum, July 10, 2015 at 12:36 pm:

Either I’m misunderstanding, or the second table doesn’t match the combination of the text and the previous table.

Here is what I understood, showing who is looking after which resource, their level of success/failure, and what effect I understood this would have based on the first table:

Communication (Orensulva) – Marginal Defeat : 18 (bolstered) -6 = 12
Magic (Vargast) – Minor Victory : 12W (bolstered) -3 = 9W
Morale (Samastina) – Marginal Victory : 18 (bolstered) -3 = 15
War (Karganvale) – Major Defeat : 1W (bolstered) -6 = 15
Wealth (Magatheus) – Marginal Victory : 9W (bolstered) -3 = 6W
Comparing this to the second table, Communication looks right, Magic should be “9W (-3)” and not “9W (base)”, Morale should be “15 (-3)” and not “15 (+3)”, War should be “15 (-6)” and not “15 (-3)”, and Wealth should be “6W (-3)” and not “6W (-6)”.

Quote

Harald Smith answered in old glorantha.com forum, July 18, 2015 at 2:46 am:

What is not shown is the set of Base values for Nochet resources.
I believe these should be:

Communication 18
Magic 9W
Morale 12
War 18
Wealth 12W

The attempts to bolster the resources yield the following, which is shown in the Bolstered view:

Communication – marginal defeat – no change = 18
Magic – minor victory – +3 = 12W
Morale – major victory – +6 = 18
War – minor victory – +3 = 1W
Wealth – minor defeat – -3 = 9W

The start of the Siege is described with immediate effects on the city’s resources.
Originally, I thought the results of those resource changes were not shown. But I think what is applied is the Resource Depletion results – using those against the Bolstered values I believe the results would be:

Communication – marginal defeat – -6 = 12
Magic – minor victory – -3 = 9W
Morale – marginal victory – -3 = 15
War – major defeat – -6 = 15
Wealth – marginal victory – -3 = 6W

And those match up to what is shown is the state of Nochet Resources after the Siege, which is what is stated in the text: “the siege depletes many of the resources of Nochet, as per the second table below”. The figures in parentheses simply note the difference from the Base level (before bolstering).

 

Edited by Rick Meints
extended description of Hero Point bump issue on p.63
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some more which I don't think have been included so far, along with some attempted answers:

p. 35 - point 8 - spend on improving abilities, Runes and keywords, not buying new ones?
 
p. 35/36/46 - Concerning distinguishing characteristic. If you choose it as a new ability, its score is 17. As a breakout ability, it adds +1 to the score of the linked keyword. But if this keyword has a score of 13 (like the basic score of the third rune), does it mean than the distinguishing characteristic increases to +4 to reach the minimum of 17 or doest it keeps its +1?
Answer from David Scott via forum - Good question. Give the distinguishing characteristic +4. This happened recently in a game of mine: Death 13, unnerving stare +4. He soon realised that this could injure people.
 
p. 63 (and 243) - the result table is  very confusing (see HQ:CR rulebook for a much clearer table)
 
p. 84 - last paragraph says that the winner never scores less than a Minor Victory,  but the table allows for a Marginal Victory.
 
p. 92 - The Battle of Auroch Hills example appears to lump together the resolution points received for each hero facing multiple opponents rather than keeping them (as per the rules on p.79) in separate tracks for each opponent. On p.92, David is concerned that with four points against Herrox he is nearly out of the contest. However, these points have been (mistakenly?) added together and in fact he has received one point from Guard 8 (p.90) and three from Guard 9 (p.90 and p.92). The example makes it look like adding together all the received resolution points is correct.
 
p. 101 - In Defensive Responses it says "If the hero wins the exchange, he lodges 2 fewer Resolution Points against his opponent. If the hero loses the exchange, the number of Resolution Points lodged against his opponent decreases by 1."
The second sentence should say "If the hero loses the exchange, the number of Resolution Points lodged by his opponent decreases by 1".
 
p. 116 - Major Defeat mentioned in text, presumably at King's Banquet, so it should be a double arrow in the diagram. Should the earlier paragraph refer to major and complete being double arrows?
 
p. 134 - How many times can my Praxian use a charm in one day?
Answer from David Scott via forum - As long as you still have it and haven't released the spirit, as many as is practical subject to taboo.
 
p. 136 - 2nd column, 2nd-to-last paragraph. What is the limit for raising charms for those not in a spirit society? Not clear in previous section, is it +1?
 
p. 165 - Last paragraph: "All Humakti have the Specific ability of Sword Fighting at least at the same rating as their Death Rune. Although this ability is linked to their Death Rune rating, it is an independent ability, improved separately, and can be augmented by the Death Rune."
That second rulebook sentence does appear to have two contradictory clauses. If Sword Fighting is linked to Death Rune (implying it automatically rises), how is it an "independent ability"? Does Sword Fighting rise automatically as Death rune is improved?
 
p. 184 - About Lunar Grimoires: How exactly does the lunar cycle affect sorcerous spells ? The rules for Spells are pretty clear, they can always be used directly and they can never be Stretches. Now let's look at the lunar cycle:
-Black/Dying: Augment only. But Spells can always be used directly.
-Crescent Go/Come: Stretch penalty of -6. But Spells are never Stretches.
-Full/Empty half: No effect.
-Full Moon: Streches penalties are removed. But again a Spell can't be a Stretch.
Answer from David Scott via forum - I'm guessing the lunar cycle override the normal sorcery rules, but the book does not make this very clear. So it would translate to:
-Black/Dying: Spells can only be used for augments.
-Crescent Go/Come: Spells can be used directly but with a -6 penalty.
-Full/Empty half: No effect. Normal rules apply.
-Full Moon: Spells can be stretched at no penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ideas on how we move this forward, from a list of questions with some unofficial answers, to an official errata list with answers?

@David Scott you were involved with writing the book and have already kindly helped with some answers, any suggestions?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I know they've got a lot on their plate, but a year is more than enough time to make time to address this stuff. For comparison, Pinnacle has gotten a half-dozen updates to the Savage Worlds Rifts Players' Guide PDF to me in the time that this thread has been in existence. In particular, the inconsistencies in the rule examples seriously degrade its utility as a tool for learning how to play the game..

To again use Pinnacle as an example, they released the Savage Rifts PDFs to KS backers months before going to print, and then got this sort of stuff all sorted out based on customer feedback before going to press. I would rather wait a few weeks longer for a supplement to ship in order for some effort to be devoted to this, and am certainly not going to buy a hardcopy of HQ:G until this stuff gets addressed and/or corrected.

I am an enthusiastic booster of this system to anyone who will listen, have run it at cons, etc, but these cracks in the foundation are getting harder to ignore the longer they go neglected.

Edited by JonL
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several things to reconcile here. All IMHO from working with the Chaosium crew, not 'official.'

  1. What is errata? Chaosium has a strict definition, errata is game text that is wrong as written. Whilst typos etc. will inevitably exist, these are not considered errata. So if a rule is wrong, or an example illustrating a key rule is wrong, that is errata. But if a name is misspelled or a comma is missing that is a typo, and whilst no one really wants those, they would only cloud errata.
    1. That means that Chaosium is likely to find itself in arguments over individual items as to their status as errata or proofing error.
    2. Its not to say the collating potential proofing errors might not have value to someone in the future, but that if something was to be produced now as an official 'errata' it needs to focus on rules concerns.
    3. Clarifications are also not really errata. But where a rule is unclear or ambiguous it may make sense to issue clarifications with errata.
  2. When does Chaosium intend to do another print run? The most likely point to fix both electronic and print versions would be when existing stocks of the print version decline to the point that it becomes necessary to print more, presuming there is sufficient demand. I am not aware when that might happen, or how stocks are etc., but it seems unlikely that the effort to reconcile the errata would happen before then.
  3. The unofficial errata does have value, in that it could form the starting point for such an effort, when it made sense to begin any such process.
  4. There are only so many people to go around. An effort to review and make decisions on the errata takes the time from someone who could be creating new product, and so the two possible uses of that person's time have to be weighed against each other. It's hard to compare against other companies practices because they may have different pipelines, tooling, working practices etc., which mean that they find these updates simpler or more cost effective. It is useful to indicate the bar, but that does not mean its possible to clear it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tabling typos, misspellings, and other minor matters until a followup printing makes sense, sure. However, things like the Auroch Hills play example contradicting the rules as written elsewhere in the book, or entire paragraphs stating the number of hero points you're supposed to be able to spend on a single roll contradicting each other in the space of three pages are not typos. Direct contradictions like that are blatant defects in the rules as written. I've obviously been able to work out my own solutions at the table, but that's not the point.

I get that it can seem more compelling for the business to prioritize labor time towards shipping new product over fixing something people have already paid for, but seriously, in a year there isn't half a day here and there that could be devoted to patching the more glaring flaws? I gotta say, the prospect of waiting until a future print run is impending (which could be years away or never) before fixing a defective product is somewhat disheartening, and is a policy I'm going to have to weigh in the balance when considering future purchases.

 

Edited by JonL
grammar fix
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ian Cooper said:

There are several things to reconcile here. All IMHO from working with the Chaosium crew, not 'official.'

  1. What is errata? Chaosium has a strict definition, errata is game text that is wrong as written. Whilst typos etc. will inevitably exist, these are not considered errata. So if a rule is wrong, or an example illustrating a key rule is wrong, that is errata. But if a name is misspelled or a comma is missing that is a typo, and whilst no one really wants those, they would only cloud errata.
    1. That means that Chaosium is likely to find itself in arguments over individual items as to their status as errata or proofing error.
    2. Its not to say the collating potential proofing errors might not have value to someone in the future, but that if something was to be produced now as an official 'errata' it needs to focus on rules concerns.
    3. Clarifications are also not really errata. But where a rule is unclear or ambiguous it may make sense to issue clarifications with errata.
  2. When does Chaosium intend to do another print run? The most likely point to fix both electronic and print versions would be when existing stocks of the print version decline to the point that it becomes necessary to print more, presuming there is sufficient demand. I am not aware when that might happen, or how stocks are etc., but it seems unlikely that the effort to reconcile the errata would happen before then.
  3. The unofficial errata does have value, in that it could form the starting point for such an effort, when it made sense to begin any such process.
  4. There are only so many people to go around. An effort to review and make decisions on the errata takes the time from someone who could be creating new product, and so the two possible uses of that person's time have to be weighed against each other. It's hard to compare against other companies practices because they may have different pipelines, tooling, working practices etc., which mean that they find these updates simpler or more cost effective. It is useful to indicate the bar, but that does not mean its possible to clear it yet.

To be fair, though, point 1 is why I suggested that an older thread on this subject be re-done as it has been now, i.e. to contain only rules-related issues and not just typos. So I believe we've addressed that. And for point 2 it would be possible to fix the PDF copy relatively easily, it doesn't need to wait for a new print run for this issue to be addressed. But I of course take your point 4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Steve said:

To be fair, though, point 1 is why I suggested that an older thread on this subject be re-done as it has been now, i.e. to contain only rules-related issues and not just typos. So I believe we've addressed that. And for point 2 it would be possible to fix the PDF copy relatively easily, it doesn't need to wait for a new print run for this issue to be addressed. But I of course take your point 4.

 

Changing a PDF requires working with InDesign to update the files used to produce the PDF. If this is a simple correction there might not be an issue, but a correction risks altering the length of a paragraph may then cause the text to flow differently resulting in pages of changes to layout. I'm not saying that fixing all instances would require that, just that I can sympathize with the opinion who think that taking a range of errata and incorporating it into the existing PDF is a project that needs resources allocated to it.

I'll chat to @Rick Meints and @Jeff next time I catch up with them, and see if I can't get you guys something more definitive on how to support your efforts here.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ian Cooper said:

Changing a PDF requires working with InDesign to update the files used to produce the PDF. If this is a simple correction there might not be an issue, but a correction risks altering the length of a paragraph may then cause the text to flow differently resulting in pages of changes to layout. I'm not saying that fixing all instances would require that, just that I can sympathize with the opinion who think that taking a range of errata and incorporating it into the existing PDF is a project that needs resources allocated to it.

I'll chat to @Rick Meints and @Jeff next time I catch up with them, and see if I can't get you guys something more definitive on how to support your efforts here.

 

Thank you for engaging with this, Ian. It is greatly appreciated.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks Ian, we can see that you're trying to help. And the whole point of this thread was for "us", the community, to try and help pull this together too.

I take your point about re-flowing text in InDesign, but even if that is put onto the "to-do" list, producing a separate downloadable PDF with errata would be pretty straightforward, once the items can be agreed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2016 at 10:56 PM, JonL said:

However, things like the Auroch Hills play example contradicting the rules as written elsewhere in the book, 

To keep you all in the loop, I'm gearing up to redo the example from the book. You may have noticed I've done a dry run in the form of the HeroQuest Glorantha spirit combat example, just to get the format right as I wrote the Auroch hills example a couple of years ago. I've copied the text from the final book as it contains the edits that aren't in my original. All I need to do now is replace all the ligatures that don't appear in my editor and reformat it to remove layout artefacts. Then I can start the rewriting process. I'm not paid to do this, so it will take some time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for answering so late, but I was busy with other tasks during the last months ...

On 11.9.2016 at 7:39 PM, Steve said:

Here are some more which I don't think have been included so far, along with some attempted answers:

p. 35 - point 8 - spend on improving abilities, Runes and keywords, not buying new ones?

...

I do not see the issue here. My version of HeroQuest Glorantha says:

8.    Spend up to 12 additional points on keywords, Runes, additional abilities, or supporting characters. ...

This seems clear enough for answering the above question. Or do I miss something?

On 11.9.2016 at 7:39 PM, Steve said:

...

p. 35/36/46 - Concerning distinguishing characteristic. If you choose it as a new ability, its score is 17. As a breakout ability, it adds +1 to the score of the linked keyword. But if this keyword has a score of 13 (like the basic score of the third rune), does it mean than the distinguishing characteristic increases to +4 to reach the minimum of 17 or doest it keeps its +1?

Answer from David Scott via forum - Good question. Give the distinguishing characteristic +4. This happened recently in a game of mine: Death 13, unnerving stare +4. He soon realised that this could injure people.

...

Not sure if this describes an editing error or a real errata. But David answer is definitely helpful.

On 11.9.2016 at 7:39 PM, Steve said:

...

p. 63 (and 243) - the result table is  very confusing (see HQ:CR rulebook for a much clearer table)

...

True, but this seems to be more of an editing issue than a real error (see rules for what's being considered an errata listed above by @Ian Cooper)

On 11.9.2016 at 7:39 PM, Steve said:

...

p. 84 - last paragraph says that the winner never scores less than a Minor Victory, but the table allows for a Marginal Victory.

...

already listed in the companion thread:

 

On 11.9.2016 at 7:39 PM, Steve said:

...

p. 92 - The Battle of Auroch Hills example appears to lump together the resolution points received for each hero facing multiple opponents rather than keeping them (as per the rules on p.79) in separate tracks for each opponent. On p.92, David is concerned that with four points against Herrox he is nearly out of the contest. However, these points have been (mistakenly?) added together and in fact he has received one point from Guard 8 (p.90) and three from Guard 9 (p.90 and p.92). The example makes it look like adding together all the received resolution points is correct.

...

As far as I know this part is already under reconstruction by @David Scott. Although I'm not sure, I would consider this to be an editing error.

On 11.9.2016 at 7:39 PM, Steve said:

...

p. 116 - Major Defeat mentioned in text, presumably at King's Banquet, so it should be a double arrow in the diagram. Should the earlier paragraph refer to major and complete being double arrows?

...

already listed in the above mentioned companion thread ...

For the remaining points I'm again not sure, how to handle them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 

On 11/29/2016 at 1:04 PM, Ian Cooper said:

What is errata? Chaosium has a strict definition, errata is game text that is wrong as written. Whilst typos etc. will inevitably exist, these are not considered errata. So if a rule is wrong, or an example illustrating a key rule is wrong, that is errata. But if a name is misspelled or a comma is missing that is a typo, and whilst no one really wants those, they would only cloud errata.

  1. That means that Chaosium is likely to find itself in arguments over individual items as to their status as errata or proofing error.
  2. Its not to say the collating potential proofing errors might not have value to someone in the future, but that if something was to be produced now as an official 'errata' it needs to focus on rules concerns.
  3. Clarifications are also not really errata. But where a rule is unclear or ambiguous it may make sense to issue clarifications with errata.

 

Using Ian's definitions, is there a solid list of errata at this point so I can mark up my book of HQ: G?

If not, can anyone point me to the (probably very involved) threads so I can dig them out?

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very new into this rules system, and then finding this thread has left me wondering if I have miss-spend my stretched gaming budget on a lemon!!!

Not sure I have the time or energy to muck around.

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got halfway through a post assuaging Aprewett, but couldn't finish it. 

Months have once again gone by without the more serious flaws in the PDF being redressed.

I don't want to hear a thing about developments on the upcoming Prax book until this gets fixed.

I don't want to hear a thing about developments on The Eleven Lights until this gets fixed. 

Frankly, hearing about work on these things going on while the core book remains unfixed is a slap in the face. Fixing this stuff is a task of days or weeks, not months or years.

I am not buying The Coming Storm nor any future supplement until this gets fixed.

I am not buying a hardcopy of the corebook until this gets fixed.

Seriously, it's been out for a year and a half. Prioritize making the time to fix it rather than continuing to leave your customers having to figure out how the game is supposed to work in spite of what's written in the rulebook..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I've the time from my real job, life and illness, I will fix the example. As for the Prax stuff, it's my hobby. I do all of this unpaid.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't begrudge you your hobby joys or expect anybody to work unpaid in limited free time, but somebody, whether you or a colleague with available time, absolutely should be getting paid to fix defects in a commercial project in a timely fashion. 

My vexation is not that you or anyone in particular has not resolved the problems, but rather that Chaosium management has not made a priority of allocating labor resources and budget to resolving clearly stated outright contradictions in the rules in over a year.  

Edited by JonL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Aprewett said:

Very new into this rules system, and then finding this thread has left me wondering if I have miss-spend my stretched gaming budget on a lemon!!!

I'll just note that I am approaching 3 years of active play with HeroQuest: Glorantha and have two active campaigns running.  It is by far the easiest and most straightforward RPG I have used.

And I did not find that any item noted prevented me or my players from understanding or moving forward with the game. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, I can probably deal with it, its just really handy to find a unified errata/clarification document. I bought the hardback from Chaosium and the pedigree of Mr Laws, not expecting to read the frustration by long time users. Its a bit off putting and will probably steer me to using RQ2 that I also got as a ebook.

At least I would have expected the company to put together a thread of fix ups, but if I read correctly this has not happened.

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Aprewett said:

You are right, I can probably deal with it, its just really handy to find a unified errata/clarification document.

For all that I am emphatically grinding the axe, like jajagappa I have successfully used the game in both my regular group and with groups of strangers. The inconsistencies require you to make some decisions about which way you want it to work, but either way you go it's a good and playable game. (I wouldn't get heated if I weren't passionate about it.) However, things like whether one can spend one Hero Point or several on a single roll can have a major impact on outcomes at times. While it's a good game either way, it is a different one. While I can make choices about it to my taste easily enough, the rule book shouldn't leave me guessing as to which one it's describing.

8 hours ago, Aprewett said:

I bought the hardback from Chaosium and the pedigree of Mr Laws, not expecting to read the frustration by long time users. Its a bit off putting and will probably steer me to using RQ2 that I also got as a ebook.

HQ:G was my jumping on point to Glorantha, previously knowing both only by reputation. Between RQ & HQ, I'd pick whichever one suits your group's playstyle better.

8 hours ago, Aprewett said:

At least I would have expected the company to put together a thread of fix ups, but if I read correctly this has not happened.

I know, right? Like between Summer of '15 and now there hasn't been one afternoon for them to chat about it, a day for someone to type up a draft based on the notes from that discussion, an hour or so from those involved to look over the errata doc draft, and then another hour or two for someone to incorporate any notes and pretty it up? Never? In all that time? Incorporating the changes into an updated PDF is of course a more involved task, but not a Herculean one. If even a single staff hour per week had been devoted to that task it could have been completed last year.

 

Edited by JonL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested - I wrote up test example to show how the example should work, so when I start I don't make the same mistake again.

It's a spirit Combat example for HeroQuest Glorantha using the same characters and format:

 

Edited by David Scott
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×