New RQ design questions

[Mechashef]

I always had the impression in RQ3 that some spirits held the knowledge of how to cast a spirit magic spell but were not actually required to cast it (exception see below).

A character would learn the spell from the spirit by defeating it in spirit combat and then both the spirit and the character would go on their way.

The benefit of belonging to a cult is the priests would be able to hook the character up with a known, low powered spirit from their god’s retinue.

Shamen would also know of suitable spirits, either from personal experience, or having the details passed down through their spirit cult.

Characters could try and quest for a spirit that may possess the spell they are interested in, but may find one that does know the spell, but is dangerously powerful.

 

The exception mentioned above would be that instead of defeating a spirit and learning its spell, it is possible for characters (most commonly Shamen) to defeat and bind the spirit, forcing it to cast its spell on demand.   This of course would mean that the spirit would not be able to provide its spell to other people during the tome it is bound by the character.

[Mankcam]

I always assumed that in RQ3 Spirit Magic that the Spirits were bound to foci, and characters unleashed them  or called upon them for specific purposes in line with the spirit's core traits. So an Ignite spell was unleashing a fire spirit's essence, and so was a Fireblade spell. I didn't assume that  these kind of spirits were any more sentient then fish, they were pure instinct in spirit essence form.

Not sure if that was canon though.

I actually preferred how Basic Magic was presented in RQ2 as being cantrip or utility incantation spells (except I diid not like non-combat spells referred to as 'battle magic'), and I think MRQ/ Legend did well by calling it Common Magic. Perhaps RQ6/ Mythras does better with game balance by keeping Folk Magic down to 1 MP magnitude level.

However considering that CRQ4 will be Glorantha specific, then I won't mind Spirit Magic being called such, but it should be presented with a more clear narrative explanation than what was provided in the RQ3 rule book.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Mankcam

[Mechashef]

Page 16 of the Softcover Magic book of the Deluxe RQ3 in regards to learning and using spirit magic spells states:

 

“To learn a spell, a character must engage in spirit combat with a spirit which knows the spell.  ... If the student reduces the magic points of the spell spirit to zero (without losing all of his magic points in the process), he takes knowledge of the spell from the spirit, impressing it upon his own mind.  The spirit breaks off combat and returns to the spirit plane.  If the spirit returns to the spirit plane free of any control, it then regains the spell.”

[Mankcam]

Well that is pretty clear. I wonder how it changed with my troupe over the years.

I think it just seemed a little too animistic for my perception of some of the cultures that I may have transformed it into binding spirit energy more like Prana so it fitted with my notions of the cultures involved. That is also how I interpreted some of Jeff's comments on Spirit Magic, so I wonder if my ideas were also shaped by comments I had read through fanzines over the years.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Mankcam

[Jeff]

Spirit magic no longer requires a dice contest in order to learn. You can learn spirit magic from a cult (restricted to the spells known to its Rune masters), or from a shaman.

[styopa]

On 7/16/2016 at 7:26 PM, Mechashef said:

Page 16 of the Softcover Magic book of the Deluxe RQ3 in regards to learning and using spirit magic spells states:

 

“To learn a spell, a character must engage in spirit combat with a spirit which knows the spell.  ... If the student reduces the magic points of the spell spirit to zero (without losing all of his magic points in the process), he takes knowledge of the spell from the spirit, impressing it upon his own mind.  The spirit breaks off combat and returns to the spirit plane.  If the spirit returns to the spirit plane free of any control, it then regains the spell.”

Always relegated that to the same place I put the RQ3 fatigue rules.  Clever mechanic, interesting, but lots more work for no substantial gameplay benefit.

 

[Roko Joko]

I'm interested in whether CRQ spirit magic spells will have the trappings of HQ charms, like

• requires an object or tattoo to house a spirit
• requires negotiating a spirit into the fetish with something like "Tell me your name, what do you do?  What do you want me to do for you?"
• requires a taboo

[styopa]

I know it's possibly outright heresy to suggest in this BRP land,

but if the goal is to make RQ4 a faster, smoother system with the sacrifice of the 'mathy' bits, why not just base it on d20s?

The stat bonuses (for example) are all based around multiples of 5, and the skills of weapons are multiples of 5...why not?  Seriously, if you're going to try to avoid any % that's not a multiple of 5, why even HAVE 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9% in the mechanics?

You could run the entire 'BRP' approach - skills, etc - this way.  When you get an experience check simply roll to fail as usual, just with a d20.

Crits/Specials would need slight reworking....maybe just make crits on a 1, fumbles on a 20, specials still as 1/5 (since d20 numbers are so much easier to handle, there's simple way to rule "20%" specials: "if your roll*5 is <= skill, it's a special").

It would still be almost effortlessly simple to apply/use RQ2 source materials, but character management would get a lot easier.  Instead of stat checks using stat * 5, just roll against the stat on a d20.

Honestly, I'm as RQ-biased as anyone, and I don't mind the "mathiness" that Jeff mentions the playtesters hate so much, but the more I think about it, this really appeals to me as a simpler (but still not simplistic) version of RQ.  Plus, then it really is something NEW.

It's also going to be a big step easier for previous d20-players to adapt to.

[Baragei]

[Belgath]

Make sense players if really hate 12%  increase, if the game is changed to be  based off of fives are you all you really have is d20 math. Looks like you had a bunch of D&D playtesters  so even if you keep it a d100 you would be able instantly converted to d20 anyway if it's all based on 5% increase your right without the math you don't have d100 anymore you can pretend it's something more but mathematically it's not. I was really liking the 5% thing as it does make it easier I'm not liking the fact it takes me to the evil D20 realm. But in the end it's all about perception and if you believe your Playing d100 then you are.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Belgath

[Nick J.]

Go ahead and put me down for one strong "hell no" on converting to d20s.

Cheers!

[Jeff]

Going back to 5% increments in everything proved a bridge too far - as I suggested it. It proved a classic example of "game designer logic" clashing with "player experience". Wearing my game designer hat, I don't see a tremendous gain between 1% increments and 5% increments. Experience gains are normally 3-4% (1D6), training 2-3%, and so on. Bonuses from spells are usually in 5% increments or whole numbers, as are characteristic modifiers, and most other modifiers. Players and other designers enjoyed it (yes there is a minority that likes super-granularity, but I assure you it is a small minority, albeit a talkative one).

So I proposed making everything in 5% increments as per RQ2. We wouldn't go the full Pendragon and keep the D100 percentile system (I like rolling a D100 more than a D20 and it is way more intuitive - everything is an obvious percentage chance**).

The result?  Flop. 

Turns out people who don't like super-granularity in character creation, modifiers, etc, like having skills go up 1 to 6 points. They enjoy rolling the dice to see if they go up and by how much. That's part of the game enjoyment.

And so skills will keep their 1% granularity. And experience will continue to increase skills 1D6%.

Jeff

** My experience has been that D100 is very intuitive for new players and players coming from Call of Cthulhu. Your skill, passion, or rune is a percentage chance of success. That is way more intuitive than the D20 (which is only "intuitive" if you started with the D&D system - and going from D&D to RQ has a lot of paradigm shifts far greater than the dice mechanics).

[DreadDomain]

10 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Turns out people who don't like super-granularity in character creation, modifiers, etc, like having skills go up 1 to 6 points. They enjoy rolling the dice to see if they go up and by how much. That's part of the game enjoyment.

And so skills will keep their 1% granularity. And experience will continue to increase skills 1D6%.

I'm glad it's the case. I personally don't like super-granularity but for RQ, I would been sad to lose % skills and the 1d6 gain. 

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Going back to 5% increments in everything proved a bridge too far - as I suggested it. It proved a classic example of "game designer logic" clashing with "player experience". Wearing my game designer hat, I don't see a tremendous gain between 1% increments and 5% increments. Experience gains are normally 3-4% (1D6), training 2-3%, and so on. Bonuses from spells are usually in 5% increments or whole numbers, as are characteristic modifiers, and most other modifiers. Players and other designers enjoyed it (yes there is a minority that likes super-granularity, but I assure you it is a small minority, albeit a talkative one).

It also gets around the "Halving odd numbers" problem that someone with a skill of 65 halves to 33, which is not a multiple of 5, so incremental percentiles were always sort-of part of the game.

I think that moving to incremental percentiles was one of the strengths of RQ3. Another was removing limits on variable/stackable magic.

[TrippyHippy]

Looking at RQ2, and then King Arthur Pendragon, it's certainly something I would consider - moving the core mechanic to D20. Then again, backwards compatibility...

[Mankcam]

D20 is for Hit Locations, D100% is for ability rolls, period !!!

If anything I would hope to see Pendragon get published as D100% instead of D20 based. I know this will never happen, but its on my wishlist!

I would possibly go for 5% increments like RQ2 for simplicity, but generally prefer things as they are 

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by Mankcam

[g33k]

Is there any reason not to do experience rolls on 2d4 instead of 1d6?

It's a bit faster skill-gain, but not by THAT much.  Gives a bit of a bell-curve... centered on that sacred five-percent value!  And it eliminates the whole "one pecent?  Really?" phenomenon.

I may just HR it that way; even for my up coming RQ Classic game!

 

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Is there any reason not to do experience rolls on 2d4 instead of 1d6?

It's a bit faster skill-gain, but not by THAT much.  Gives a bit of a bell-curve... centered on that sacred five-percent value!  And it eliminates the whole "one pecent?  Really?" phenomenon.

I may just HR it that way; even for my up coming RQ Classic game!

 

Sure, 2D4 or 2D3, would work as well.

[Christoph Kohring]

On 23 juillet 2016 at 11:00 AM, soltakss said:

I think that moving to incremental percentiles was one of the strengths of RQ3. Another was removing limits on variable/stackable magic.

Hear! Hear!

In RQIII you could have Bladesharp 8 but you had to defeat a spell spirit with on average POW 16 (8D3). Now, either your priest or shaman summoned a random one or he had a bound or known one of lesser POW -say 13- & that made all the difference in the world, didn't it?!?

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Christoph Kohring said:

Hear! Hear!

In RQIII you could have Bladesharp 8 but you had to defeat a spell spirit with on average POW 16 (8D3). Now, either your priest or shaman summoned a random one or he had a bound or known one of lesser POW -say 13- & that made all the difference in the world, didn't it?!?

Any moderate strength spirit screen would make such a fight if not outright trivial, then fairly pedestrian, actually.

[Pentallion]

7 hours ago, Christoph Kohring said:

Hear! Hear!

In RQIII you could have Bladesharp 8 but you had to defeat a spell spirit with on average POW 16 (8D3). Now, either your priest or shaman summoned a random one or he had a bound or known one of lesser POW -say 13- & that made all the difference in the world, didn't it?!?

My Glorantha group tested a variation in one campaign and instantly loved it.  We got tired of how easy it was to imbalance the game with Spirit Screen 9 and Bladesharp 8, etc.  So the rule became, Initiates could use 2 pts spells, Once they had at least half the skills they needed to be a rune lord, they could learn 4 pt spells.  At rune lord they gained 6 pt spells.  Certain crystals became very coveted obviously. 

Funny thing was, it jived with all the NPC's ever released.  They all had 2 and 4 pt spells and the only 6 pt spells we saw were given to Rune Lords.  Coincidence I'm sure, but it meant we had much more balanced game play.

[Mankcam]

I think we did some similar with Basic Magic. Initates could learn up to 2pt spells, Acolytes up to 4pts, and Runelords & Priests up to 8pts.

Seemed to balance pretty well

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Pentallion said:

My Glorantha group tested a variation in one campaign and instantly loved it. 

We did a similar thing, except ours was more character-innate than hierarchical: the highest variable a spirit magic spell could be cast was 1/3 POW, rounded down.  Put another way, if the variable spell * 3 was more than your POW, you couldn't cast it.  Shamans got to use their innate+Fetch POW, making them quickly the 'spirit magic powerhouses'.

[Al.]

How granular are the skills going to be in RuneQuest?

I applaud the move to a single skill for Attack, Parry and Shield for each weapon

Will this be followed with non-weapon skills? i.e. will we see Devise or Pick Lock, Repair and Trap as separate skills? will we see Sleight or Juggle, Pickpocket and Sleight-of-hand?