New design notes - Sorcery!

[Atgxtg]

14 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I guess you haven't met Argrath and his warlocks yet. :-)

That's kinda the point. Argath went  on a big illuminated witchhunt, but was in fact (secretly) illuminated, himself. It wouldn't have worked out the same if people knew he was illuminated and accepted it. It would defeat the whole justification for going after the other illuminated beings. 

[Atgxtg]

15 hours ago, MOB said:

Aren't the Aeolians an Orlanthi culture with sorcery?

More like an Orlanthi culture ruled by Malkonian Sorcerers who view the Orlanthi gods as lesser, supporting deities. Not the sort of thing that the people in Dragon Pass or Prax would do.

 

The whole revisionist Glorantha has me wondering just why they couldn't get along with the Lunars, and join the empire. 

[Jeff]

I dunno. Maybe for the Sartarites it has something to do with suppressing the worship of their patron god. Or maybe murdering off most of the royal house and extinguishing the Flame? Or it could be that the Crimson Bat - an genuine Chaos demon - showed up and ate much of the Sartarite army at Runegate? Or maybe because your parents were fed to the Bat? The Red Goddess embraces Chaos and is locked in conflict with Orlanth. T

Sorcery is held in great suspicion by most people and foreign sorcerers generally considered to be bogeymen, but it is not Chaos. But Lhankor Mhy is one of the Lightbringers and when his sages use strange book magic, that's ok. At least as ok as any of the other strange things Lhankor Mhy brings (like written bureaucracy, scribes, etc).

 

[RosenMcStern]

On 26/8/2016 at 0:34 PM, Stormwalker said:

I'm surprised that each spell is a separate skill - becoming proficient in several spells becomes a potentially lengthy endeavour in terms of character advancement. One of the trends I've liked in recent BRP-based iterations is the move towards skill grouping, such as combat styles in RQ6, or combining the attack/parry skill etc.

If they have kept the "experience check" method of advancement (and IIRC they have), I can assure you, with hundreds of hours of playing and GMing Gloranthan and non-Gloranthan sorcerers in my past, that this is absolutely not an issue. In all of our games, the sorcerer ended up having a skill check per spell each session, plus skill checks in mundane skills if used. And a huge Magic skill modifier which let him make the skill improvement roll in most cases. At the end of the day, he had extra improvements proportional to the extra skills he had to learn, so no real hindrance to his ability to grow at a steady rate.

Having more skills to invest into is a problem only in the "recent" versions of BRP (OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras) you mentioned, which use the improvement point mechanics. Here, each point you invest in a spell is a point you cannot invest elsewhere. As a consequence, in these versions you will find that spell skills are grouped into grimoires, which avoids the problem.

[styopa]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

If they have kept the "experience check" method of advancement (and IIRC they have), I can assure you, with hundreds of hours of playing and GMing Gloranthan and non-Gloranthan sorcerers in my past, that this is absolutely not an issue. In all of our games, the sorcerer ended up having a skill check per spell each session, plus skill checks in mundane skills if used. And a huge Magic skill modifier which let him make the skill improvement roll in most cases. At the end of the day, he had extra improvements proportional to the extra skills he had to learn, so no real hindrance to his ability to grow at a steady rate.

Having more skills to invest into is a problem only in the "recent" versions of BRP (OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras) you mentioned, which use the improvement point mechanics. Here, each point you invest in a spell is a point you cannot invest elsewhere. As a consequence, in these versions you will find that spell skills are grouped into grimoires, which avoids the problem.

I agree that no, there's no need to collectivize such spells due to try to be thrifty with skill checks.*  Of course, the flip side of that is since checks are effectively limitless currency, it does reward 'check hunting', the bane of RQ forever - that is, deliberately using sub-optimal skills at times because "I already have a skill-check in my sword, I might as well use my mace and get a skill check in that".

*there are other reasons to organize them into quasi-schools, which the RQ4 mechanic of rune+method sort of already does, to synergize spells of similar flavor for a whole host of interesting reasons

The RQ6 approach to apportion out limited skill increases as the rewards themselves was a reasonably clever attempt to get away from skill checks, but IMO sort of went against-grain by backing up into a D&Desque xp-reward corner.  No, the way to disincentivize check-hunting is to attack the other end of the stick: the fact that once you'd gotten a check in a skill, there was no further value to continuing to use that skill.  But that's meat for another thread.

[RosenMcStern]

25 minutes ago, styopa said:

I agree that no, there's no need to collectivize such spells due to try to be thrifty with skill checks.*  Of course, the flip side of that is since checks are effectively limitless currency, it does reward 'check hunting', the bane of RQ forever - that is, deliberately using sub-optimal skills at times because "I already have a skill-check in my sword, I might as well use my mace and get a skill check in that".

Except that it does not happen with spells, which are entirely different beasts from each other (unlike weapons). "I already have a skill check in Damage Boosting, let us use Detect Iron for the next spell, just to get an improvement check." No, I cannot see it happening, sorry

[Roko Joko]

But you're saying that in all of your games the sorcerer finds a good reason to cast detect iron (or whatever), and also every other one of their spells, in every session?  Really?

[styopa]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Except that it does not happen with spells, which are entirely different beasts from each other (unlike weapons). "I already have a skill check in Damage Boosting, let us use Detect Iron for the next spell, just to get an improvement check." No, I cannot see it happening, sorry

Nonsense, of course it happens with Sorcery.  Unless you're saying that your sorcerer only has one spell for doing damage?  No?  Then I'm going to guess he/she is going to try to cast successfully through all their attack spells as much as possible until they can nab a tick for each.

Detect Iron?  Well, let's see if we can find the treasure chest hidden in the room, I'll tell the DM I'm going to cast Detect Iron (knowing full well there IS no treasure chest, but if I'm earnest enough, I'll still get a tick).

[Pentallion]

20 minutes ago, styopa said:

Nonsense, of course it happens with Sorcery.  Unless you're saying that your sorcerer only has one spell for doing damage?  No?  Then I'm going to guess he/she is going to try to cast successfully through all their attack spells as much as possible until they can nab a tick for each.

Detect Iron?  Well, let's see if we can find the treasure chest hidden in the room, I'll tell the DM I'm going to cast Detect Iron (knowing full well there IS no treasure chest, but if I'm earnest enough, I'll still get a tick).

Why would you get a tick if there is no treasure chest?  Stupid DM is stupid if that's the case.

[Questbird]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

The RQ6 approach to apportion out limited skill increases as the rewards themselves was a reasonably clever attempt to get away from skill checks, but IMO sort of went against-grain by backing up into a D&Desque xp-reward corner.  No, the way to disincentivize check-hunting is to attack the other end of the stick: the fact that once you'd gotten a check in a skill, there was no further value to continuing to use that skill.  But that's meat for another thread.

The best way to discourage check-hunting (if you even find it's a problem) is simply as GM to disallow checks for irrelevant skill-usage.

[styopa]

2 hours ago, Pentallion said:

Why would you get a tick if there is no treasure chest?  Stupid DM is stupid if that's the case.

Not sure why you're so hyped on this?    

Check hunting is a long-recognized issue in RQ, and any skill-based BRP system really.  If spells are skills (and not just multipliers like POW*5) then they'll be victims of it too.  

No, I didn't spend a long time crafting my example.  So?  You're telling me that if a player genuinely tosses a spell to-purpose, and they succeed at casting it, you wouldn't "allow" a check just because the circumstances (that they might have no idea knowing) were inappropriate?  Bill the Warrior falls off what appears to be a cliff, Jimmy the Wizard casts a last-second Fly on him to save him, succeeds, and then the players find the 'cliff' was only 1m high or an illusion?  I'd call it 'arbitrary bullshit' if a DM said "well it turns out you didn't need it so your casting doesn't give you a check".  

 

1 hour ago, Questbird said:

The best way to discourage check-hunting (if you even find it's a problem) is simply as GM to disallow checks for irrelevant skill-usage.

So you're going to say that if Bill the Warrior uses his mace (which is at 54%) instead of his sword (which is at 56%, but already has a check) he gets no checks?  Again, that seems pretty arbitrary and frankly petty.

Yes, OBVIOUSLY you don't give them skill checks for stabbing rats while sitting at the pub table, or POW gain for Disrupting rats from the inn window...I'm talking about reasonably sophisticated players making INTERNAL choices, not dimwits that call out their motives for every choice.

[Jeff]

Experience checks are not automatic whenever a success is achieved - it must involve a real risk or challenge, or result in roleplaying opportunities. The ability to award or deny an experience check is one of the key powers of the gamemaster.

I've never been troubled by the experience system (in RQ or in Call of Cthulhu), and don't think it needs mechanical fixing. That's something for the gamemaster and the players to deal with themselves. There's lots of room for different GM/player styles. 

[RosenMcStern]

9 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

But you're saying that in all of your games the sorcerer finds a good reason to cast detect iron (or whatever), and also every other one of their spells, in every session?  Really?

If you have a spell in your list and you cannot find a good reason to cast it during a well designed adventure, either the GM or the player are Not Doing it Right.

The key word for playing a sorcerer is Creativity. Ask Rurik (the player not the character) about my sorcerer's technique to illuminate the battlefield by fireballing dry bushes...

[davecake]

FWIW, I've been seriously rereading pretty much every canon source on sorcery recently, and Jeffs conception of sorcery as a system of known spells with very little on the spot improvisation, but considerable flexibility given some weeks to months to come up with a solution (eg create learn a new spell) seems to me pretty much correct. 

I'm not thrilled with the emphasis on day of the week etc as a major source of pluses/minuses (often tends to come across as often a bit of an arbitrary choice of whether an event occurs at a time that helps or hinders a player), but location, carrying things around, time of day, etc all work great in play ( and day of week, season, etc still great for big ceremonies. I thoroughly agree that static bonuses are better than small dice rolls most of the time - thanks for taking that on board, Jeff. 

In practice I suspect/hope for a few emergent mechanics:

1) skill in the spell will not be hugely relevant to many big, massive spells - the caster will ceremony (etc) it up to 100% or so if they are going to invest days worth of magic points in it. A great sorcerer might learn/invent a spell to deal with a problem, then boost its chance of success and free INT up. It should feel like big intellectual endeavors are vital and important and useful.

2) great Maguses will have other means to boost up their effective Free INT and skill that are beyond those available to apprentices, including Enchantments, HeroQuests, the use of very powerful captured spirits/demons and other magical allies, and massive community support. Being a super powerful sorcerer like Yomili or Argin Terror should be doable within the rules, but not just having a huge skill percentage (though that should help, so Brithini are scary). 

3) there will be eventually be more flexible and dynamic magical techniques that either require advanced magic (such as magic that effects Magic) or borderline heretical (from Emanationalist to demonological) techniques (eg want flexible responsive Fire Magic? Summon a Fire spirit that can perform several magics!). Though I don't expect these in the first rule book. There are plenty of techniques that we know are possible, but are clearly beyond the average sorcerer eg Mostali creating Jolanti and variations on that. 

[Jon Hunter]

Like most things the devils in the detail, and it will be the implementation that determine whether sits a workable and balanced system or not.

I was hoping for something different with sorcery, to my mind in Glorantha its the magic that breaks the rules and has the most potential to change things in unforeseen and  possibly catastrophic ways ( EWF, Godleaners, etc ).

I think here we have something which too equivalent and comparable to the other magic systems.  I'm  not sure the use in creating something that sounds like another recipe for making a very similar dish. (ie different mechanic similar outcomes.)

Stuff game balance! Give me something which is horrid and rubbish for all none wizard cast users, but in the hands of a arch mage can alter the very fabric of Glorantha.

Balance this out in the Game by making it slow and ritualistic, no quick casts, or reactive magic. Good powerful sorcery takes days of preparation.

Now to be fair that is not good for PC sorcerers, but great for in game bad guys and NPC's which is probably what i wanted.

Anyway its sounds more workable than the RQ3 system, and as I said at the start the devils in the detail, a good implementation could win me round
 

[Questbird]

23 hours ago, styopa said:

So you're going to say that if Bill the Warrior uses his mace (which is at 54%) instead of his sword (which is at 56%, but already has a check) he gets no checks?  Again, that seems pretty arbitrary and frankly petty.

Yes, OBVIOUSLY you don't give them skill checks for stabbing rats while sitting at the pub table, or POW gain for Disrupting rats from the inn window...I'm talking about reasonably sophisticated players making INTERNAL choices, not dimwits that call out their motives for every choice.

In that situation I would give the player a check for mace (since a combat is a situation where the rolls count), and I wouldn't care.

[Atgxtg]

On 8/29/2016 at 3:07 PM, styopa said:

I agree that no, there's no need to collectivize such spells due to try to be thrifty with skill checks.*  Of course, the flip side of that is since checks are effectively limitless currency, it does reward 'check hunting', the bane of RQ forever - that is, deliberately using sub-optimal skills at times because "I already have a skill-check in my sword, I might as well use my mace and get a skill check in that".

LOL! I've see so many characters die off because of that thinking. Invariably, while the player is hunting checks, the NPC he's fighting is hunting heads -- and gets on, thanks to the extra round or three that the player gave him by going to a secondary (or worse) weapon

[Jeff]

35 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

LOL! I've see so many characters die off because of that thinking. Invariably, while the player is hunting checks, the NPC he's fighting is hunting heads -- and gets on, thanks to the extra round or three that the player gave him by going to a secondary (or worse) weapon

My players - most new to RQ - think the idea of risking their character's life just to get a secondary skill check to be the height of stupidity. They raise secondary skills the old fashioned way: they spend money on training.

[styopa]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

My players - most new to RQ - think the idea of risking their character's life just to get a secondary skill check to be the height of stupidity. They raise secondary skills the old fashioned way: they spend money on training.

(shrug) If every swing of a weapon in your game has a character's life "on the line" then you must have extraordinarily thrilling sessions.  Perhaps the "height" of excitement?  Or the "height" of hyperbole?

There are plenty of instances in the course of usual gameplay where a melee-skilled character is fighting an enemy, perhaps the last of a bunch of chaos monsters that they cornered, upon whom that enemy MUST logically concentrate, but against whom other, less melee-focussed or otherwise less-formidable PC's might want to get in a stab or whack if they can.  (*Particularly* with a fixed initiative order as in RQ RAW, where they can be (reasonably) certain the order things are going to happen in the next round.)  Their blow will certainly contribute to ending the combat (if it lands), and involves some risk, but not likely life-threatening unless I'm being a punitive, reactionary DM.

[Zit]

Anyway, I've never seen check-hunting as being a problem. After all, this is like in RW: learning by practicing. It is normal to try to put in practice a technique you want to improve, even if it is not the most efficient you know. Of course, there are some risks, as Jeff said. And RQ2 limited even training without in-between experience, if I remember well.

[Jon Hunter]

On the skill check system.

It's old school, not broke, but are there better options out there?

I think so, d100 and buying advances with xp is by no means incompatible(open quest uses this system), and I think gives advantages in both game balance( pcs advance at the same rate, once everything is factored in) and player control of character development( allows character specialisms to develop).

Edited August 31, 2016 by Jon Hunter

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, styopa said:

(shrug) If every swing of a weapon in your game has a character's life "on the line" then you must have extraordinarily thrilling sessions.  Perhaps the "height" of excitement?  Or the "height" of hyperbole?

There are plenty of instances in the course of usual gameplay where a melee-skilled character is fighting an enemy, perhaps the last of a bunch of chaos monsters that they cornered, upon whom that enemy MUST logically concentrate, but against whom other, less melee-focussed or otherwise less-formidable PC's might want to get in a stab or whack if they can.  (*Particularly* with a fixed initiative order as in RQ RAW, where they can be (reasonably) certain the order things are going to happen in the next round.)  Their blow will certainly contribute to ending the combat (if it lands), and involves some risk, but not likely life-threatening unless I'm being a punitive, reactionary DM.

What do you mean by " but not likely life-threatening unless I'm being a punitive, reactionary DM"? If the NPC rolls a critical do you fudge the results? And do the players know it? If I knew that I could get a "free" skill check I'd go hunting.

 

And if you PCs are taking chances like that against Chaos monsters they deserve to go up in the explosion. I can almost see taking the risk if up against a 30% Trollkin. But Rurik can tell you how that can turn out. Considering how dangerous crits and impales are in RQ, taking another 2-3% chance for death/dismemberment just to pick up a skill check is stupid. Better to spend the extra week or two in town and pay for training. 

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

My players - most new to RQ - think the idea of risking their character's life just to get a secondary skill check to be the height of stupidity. They raise secondary skills the old fashioned way: they spend money on training.

Well, I've known RQ for over three decades and I agree with them! I didn't even see anyone skill check hunting in combat until a situation cam eup where a PC had to check weapons for a legit reason. A guy with mace at 97% got disarmed and watched his mace fry out of his hands, over the railing and down several fights of stairs. Not wanted to get skewered, he did the only thing he could and picked up a 2H sword whose own he had killed a couple rounds earlier. Not great since, he couldn't use his shield. So he got lucky, dropped his foe and got a skill check. Another player thought that that was a neat way to "get double experience" and started doing it deliberately. I think he lasted two weeks playing around with a sword and shield at base percentages. It the extra round or two that the bad guys get while he was switching from greatspear to sword & shield that did him in. Since then, every so often somebody get the bight idea, and I haven't see one last a full month doing it. I'm not trying to kill them, mind you, but I roll open, and unparried crtics and impales are unforgiving. 

 

[Runeblogger]

Perhaps we should open a new topic to talk about skill checks in general.

[Pentallion]

45 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

Perhaps we should open a new topic to talk about skill checks in general.

Once a year at least.  This old excuse for not liking skill checks raises it's hoary old head at least annually.