quicktstart Quickstart Rune Magic & Spirit Magic

[kaydet]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

When you DM, there's nothing stopping you describing your version of Glorantha in your terms.  YGMV.  

As a player, I admit I'd wonder why - if a 'disrupt' is actually a spirit flying forth to damage a target - spells like Spirit Screen and Spirit Block don't protect me from that damage?  Or prevent that spirit guiding his blade from hitting me?  Or why my fetch (if I'm a shaman, for example) couldn't see/catch/kill/eat such spirits. 

But in your world, maybe they do?  Or you have a reason they don't?  I'd genuinely enjoy hearing how such a world works, it sounds terrifically evocative.

This has never been about wondering whether it would be acceptable for me to modify the rules. I know and understand that Glorantha is not something set in stone. Instead it's been a question of how spirits interact with the people living in the Middle World, and how that is replicated in the rules. Having read the Quickstart now, I am less against the direct port of Battle Magic to Spirit Magic, but I still think that it could be made to be more interesting.

I guess my answer to your question would be to say that spirit defenses would protect against all spirit magic unless they were overcome by a POW resistance roll between the two spirits? Perhaps a spirit scouting for the player might be caught and killed by a defensive spirit protecting an enemy camp. Ultimately, though, my instinct would be to not use the Battle/Spirit Magic spells at all, and to substitute various types of spirits (à la elementals) as NPC followers that would augment their owner's abilities and provide magical services. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by kaydet

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, kaydet said:

I don't think it's "my" concept; I'm pretty sure Guardian Spirits have been around since RQ2.

Not quite. Shamans had "Fetches" in RQ2 (pages 44-45). Rune level character could have Allied Sprirts. I'd have to pull out Cults of Prax to check on Daka Fal (they always seemed overpowered to me in RQ2, basically A Rune Priest and a Shaman!)

13 hours ago, kaydet said:

What I am picturing involves a regular adventurer having charms that contain spirits. He cannot create these charms, nor trap spirits into them -- that is the realm of a shaman. By touching these charms and speaking the name of the spirit, he can release them into the world in order to aid him. These spirits allow him certain abilities when they are released; one might guide his blade in combat, or make him fleet of foot; another might hide the tracks he makes in snow or sand.

He is limited in the number of charms he can carry, and the strength of the spirits housed within them. A shaman can carry more and stronger spirits, and can travel the spirit world to find and create such charms as he might wish.

Thats not all that far off from RQ2/RQ3. Its' pretty much what and how Spirit Magic works. In theory, in RQ3 a non-Shaman could learn and use magic that could bind spirits, but its a lot harder, and the character is much more limited. 

I wouldn't be too concerned about the new RQ just from the quickstart. I suspect they simplified everything just to squeeze as much as they could into the quickstart so we could all try out the game. For example, if you look at the writeup for Bladesharp it doesn't even mention that it can only be cast on edged weapons, and  Bludgeon isn't listed, or Speedart, Multimissile, or Fireblade for that matter. 

[kaydet]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not quite. Shamans had "Fetches" in RQ2 (pages 44-45). Rune level character could have Allied Sprirts. I'd have to pull out Cults of Prax to check on Daka Fal (they always seemed overpowered to me in RQ2, basically A Rune Priest and a Shaman!)

Page 60-61 talks of Allied Spirits -- which is what I was referring to. If we're really drawing a distinction between "Allied" and "Guardian" then I guess you're right.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Thats not all that far off from RQ2/RQ3. Its' pretty much what and how Spirit Magic works. In theory, in RQ3 a non-Shaman could learn and use magic that could bind spirits, but its a lot harder, and the character is much more limited. 

So then my question to you would be why the mechanics of the game don't reflect that.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I wouldn't be too concerned about the new RQ just from the quickstart. I suspect they simplified everything just to squeeze as much as they could into the quickstart so we could all try out the game. For example, if you look at the writeup for Bladesharp it doesn't even mention that it can only be cast on edged weapons, and  Bludgeon isn't listed, or Speedart, Multimissile, or Fireblade for that matter. 

I'm well aware, believe me. It's been pointed out numerous times. I'm not attacking the Quickstart, nor faulting it in any way other than asking why the rules are set up as they are. I don't think it's a large jump in logic to assume that the mechanics will be similar if they are using Battle Magic spells and re-branding them as Spirit Magic.

Edited July 10, 2017 by kaydet

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, kaydet said:

Page 60-61 talks of Allied Spirits -- which is what I was referring to. If we're really drawing a distinction between "Allied" and "Guardian" then I guess you're right.

Ah, Allied Spirits and a Shaman's Fetch are two very differernt things. The Fetch is more useful and usually more powerful. And it allows the Shaman to do most of what you seem to want.

6 hours ago, kaydet said:

So then my question to you would be why the mechanics of the game don't reflect that.

Uh, in what way don't they? In both RQ32 and RQ3 a Shaman with a fetch can do the things you are asking. Non-Shaman can do someo of those tings in RQ3, but not as easily or as well, mostly becuase the lack the INT and POW/MP boost of the Fetch. 

6 hours ago, kaydet said:

I'm well aware, believe me. It's been pointed out numerous times. I'm not attacking the Quickstart, nor faulting it in any way other than asking why the rules are set up as they are. I don't think it's a large jump in logic to assume that the mechanics will be similar if they are using Battle Magic spells and re-branding them as Spirit Magic.

The re branding of Battle Magic to Spirit Magic happened over 30 years ago in RQ3. I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is. he stuff that you appear to want is actually in there under the Shaman section in RQ2 and RQ3.

[kaydet]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Ah, Allied Spirits and a Shaman's Fetch are two very differernt things.

I'm aware of that. My point is that allied or guardian spirits -- as well as a shaman's fetch -- are examples of the kind of interaction I'm looking for: a personal relationship with a spirit that provides magical benefit.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Uh, in what way don't they? In both RQ32 and RQ3 a Shaman with a fetch can do the things you are asking. Non-Shaman can do someo of those tings in RQ3, but not as easily or as well, mostly becuase the lack the INT and POW/MP boost of the Fetch. 

Because "spirit magic" / "battle magic" lacks that personal interaction with a spirit being, something I think should be reflected in the rules more explicitly.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The re branding of Battle Magic to Spirit Magic happened over 30 years ago in RQ3. I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is. he stuff that you appear to want is actually in there under the Shaman section in RQ2 and RQ3.

When it happened is quite frankly immaterial to my point. And as for my "complaint", see above.

[Atgxtg]

11 hours ago, kaydet said:

Because "spirit magic" / "battle magic" lacks that personal interaction with a spirit being, something I think should be reflected in the rules more explicitly.

Ah, so what you want is for the Shaman to persuade or coerce a spirit into casting a spell for them, right? If so, that would be an interesting take, but not the way things have worked. As it last stood (RQ3) the Shaman would summon a spirit that knew a desired spell, then use spirit combat to get knowledge of how to cast the spell from it.

[kaydet]

@Atgxtg I'm not so much concerned about the rules of past Runequest editions as I am in translating how Glorantha functions (which I believe to be two different things, however I understand that that may not be a universally made distinction). Learning a spell from a spirit doesn't make much sense to me, and it doesn't really match how I feel spirits and humans would interact.

My instinct would be to do away with the spirit magic spells entirely, and replace them with various classes of spirit that would perform analogous functions. Perhaps an ancestor spirit might have the ability to guide its owner's blade in combat, providing a boost to the character's skill. Or a raven spirit might scout the surrounding area and stand sentry.

It might look something like this:

 

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, kaydet said:

@Atgxtg I'm not so much concerned about the rules of past Runequest editions as I am in translating how Glorantha functions (which I believe to be two different things,

Yeah, that's got a big Y-rune on it. I think by now it's common knowledge that RQ didn't exactly mesh with how Glorantha works.

 

13 hours ago, kaydet said:

My instinct would be to do away with the spirit magic spells entirely, and replace them with various classes of spirit that would perform analogous functions. Perhaps an ancestor spirit might have the ability to guide its owner's blade in combat, providing a boost to the character's skill. Or a raven spirit might scout the surrounding area and stand sentry.

That sounds like what they did with that Group Patron Spirit thing they did in HQ. When you formed the group the Spirit got a few abilities, depending on the size of the group.That wouldn't not be a bad thing to add to RQ, either. Or to expand upon so that it could cover other types of spirits. 

 

But I suspect that it would be considered too radial a departure from the existing rules. 

[styopa]

Honestly, and I don't mean this in any disrespect, it sounds like you'd rather play Heroquest.

It just more narrative-driven, frankly.  RQ has always been about the mechanics.

TBTH... once Robin developed HQ it *immediately* felt like a much better system fit for the whole spiritually deep Joseph Campbellian thing that Greg seemed to be always attempting to evoke in his 'land of utter relativism' Glorantha.   To me it's simply square peg in a round hole trying to evoke that in a crunchy mechanical system like RQ.

[Roko Joko]

On 6/25/2017 at 3:01 PM, kaydet said:

Could someone explain the Gloranthan mechanics for spirit magic [snip]

There aren't any.  Different games depict slightly different versions of the world.

On 6/26/2017 at 4:32 AM, kaydet said:

[snip] What I have always pictured is a personal relationship (friendly or otherwise) with a spirit housed in a charm or object (such as a sword). The spirit provides aid and guidance to its owner. e.g., "Strike here, move there. Now block..."

[snip] It just seems flavor-less to me, that's all. I had hoped for more.

That being the case, if I were you I'd say spirit magic spells live in charms and come with a taboo.  (I've been wondering whether they would do that in RQ.  Maybe they still will, but it sounds like probably not.)

RQ still says you learn and accumulate spirit magic, though, and doesn't seem to expect you to swap out charms a lot.  You'd have to fuss around further if you wanted that flavor as well.

On 6/26/2017 at 0:13 PM, kaydet said:

This is Runequest, which to my mind should be [mechanical] 

Can't help you there.

[kaydet]

11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But I suspect that it would be considered too radial a departure from the existing rules. 

I agree, sadly. I think Chaosium has a unique opportunity to make Runequest into something that really replicates Glorantha in a concrete way; it would be a real shame for them to neglect that opportunity for the sake of nostalgia.

9 hours ago, styopa said:

Honestly, and I don't mean this in any disrespect, it sounds like you'd rather play Heroquest.

It just more narrative-driven, frankly.  RQ has always been about the mechanics.

I don't take offense at this, but it's a statement I don't quite understand: why should Runequest's mechanics be any less "accurate" to Glorantha? Why would you not make the effort to describe the same world and the same relationships within it using Runequest's paradigm instead of Heroquest's?

I've played Heroquest, so I know what it's like, and it's too light for my tastes. I think it's a great narrative game, but I like things to be more concrete. I want to have the gritty combat, and the skill-based characters; I want to have that grounded reality mixed with magic and religion.

3 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

There aren't any.  Different games depict slightly different versions of the world.

I find this unappealing to the extreme. The world should be the same, even if the lens through which we view it is different (i.e., Heroquest -- narrative fantasy; Runequest -- sword and sandal; 13th Age in Glorantha -- heroic fantasy).

3 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

That being the case, if I were you I'd say spirit magic spells live in charms and come with a taboo.  (I've been wondering whether they would do that in RQ.  Maybe they still will, but it sounds like probably not.)

RQ still says you learn and accumulate spirit magic, though, and doesn't seem to expect you to swap out charms a lot.  You'd have to fuss around further if you wanted that flavor as well.

I may do this, but honestly I'd just use GURPS if I have to do a whole lot of tweaking, so I'll probably just end up playing Runequest no matter what.

3 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

Can't help you there.

Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't ask for your help? I'm genuinely not sure of the point of this statement.

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I agree, sadly. I think Chaosium has a unique opportunity to make Runequest into something that really replicates Glorantha in a concrete way; it would be a real shame for them to neglect that opportunity for the sake of nostalgia.[/quote]

Consider the other viewpoint, though. It they changed the game radically then it wouldn't be RuneQuest anymore, and a lot of people would feel cheated. RQ IV: Slayers and MRQ are good examples. Both made some major changes to the game mechanics that didn't fit with RQ. In the case of MRQ, they made some changes to runes and cult affinities that practically blew their Glorantha stuff out of the water before it began. 

 

For example, in MRQ Storms are chaotic, so Storm Gods have an affinity with the Chaos rune. That seems fine for a generic D&D style of game, but doesn't make any sort of sense in Glorantha. Orlanth with a Chaos Rune affinity is just wrong. 

4 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I don't take offense at this, but it's a statement I don't quite understand: why should Runequest's mechanics be any less "accurate" to Glorantha? Why would you not make the effort to describe the same world and the same relationships within it using Runequest's paradigm instead of Heroquest's?

Becuase two different games, especially when thier approach and game mechanics are so different will never work out quite the same. Best case scenario would be that we'd end up with a RQ that was mechanically closer to HQ or vice versa. 

4 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I find this unappealing to the extreme. The world should be the same, even if the lens through which we view it is different (i.e., Heroquest -- narrative fantasy; Runequest -- sword and sandal; 13th Age in Glorantha -- heroic fantasy).

But the "lens" we look through will distort our view of the world. Take a look at the several Lord of the Rings RPGs, Star Wars RPGs, Star Trek RPGs, the various incarnations of "RuneQuest", and so on. While all the LOTR games are set in the same world (Middle Earth), they each are different and do things differently in game mechanics terms. The same with all the Star Wars, Star Trek, and RQ games. It's unavoidable since they are not all the same game. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I may do this, but honestly I'd just use GURPS if I have to do a whole lot of tweaking, so I'll probably just end up playing Runequest no matter what.

And if you used GURPS you'd get a very different game world and feel than if you used RQ. Even though you were trying to model the same game world, the GURPS mechanics would influence the final result. 

 

[jajagappa]

3 hours ago, Roko Joko said:

spirit magic spells live in charms and come with a taboo

My working of spirit magic goes along that line.  Your priest or shaman brings you into contact with a spirit that has a particular power (i.e. a spirit magic such as Bladesharp).  The spirit teaches you how to invoke the magic and the focus needed for it.  Most people will carve or mark the focus into something: a weapon, a tattoo upon the body, a ring or bracelet, etc.  By focusing on the mark and following the invocation (maybe a word or two, a gesture, a brief melody), the caster channels a portion of their innate self (magic points) into the world to achieve the magic.  There may or may not be a taboo involved depending upon the spirit who taught you (essentially you are making some bargain to learn the magic - either directly with the spirit or with your god as the god commands many various lesser spirits).  You are limited in how many spirit magics you may learn by your charisma/leadership because you are having to convince more and more spirits to teach you and there are inherent conflicts and rivalries between these spirits that you must overcome.

This differs from the various forms of enchantment where you physically bind the spirit to some object and command the spirit to perform the action.  Similarly allied spirits and awakened animals are a type of bound spirit that represent gifts from your god or shaman.  In both these cases, the spirit is under your control and command and do not represent magics that you are learning but that you release.

 

[kaydet]

@jajagappa I like that explanation. Makes sense and sounds Gloranthan.

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Consider the other viewpoint, though. It they changed the game radically then it wouldn't be RuneQuest anymore, and a lot of people would feel cheated. RQ IV: Slayers and MRQ are good examples. Both made some major changes to the game mechanics that didn't fit with RQ. In the case of MRQ, they made some changes to runes and cult affinities that practically blew their Glorantha stuff out of the water before it began. 

 

For example, in MRQ Storms are chaotic, so Storm Gods have an affinity with the Chaos rune. That seems fine for a generic D&D style of game, but doesn't make any sort of sense in Glorantha. Orlanth with a Chaos Rune affinity is just wrong.

I don't disagree, but I do not think that re-rendering spirit magic to be reflective of the "reality" of their origin would make RQG "not Runequest".

13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Becuase two different games, especially when thier approach and game mechanics are so different will never work out quite the same. Best case scenario would be that we'd end up with a RQ that was mechanically closer to HQ or vice versa. 

I've never said that they would be the same; I understand how mechanics affect a game.

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But the "lens" we look through will distort our view of the world. Take a look at the several Lord of the Rings RPGs, Star Wars RPGs, Star Trek RPGs, the various incarnations of "RuneQuest", and so on. While all the LOTR games are set in the same world (Middle Earth), they each are different and do things differently in game mechanics terms. The same with all the Star Wars, Star Trek, and RQ games. It's unavoidable since they are not all the same game.

But those games are all using different mechanics to portray a single world. The One Ring RPG and MERP are both very different systems, but they are judged on their trueness to Middle Earth. For instance, if The One Ring RPG has players running about slaying dragons left and right, or MERP gives characters the ability to use magic easily a la D&D wizards, then those parts of the system are and can only be wrong and inaccurate because they obviously do not fit with the narrative mechanics of the world.

20 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

And if you used GURPS you'd get a very different game world and feel than if you used RQ. Even though you were trying to model the same game world, the GURPS mechanics would influence the final result. 

I don't really agree with this statement. While the resolution mechanic (3d6 vs. d100) might be different, they should attempt to model the same reality. For instance, the Bladesharp spell in GURPS might give a +1 to hit and +1 to dam instead of +5% and +1 dam, but they are both skill-based simulationist systems.

[Psullie]

I absolutely agree that a game system should reflect the world it models, but on a much more meta level than +1 v's +5. CoC's Sanity, Pentagon's Passions, are core to the world in which we play. Remove this and we're playing generic 

Glorantha has it's roots in WB&RM and RQ1 & 2. Fundamental to RQ1&2 was the concept that all intelligent beings has access to limited Battle Magic which was only available from your cult. Spirits with spells etc was introduced in RQ3. Battle magic was "the forceful alteration of the fabric of reality by using one's POW". It had nothing to do with spirits. Personally I feel calling it 'Spirit magic' is misleading unless it refers to one's own spirit (POW).

These 'cantrips' were fundamental to RQ and Glorantha. Anybody with cult affiliation would have access, it underlined the importance of cult membership in society and gave players a reason for their adventurers to be part of something. Community has always been a major theme of Glorantha

The binding of spirits as suggested by kaydet was also open to all adventures, not just a shaman. Your adventurer could acquire bound allies which you could teach battle magic as an 'external hard drive' or uses as a source of POW. But spirits were limited in how they directly effect the mundane world.

Cults of Chaos introduced Disease Spirits which (AFAIK) would be developed into the wider spirit types in RQ3 including the option of learning magic by mugging spirits rather than from your cult - something I'm sure your gods wouldn't be too happy about. 

To me battle magic is the technology of Glorantha, from cooks using bladesharp to gut fish, partygoers using Glamour at a soirée to kids using Speeddart to knock apples off a tree. 

my 2c

 

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Psullie said:

To me battle magic is the technology of Glorantha, from cooks using bladesharp to gut fish, partygoers using Glamour at a soirée to kids using Speeddart to knock apples off a tree. 

my 2c

 

Just so.

This would be why there's a reasonable sense among some that it shouldn't be called spirit magic at all.  Common magic, simple magic, whatever, but spirit magic is purely a misnomer. Hell, battle magic is less wrong because really, nearly all of it in the game IS combat related (that may have other uses as mentioned, but c'mon, they're mostly combat magic).

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, kaydet said:

@jajagappa I like that explanation. Makes sense and sounds Gloranthan.

I don't disagree, but I do not think that re-rendering spirit magic to be reflective of the "reality" of their origin would make RQG "not Runequest".

It might. It would be a pretty huge change in the magic system that's been with the game since the beginning. Part of the appeal of the Battle MAgic system was that is was very simle and playable. Changing it to some sort of dialog with a NPC spirit that the GM has to keep track of would add some complexity to it. And, frankly, I'm not sure if it would make all that much of a difference in the long run. Eventually I'd think it just boil down to the PCs telling the GM they'd like a Bladesharp now, or some such. 

13 hours ago, kaydet said:

But those games are all using different mechanics to portray a single world. The One Ring RPG and MERP are both very different systems, but they are judged on their trueness to Middle Earth. For instance, if The One Ring RPG has players running about slaying dragons left and right, or MERP gives characters the ability to use magic easily a la D&D wizards, then those parts of the system are and can only be wrong and inaccurate because they obviously do not fit with the narrative mechanics of the world.

They are judged on more than just their trueness to Middle Earth. The are factors of fun and playability to consider as well.

As far as "trueness to Middle Earth" actually goes, it's not all that cut and dried. There is a lot of gray areas where we don't know exactly how things "really" work in Middle Earth where various game designers try to fill things in as best they can. For example, are there only five Istari? Is Glorfindel really the same Glorfindel who died fighting a Balrog in an earlier age? We don't know for certain. Tolkien did change his mind on some things, and didn't explain or reveal other things.

13 hours ago, kaydet said:

I don't really agree with this statement. While the resolution mechanic (3d6 vs. d100) might be different, they should attempt to model the same reality. For instance, the Bladesharp spell in GURPS might give a +1 to hit and +1 to dam instead of +5% and +1 dam, but they are both skill-based simulationist systems.

But all "skill-based simulationist systems" aren't the same. RQ and GURPS play very differently. Bladesharp 4 in GURPS is far more powerful than it is in RQ. It can turn a knife or dagger into a real threat in GURPS. GURP's parry mechanics also make a big difference, as does the way GURPS handes hit points and damage. Hits that would probably leave somebody dead in RQ are often quite survivable in GURPS.

[Revilo Divad Of Dyoll]

37 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Quote

But those games are all using different mechanics to portray a single world. The One Ring RPG and MERP are both very different systems, but they are judged on their trueness to Middle Earth. For instance, if The One Ring RPG has players running about slaying dragons left and right, or MERP gives characters the ability to use magic easily a la D&D wizards, then those parts of the system are and can only be wrong and inaccurate because they obviously do not fit with the narrative mechanics of the world.

They are judged on more than just their trueness to Middle Earth. The are factors of fun and playability to consider as well.

As far as "trueness to Middle Earth" actually goes, it's not all that cut and dried. There is a lot of gray areas where we don't know exactly how things "really" work in Middle Earth where various game designers try to fill things in as best they can. For example, are there only five Istari? Is Glorfindel really the same Glorfindel who died fighting a Balrog in an earlier age? We don't know for certain. Tolkien did change his mind on some things, and didn't explain or reveal other things.

I don't think that this is something that fans will ever agree on.

But my two clacks - when considering this, I always remember Professor M.A.R. Barker, creator of Tekumel.  He (at least according to the people who played in his games) considered the "real" Tekumel to be a very gritty, low magic world.  But when he GMed adventures, they were always high-magic, spectacular affairs.  So if the creator of the world is willing to sacrifice "reality" in favor of fun, I think that it's fine to go for it.

Thanks,

David.

[styopa]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Hits that would probably leave somebody dead in RQ are often quite survivable in pretty much every other game system.

FTFY

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

FTFY

I think you went a bit overboard. There are quite a few RPGs out there that are more deadly than RQ now. It's not 1980. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Revilo Divad Of Dyoll said:

I don't think that this is something that fans will ever agree on.

But my two clacks - when considering this, I always remember Professor M.A.R. Barker, creator of Tekumel.  He (at least according to the people who played in his games) considered the "real" Tekumel to be a very gritty, low magic world.  But when he GMed adventures, they were always high-magic, spectacular affairs.  So if the creator of the world is willing to sacrifice "reality" in favor of fun, I think that it's fine to go for it.

Thanks,

David.

I suspect that might be a bit of pandering to the crowd, though. One of the problems I've had with running RPGs over the years is that a lot of players who have played D&D come in with certain expectations and preconceptions, which causes difficulties when running something that isn't like D&D. 

Professor Barker probably ran high magic/high powered adventures becuase that was what would sell. 

[styopa]

40 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think you went a bit overboard. There are quite a few RPGs out there that are more deadly than RQ now. It's not 1980. 

Really?  I'd be curious to know which?

In my view, from D&D5e and other peers, the systems are designed ever more NOT to be lethal, NOT to kill characters.

[kaydet]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It might. It would be a pretty huge change in the magic system that's been with the game since the beginning. Part of the appeal of the Battle MAgic system was that is was very simle and playable. Changing it to some sort of dialog with a NPC spirit that the GM has to keep track of would add some complexity to it. And, frankly, I'm not sure if it would make all that much of a difference in the long run. Eventually I'd think it just boil down to the PCs telling the GM they'd like a Bladesharp now, or some such. 

See my thoughts above where I stated that the spells as such would essentially be done away with. Or, as @Psullie states, battle magic would simply be an exertion of the character's force of will, presence, POW, whatever, rather than a loosely defined "spirit".

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

They are judged on more than just their trueness to Middle Earth. The are factors of fun and playability to consider as well.

As far as "trueness to Middle Earth" actually goes, it's not all that cut and dried. There is a lot of gray areas where we don't know exactly how things "really" work in Middle Earth where various game designers try to fill things in as best they can. For example, are there only five Istari? Is Glorfindel really the same Glorfindel who died fighting a Balrog in an earlier age? We don't know for certain. Tolkien did change his mind on some things, and didn't explain or reveal other things.

There are nits here, and we are picking them. I never stated that their trueness was the only factor of judgment, only that they were judged on it. There are plenty of other factors we could name, too, like balance, mechanical simplicity, art direction, layout, readability... and on and on. I think any reasonable person would understand my point: that trueness to the setting is an important part of a roleplaying game. And those examples you list (and others of a similar bent) have no effect on the feel of the world; they are essentially trivia. What I am referring to by "trueness", and what I tried to convey with my two examples, is that the "feel" of the world should be supported and preserved. I think everyone would agree that a game which allows all characters to throw fireballs around, or to slay dragons with casual ease, is not true to Middle Earth. Such things tell us much more about the world than pedantic trivialities.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But all "skill-based simulationist systems" aren't the same. RQ and GURPS play very differently. Bladesharp 4 in GURPS is far more powerful than it is in RQ. It can turn a knife or dagger into a real threat in GURPS. GURP's parry mechanics also make a big difference, as does the way GURPS handes hit points and damage. Hits that would probably leave somebody dead in RQ are often quite survivable in GURPS.

I never said they were the same, either. But they operate on the same assumption: they attempt to model "reality" with a rational system of rules that support the growth and creation of characters in a manner similar to what we experience in everyday life.

And obviously you would have to adjust your game mechanics to fit the way the world works. That's been my whole point this entire conversation. A GURPS Glorantha is not going to be the same as Runequest Glorantha, but they should both attempt to model one world through their two sets of rules.

14 hours ago, Psullie said:

I absolutely agree that a game system should reflect the world it models, but on a much more meta level than +1 v's +5. CoC's Sanity, Pentagon's Passions, are core to the world in which we play. Remove this and we're playing generic 

Absolutely. The interaction with spirits and the relationship formed should be mechanically explicit. Making it so firm a part of the game would reinforce the mechanics of the world itself.

[g33k]

5 hours ago, styopa said:

Really?  I'd be curious to know which?

In my view, from D&D5e and other peers, the systems are designed ever more NOT to be lethal, NOT to kill characters.

I think the big/popular games are pretty PC-friendly / hard-to-kill games, you're right.

Of the popular ones, WFRPG (though not new!) often gets nominated as gritty and deadly.

Riddle of Steel, though 10ish(?) years old, is at least newer than RQ; "Blade of the Iron Throne" is VERY new...

Barbarians of Lemuria is pretty new & pretty deadly, though AFAIK pulpy/cinematic so I expect it'd be easily tweaked to those high-survival tropes.

[jajagappa]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Part of the appeal of the Battle MAgic system was that is was very simle and playable. Changing it to some sort of dialog with a NPC spirit that the GM has to keep track of would add some complexity to it. And, frankly, I'm not sure if it would make all that much of a difference in the long run.

I don't think that considering it in terms of the 'how you get the magic' renders it more complex.  RQ2 hand-waved it.  We know it is the 'forceful alteration of the fabric of reality by use of one’s POW'.  We know such magics are learned from their "Rune cult" via their priests.  The priests charge for this (and presumably is good temple income).  And we know that "Learning a spell takes one week of work with the cult you are paying to teach it to you."

Why a week?  What happens in that period of time?  That's the how.  IIRC (though don't have my RQ3 book handy), the emphasis in RQ3 was that the priests summoned their temple spirits (spell spirits) to perform the teaching.  As RQ2 noted, part of the time is the creation of the focus, "a carved rune of some sort which acts to tie the conscious and unconscious minds together so that the spell works".  While the temple priests will know how to create these foci, just having that is not sufficient to know the spell.  So some type of imprinting goes on.  If that is a spirit which is summoned, then so it is.  It can be played, or not, depending on how a given GM wants to reflect it.