Jump to content

RuneQuest Glorantha Gen Con 50 Preview edition


David Scott

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

They surely differ from the actual cannon

Sorcerors have cannons now?  Overpowered much?

I guess the important question is, is it part of the canon?  (Sorcerous cannons I mean.)

:P Sorry.  Personal bugbear.  (Are bugbears canon?)

Slightly more seriously ... is the Dwarf's Cannon a product of sorcery?  Or is Mostali sorcery now not "sorcery"?  (It gets hard to keep track of all these things ....)

Personally I'll accept any systemic improvement on RQ3 sorcery rules.  There were few things more depressing than generating a new character under the RQ3 rules and discovering that your beginning character came from a sorcery background, and thus started with no spirit magic and one sorcery spell that was (for all practical purposes) impossible to cast and did virtually nothing any way.

 

"I want to decide who lives and who dies."

Bruce Probst

Melbourne, Australia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, styopa said:

What's leaving me so conflicted on the new Sorcery is that:

- I liked RQ3's sorcery system default version (warts and all, I felt it was a very solid structure that could be comfortably revised to usefulness - it may have been an ugly house but it was firmly built with a good foundation), and

- I disliked very much the 'Saints' thing it turned into (for me, that just got too deep into a sort of Glorantha-Digest-y navel-contemplating lore-frenzy), and

- I'm even *less* enthused about the current retconning of sorcerous societies and particularly the concatenation of sorcery into LM...that's just wrong to me (I find it curious that Loskalm and Snodal were, AFAIK, the very *roots* of Greg's writings on Glorantha, but seeing them implemented in-game has been such a painful flip-flopping Odyssey) , but

- looking forward to the mechanics very much.

How messed up is that?

I disagree that RQ3's default system was particularly solid. 

The LM cult has access to sorcery as a replacement for spirit magic. Given that LM has had ties to the God Learners from the beginning AND it is the god of knowledge, writing, and reason, it makes tremendous sense for the LM cult to have adopted sorcery as a secondary magic system. But for those old-fashioned fuddy-duddies who dislike sorcery, some temples still prefer spirit magic (and thus your LM character can have their panoply of Detect spells if you want).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BWP said:

Slightly more seriously ... is the Dwarf's Cannon a product of sorcery?  Or is Mostali sorcery now not "sorcery"?  (It gets hard to keep track of all these things ....)

Mostali "magic" like making iron, black powder, erecting walls overnight or animating stone statues is sorcery, which is another word for knowledge-based magic and similar activities. Ultraconservatives might claim that reading and writing is sorcery.

The cannon will be of sorcerous production, and the gun powder is of course a product of alchemy. Correctly positioning and aiming the thing might be another form of sorcery - those calculations don't do themselves, but probably require instruments. Igniting the powder could be done by sorcery, too, but mundane fire applied to a fuse (another alchemical product) will do.

Is this kind of sorcery covered by the new RQ spells? Probably not. RQ3 had the sort of wishy-washy category "ritual magic" which applied to all three magic systems and basically broke the normal spell-casting and spell-duration rules to enable other magics. Any alchemy, artifact construction or production of magical texts will be "ritual magic" rather than "spellcasting magic" and often will include mundane activities according to a procedure that can be read as a work process or as the ritual magic instruction. At some point, magical energy will be expended, whether to bless the new item, to control the production process, or to empower the item.

Keeping such craft, alchemy or measuring processes largely abstract probably is friendlier to the gaming table than hammering a blade strike by strike, melee round by melee round. (This could provide dramatic tension and urgency in a very limited set of circumstances, but doesn't require detailed rules.)

 

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trigonometry + algebra = sorcery 

was when I was in school 

 

6 hours ago, Joerg said:

Keeping such craft, alchemy or measuring processes largely abstract probably is friendlier to the gaming table than hammering a blade strike by strike, melee round by melee round. (This could provide dramatic tension and urgency in a very limited set of circumstances, but doesn't require detailed rules.)

I agree, the 'big magic' wether divine or sorcery is on a scale usually outside the scope of the players. It's usually forms the plot (stop the evil priest from summoning X) or part of the hoot (find the sacred hen's tooth to complete the ritual) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

I disagree that RQ3's default system was particularly solid. 

I did say "...that could be comfortably revised to usefulness...".

 

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

The LM cult has access to sorcery as a replacement for spirit magic. Given that LM has had ties to the God Learners from the beginning AND it is the god of knowledge, writing, and reason, it makes tremendous sense for the LM cult to have adopted sorcery as a secondary magic system. But for those old-fashioned fuddy-duddies who dislike sorcery, some temples still prefer spirit magic (and thus your LM character can have their panoply of Detect spells if you want).

...or so says the current retcon, anyway. (shrug)

Since sorcery was introduced in RQ3, it was always presented as an entirely different worldview from that of the 'spirit/divine' magic paradigm. 

Setting aside the volumes of metaphysics it would take to reconcile the explicitly a-theistic approaches of sorcery to theism in the first place, the section of Strangers in Prax regarding Arlaten made it pretty clear that non-sorcerous society views any such 'atheists' with rancor and suspicion, to say the least.  Yet we now have LM's having cheerfully been using sorcery with abandon?  

Perhaps someone heroquested successfully to make that "having been always so"? :)  Sounds like a pretty God Learner-y move to me.

 

Obviously you're going to write (have written) the rules the way you want them to be.  And I do look forward to seeing it. 

Stepping out to the meta-layer, I found that there was a very nice set of costs/benefits (which all required player choices) provided by the exclusive separation of methods.  Spirit/Divine had its convenient, easy hedge-magic feel, backed then by extremely potent, quick divine spells which were expensive to get from a player perspective.  Sorcery was an entirely different approach that provided much more flexibility at the price of speed and MP cost.  It'll be interesting to see how you guys have reimagined that in this version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, styopa said:

Setting aside the volumes of metaphysics it would take to reconcile the explicitly a-theistic approaches of sorcery to theism in the first place, the section of Strangers in Prax regarding Arlaten made it pretty clear that non-sorcerous society views any such 'atheists' with rancor and suspicion, to say the least.  Yet we now have LM's having cheerfully been using sorcery with abandon?  

That rabid "burn all sorcerers on sight" stance that was propagated in those years never made sense to me, after all there are plenty of places where they coexist.

Sorcery has been re-defined, too, and now includes guild magics and alchemy - all knowledge based magics, things you know. We didn't have that definition back when Arlaten was written, and sorcery was something that atheists with familiars did.

39 minutes ago, styopa said:

Perhaps someone heroquested successfully to make that "having been always so"? :)  Sounds like a pretty God Learner-y move to me.

If anything, someone may have heroquested to make Lhankor Mhy less of a Tadeniti (the Malkioni inventors of writing) and more like a normal cult after the God Learners were overcome. LM and Issaries joined Orlanth on his Westfaring.

Over time, we have learned that LM was present at local events that logically would predate the LBQ, like acting as the scribe of Nochet. But then each major deity has more than one expression (aka subcult or aspect). Issaries' aspect Garzeen is brought into connection with Hrestol's sister Fenela, for instance, and that since his first mention in Cults of Prax.

1 hour ago, Psullie said:

trigonometry + algebra = sorcery 

was when I was in school 

initiate level sorcery, but yes. :)

1 hour ago, Psullie said:

I agree, the 'big magic' wether divine or sorcery is on a scale usually outside the scope of the players. It's usually forms the plot (stop the evil priest from summoning X) or part of the hoot (find the sacred hen's tooth to complete the ritual) 

I don't think that this magic is outside the scope of the players, but I am firmly convinced that this magic is outside the scope of strike ranks or combat.

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, styopa said:

Yet we now have LM's having cheerfully been using sorcery with abandon?  

Perhaps someone heroquested successfully to make that "having been always so"? :)  Sounds like a pretty God Learner-y move to me.

First, LM (and Issaries) came from the West.  He doesn't really appear in Orlanthi myths until the LBQ.  Not really evident until Revealed Mythologies.  But what we had before was only LM in Prax - an out-of-the-way locale.

Second, the center of the LM cult, with the greatest temple of Knowledge, is Nochet, a place heavily influenced by the God Learners (and EWF).  LM is not known for relinquishing knowledge once found (despite 2nd Age cataclysms).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jeff said:

I disagree that RQ3's default system was particularly solid. 

I had one player who played a sorceress for several years.  But everything about the RQ3 sorcery system was difficult.  Difficult to design spells, difficult to work through effects, difficult to play through, and just difficult to use.  Definitely looking forward to the revamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jeff said:

I disagree that RQ3's default system was particularly solid. 

I had one player who played a sorceress for several years.  But everything about the RQ3 sorcery system was difficult.  Difficult to design spells, difficult to work through effects, difficult to play through, and just difficult to use.  Definitely looking forward to the revamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

One question, that might help me wrap my brain around Lhankor Mhy sorcerers: are we saying that they use sorcery AND divine spells?  Or sorcery in lieu of divine magic?

Someone I was talking to about this - when I mentioned that LM came from the west (mentioned above, I didn't know that detail of the Lightbringers' story) - postulated that then it would make sense if LM's used spirit magic and sorcery as well.  Sorcery having been their worldview, and just 'stepping into' the Orlanthi pantheon from outside, so to speak.

I could see that.  My expostulations about LM sorcerers were really based on the idea that they're using both divine and sorcery as needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now while RQG might prohibit such heresy, but I don't see a conflict with LM having access to both Sorcery & Divine magic (and spirit magic for that matter), as the grey sages see knowledge and communication as divine gifts. This type of religious/science was common if not indivisible in many cultures so why not LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO RQG presents a new and much, much improved set of rule for Shamans, something for the gamer and Gloranthan fan alike. It makes sense to the focus on CHA as the relationship-forming characteristic that governs the number of spirit magic spells and the number of Bound Spirits an adventurer can have. 

What I struggle to understand is why this rule changes for shamans. The number of spirit magic spells obtainable is still governed by CHA (albeit now taking into consideration the shaman's fetch) but when it comes to Binding Spirits or forming Spirit Pacts, POW used to calculate the numbers rather than CHA. This raises a number of questions:

  • Why change the relationship-forming CHA for POW? 
  • Does this imply spirits are now kept by force?
  • Why the change at all (CHA & POW will be similarly high for any half-decent shaman/fetch)?
  • Keeping it CHA means even a very average shaman / fetch will still be able to bind/form pacts with over 20 spirits (far, far more than any non-shaman), which is probably getting to be the top end of what is manageable in play?

If uber-quantities of spirits are still required then it doesn't take much at all to tweak the rules to allow this to happen (i.e. have Expanded Presence include number of Binding Spirits / Spirit Pacts, although the "temporary" increase in the fetch's CHA will probably be need to be dropped to just 1D6).

The value in this means that it keeps the rules as a consistent narrative (and easier to remember!).

What was the value in making the change to POW? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Psullie said:

POW is listed as being 'spiritual presence' while CHA is 'force of personality' so it makes sense that controlling spirits requires POW

I'm happy to go along with that, but it doesn't quite explain why there is a change, say, from an Assistant Shaman (who uses CHA) to Shaman (who uses POW)? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 9/6/2017 at 4:55 PM, styopa said:

Oh I'd entirely disagree.  There was a rather significant difference in results possible.

We used that hit loc table for missiles, thrusting weapons, and spells (where needed) making the choice of such weapons/attacks a more tactically interesting one...

/unsurprised it was dropped, however.

I'll be adding it back in.  I've also been playing with upper and lower limbs based on armor "suit/piece" standard coverage. (ie a hauberk covers chest abdomen upper arms and upper legs, vambraces and greeves cover just the lower part of the limbs.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am by no means a game reviewer, nor am I a Gloranthaphile or Runequestian, but I do love RQ.  I've played and run RQ2 and RQIII.  I have copies of RQ4 and RQ6 though have not used them. Anyway, if your interested, here's my very long review of the RQG Manuscript.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...