Jump to content
Scout

Glorantha: HQG or RQ Classic?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Scout said:

updated HQG pdf as the errata is quite extensive and in some cases directly impacts the rules. Being new to HQG I can't take the chance I'd be able to work through it all.

There's no announced plans to issue an updated HQG pdf at this point. 

And I wouldn't let errata discourage you.  I had not GM'd with HQ at all before getting HQG, so was a brand-new system to me (I had GM'd with RQ2/3 in the past).  There wasn't even a single piece of errata at the time I began.  The system is really quite straightforward.  I put together some HQG Basics here: 

That said, if the above notes on RQG/RQ Classic are more appealing based on style of game/play, there's lots of content to draw on.

Edited by jajagappa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Scout said:

I'm going to wait for the updated HQG pdf as the errata is quite extensive and in some cases directly impacts the rules. Being new to HQG I can't take the chance I'd be able to work through it all.

Even though it seems you're requirements are pointing you towards RQC/RQG, I'm going to continue to stick up for the existing HQG rules as published.

Although an errata'd HQG would be nice, I suggest that the only thing that has the real possibility to confuse you is the multi-page example of play for the Battle of Auroch Hills, which doesn't follow the way that the rules describe a Group Extended Contest should work (so it's confusing when compared vs the rules). But it really wouldn't matter if you played it the way in the example, it would still work. There really is nothing that would stop you playing and having a lot of fun with it, as @jajagappa said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough, I have the HQG pdf so I guess the very least I should do is read it through and see what I think. 

Thanks all. 

EDIT: It is a little disappointing there's not even an official Errata listing though. But then we don't know how busy the company employees are so we can't really say too much. 

Edited by Scout

Share this post


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

EDIT: It is a little disappointing there's not even an official Errata listing though. But then we don't know how busy the company employees are so we can't really say too much. 

It is worth remembering, that the biggest draw of HQ is that the rules get out of the way, and don't need to be worried about much. Consequently, a few imperfect examples should have little or no effect on anyone's actual gameplay. In actual play, I generally end up just picking a target number out of thin air that seems reasonable, given the skill levels of the Heroes, the nature of the situation and the dramatic tension of the moment. Then we resolve a simple contest to see how it turns out. The fun comes from describing how that result came about, and working out exactly what the consequences of each [brilliant success/hardfought struggle/abject failure] actually are. 

Once you understand the basics of Staging a Conflict, and Describing the Results, the rest is entirely up to personal (or table) preference. 

Sure, the forum thread looks intimidating, but the "Errata" as stands would consist of one reworked example, and a few messed up numbers. IMHO, it just isn't worth the time and effort to crack open the sources, make the changes, re-proof the whole thing to ensure that the changes didn't cause worse problems, and re-publish the book, given how minor the existing errors are.

Chaosium is a Very small company, with a Very big pipeline of products in the works. Having someone spend a week or so re-publishing a book that is perfectly functional as-is means a week or so of work that is not getting done on RQ, or another upcoming project. HQ is by far my favorite RP system, but I still think it would be a huge mistake for Chaosium to let a few scuffs in it's paint-job distract them from getting the new RQ out asap.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

So the rules are easy enough that I'll be able to spot the errors?

Sound promising. 

I don't think many people would be able to find the errors at all without the errors thread to guide them. On top of which, HQ is an immensely forgiving rule set - it's nearly impossible to get "wrong" once you understand the core concepts - which are dead simple, but different enough from "traditional" RPG play that it can be a bit tricky to really "get" at first. 

Many of the best HQ games I've run involved little more than a few simple contests strung together by mostly player-generated narrative. If you focus on telling an interesting story, and just throw in a contest whenever it's not obvious how things will turn out, you should be just fine. IMO, the hardest part of running HQ is actually accepting how utterly simple running HQ can be. I know I went through a fair period of "nah, it can't be THAT easy..." and trying to over-complicate things before letting go and letting the system really shine in its simplicity.

In HQ the rules are really just there to add a bit of surprise and tension to your collaborative storytelling. 

RQ on the other hand, is a far more traditional RPG experience in that it sets up a framework or rules and expects the players to work through them. The rules matter, and tell you more or less exactly what happens, based on how you tried to go about doing whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

The two games are very different in approach, but both work extremely well at highlighting different aspects of Glorantha.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scout said:

So the rules are easy enough that I'll be able to spot the errors?

Have a read through the couple posts I made on the HQ Basics Page noted above.  That should be enough to get started, but most of us here are happy to answer any questions.  In most cases, it really is as simple as framing the contest, having the players identify the ability to use, assigning the difficulty, and rolling the dice.  Then determining what the result was. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/18/2017 at 1:53 PM, Scout said:

I would like to get into Glorantha and I have two choices: HQG or RQ2 Classic which has just been released. Both games look interesting but I have some reservations I'd like to ramble on about. 

There will be a third choice - 13th Age in Glorantha, if you like using D20-style games.

On 9/18/2017 at 1:53 PM, Scout said:

RQ2C

I really like RQ but not sure what's in RQC. I dislike systems where you have one skill (for example) 'Melee' and that covers everything from 2 Handed Greatswords to a fist punch. I love hit locations but found the healing/damage rules in Mythras too fiddly. As it goes, I dropped Mythras because I found combat required too much bookkeeping. I also dislike the Resistance Tables but I can live with that. I like a character to have lots of improvement before they reach a ceiling (it aides longer campaigns, which is something I always look for in an rpg). 

 

RQC is not strictly out yet, I think, unless I have missed something.

I think the design notes hinted it would be more like RQ2, which has a rich set of skills, better suiting your preferences. I am not sure about experience, but I hope they keep RQ3's 1D6 rather than RQ2's 5% increases.

Personally, I'd use something like Revolution's rules with a reduced skill set but using Traits to give a far richer experience.

On 9/18/2017 at 1:53 PM, Scout said:

HQG

I like narrative systems but there are errors in HQG so I'm worried it might not make sense to me. I'm also not entirely happy with the way HQG automatically raises difficulties every four sessions and how the pass/fail system is a rule for the GM to fudge things in order to maintain pacing and drama. I mean, I understand it, and I can see how it makes sense storywise but I can't help shake the feeling it's a bit heavy-handed and diminishes the effect of a character's attribute/skill ratings. 

HQ1 might be a bit more suitable for you.

Don't worry about errors, I find that HQ works best when you ignore the fiddly bits and just concentrate on skills/abilities/keywords, treating everything the same.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 1:53 PM, Scout said:

Lastly, I love feudal settings. I think there's a lot of roleplaying possibilities when you have a feudalistic system in place. There's a social pecking order and you'd better know yours. Am I right in thinking Glorantha doesn't have a setting where a feudal system is in place?

Glorantha has a feudal structure, of sorts. Even in Orlanthi Clans you have Cottars (Serfs), Thanes (Elite Warriors), Carls (Nobles) and Chieftains/Kings. 

You don't have the feudalism of medieval Europe, though, unless you want to play Glorantha like that, and there is no reason you can't. The West has more of a feudal structure, but it isn't the same as Feudal Europe.

On 9/18/2017 at 1:53 PM, Scout said:

I understand Glorantha is based on myths and that they colour most everything a character does, but are there settings where a feudal society is in place?

Myths colour everything, as do cults. A PC who is a healer and not in a cult can behave however you want, but a healer in Chalana Arroy has certain behavioural restrictoins, a Xiola Umbar healer is very different to a Chalan Arroy healer or an Ernaldan healer.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 1:53 PM, Scout said:

Any advice?

Don't overthink things. Don't get hung up on particular rules, RQ is a game where you can import rules from other D100/RQ systems with ease, so you can make your own set of rules very easily. HQ is a fast, fun game that is very flexible, don't get hung up on rules issues, HQ works best with as few rules as possible.

Glorantha is best enjoyed through playing. It doesn't really matter which rules you use, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Edited by soltakss
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about (coming from a noob's point of view concerning the HQG rules)

The very first entry of the errata thread:

"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)."

So there are three differing possible answers, and as far as I can tell, no official answer, and being new to it all, I've no clue how to resolve it.

Edited by Scout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never even noticed that it was ever listed as a Power Rune (it's not).  It's a Condition Rune.

Many years ago, I downloaded a bunch of fonts some of which were Gloranthan Rune in nature.  They're still in my Fonts folder but some of those Runes I have never figured out what they were.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

"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)."

"The philosophers of the West describe the Law Rune as one of the great Powers, in polarity with the Chaos Rune."

There's a few runes that can fit a few categories.  Law could be Power or Condition.  Moon can be Element or Condition.  Chaos can be Form or Condition, or maybe even a Power.  Luck (and Fate which was not included in HQG) can be Conditions or opposed Powers.

The main thing with the Law Rune is that if a character wants to be a sorcerer they need it as one of their three.  (Similarly if a character wants to be a shaman, they want the Spirit rune.)

Share this post


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

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about (coming from a noob's point of view concerning the HQG rules)

The very first entry of the errata thread:

"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)."

So there are three differing possible answers, and as far as I can tell, no official answer, and being new to it all, I've no clue how to resolve it.

I think, this is just a Gloranthan detail, which is also typical for Glorantha. If you get deeper into Gloranthan mythology, you will experience a lot of confusion, because (as in the real world) different cultures interpret the same (or better similar) mythologies quite different. This leaves it to you to decide, which interpretation is important for your game.

Personally I see the Law rune as a Condition rune - at least at the moment. And with regards to the rune listing in Heroquest Glorantha I think, this is the right answer too. But @jajagappa listed some other possible answers. So it the depends on the context (especially of your game), how the Law rune is classified.

The above entry in the errata may be important for Gloranthan nerds (like me :)) but not for Gloranthan beginners. As @jajagappa already mentioned, the only important point regarding the Law rune is the fact, that it is mandatory for sorcerers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Oracle said:

The above entry in the errata may be important for Gloranthan nerds (like me :)) but not for Gloranthan beginners. As @jajagappa already mentioned, the only important point regarding the Law rune is the fact, that it is mandatory for sorcerers.

Yep, this ^^^

I think that you're quite naturally getting a bit over-concerned about rules "issues" with HQ:G. But as has been said earlier, this is misleading really, because HQ:G is so rules-light and it's all about the story/narrative, with the lightweight rules just there to help the story along. Unlike a really crunchy system, the rules in HQ:G are highly unlikely to trip you up in play, and any slight inconsistencies like this are just about the background and flavour, rather than something that will leave you scratching your head at an important moment in the middle of a game.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/22/2017 at 9:42 PM, Scout said:

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about (coming from a noob's point of view concerning the HQG rules)

The very first entry of the errata thread:

"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)."

You could treat a Law rune as a Condition or as a Power, paired with Chaos. I prefer Law and Chaos as condition runes, personally, otherwise you get drawn into Moorcockian Law/Chaos ideas (Which are, themselves, great but don't suit Glorantha very well.)

It doesn't really matter, unless you are using Law to oppose Chaos. Very few deities actually do this, Waha has Spirits of law that explicitly affect Chaos Spirits, Storm Bull has Sense Chaos, but isn't connected to the Law rune, Krarshti have Sense Law but have the Chaos rune. I cannot think of any other cults that have the Law/Chaos rune and which have abilities connected to the opposed pair.

On 9/22/2017 at 9:42 PM, Scout said:

So there are three differing possible answers, and as far as I can tell, no official answer, and being new to it all, I've no clue how to resolve it.

Welcome to Glorantha - There are different inrterpretations to everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 9:32 PM, g33k said:

That may be some wait.

I do not know that Chaosium has announced this, I'm just presuming they intend it...

Maybe @Ian Cooper or @David Scottcould answer this ... ?

 

There is an intent to fix that, but... We only have limited manpower and it is behind some other things in the pipeline. That could mean months. In addition, there is a difference between errata - the game text is wrong - and typos (many of which are opinion based). HQG has little to no functional errata (I never play with a copy of the errata to hand).

So you can wait, but I think you might regret that choice if you really want the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 9:42 PM, Scout said:

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about (coming from a noob's point of view concerning the HQG rules)

The very first entry of the errata thread:

"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)."

So there are three differing possible answers, and as far as I can tell, no official answer, and being new to it all, I've no clue how to resolve it.

Over time the runes have been grouped differently. Doubtless, they will be again. I would think of this as closer to scholarly argument than a problem at the table.

However, generally prefer the Guide as it is later, and an attempt to be definitive.

As others have stated, in play this does not make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2017 at 1:47 AM, Oracle said:

I think, this is just a Gloranthan detail, which is also typical for Glorantha. If you get deeper into Gloranthan mythology, you will experience a lot of confusion, because (as in the real world) different cultures interpret the same (or better similar) mythologies quite different. This leaves it to you to decide, which interpretation is important for your game.

Personally I see the Law rune as a Condition rune - at least at the moment. And with regards to the rune listing in Heroquest Glorantha I think, this is the right answer too. But @jajagappa listed some other possible answers. So it the depends on the context (especially of your game), how the Law rune is classified.

The above entry in the errata may be important for Gloranthan nerds (like me :)) but not for Gloranthan beginners. As @jajagappa already mentioned, the only important point regarding the Law rune is the fact, that it is mandatory for sorcerers.

As an aside, entries like the above are why I rarely read the errata threads. That's not errata - but just part of the setting that is open to multiple interpretations and re-interpretation. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2017 at 10:34 AM, Jeff said:

As an aside, entries like the above are why I rarely read the errata threads. That's not errata - but just part of the setting that is open to multiple interpretations and re-interpretation. 

I've never played using the errata. I'm not sure what I am supposed to not be able to do.

Share this post


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

I've never played using the errata. I'm not sure what I am supposed to not be able to do.

No single erratum is a game-breaker. They do however make for a different game depending on which way you decide to jump.

In particular, can one spend a single Hero Point on a simple contest, or many? The book clearly states both a few pages apart. The game is totally playable either way, but the former case encourages using them here and there throughout the night, while the latter encourages hoarding them to throw at a climactic Nigh Impossible challenge. Neither approach is bad, but which case is true at your table has a large impact on just how nigh impossible Nigh Impossible is. (For myself, I prefer one per roll - such that Nigh Impossible retains some teeth, but allow spending one on an augment roll and one on the actual contest roll itself. I make an exception to that if I'm running a Super-Hero game, because surprise upsets & reversals are a key part of that genre.)  

The result-point allocation in extended contests in the stated rules vs in the Battle of Auroch Hills play example is another one. The game is playable either way, obviously the Auroch Hills example is an actual-play transcript and they managed to make it through their session just fine. Depending on which way you do it though, the way extended contests play out is different. Again, not unplayable in either approach, but the risk/reward dynamics around things like Risky Gambit, Phyrric Victory, and such are impacted by which way it's done  - especially with uneven numbers of opponents.

Nothing among the errata ruins the game, but they do make it harder to learn the game from the book, and especially to learn to run the game. While errata don't impede play once you've decided how to approach them, they do degrade the primary utility of the rule-book as a tool for learning how to play the game. Someone coming in cold doesn't have the context to understand the implications of the above and make informed choices about how they want their game to go. If the above were even presented as options with their impact on play explained, it would be alright. That's why I grind the axe about it, whenever it comes up.  I <3 HQ and teach it to new players at every opportunity. The rule-book presenting the rules inconsistently makes that harder, and as can be seen right here sometimes makes potential new adopters shy away.

Edited by JonL
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 9:10 AM, Ian Cooper said:

It's worth noting that Core on the Hero Points in Single Contests issue

...says you can use one per exchange in Extended Contests and as many as you want on Simple Contests. ;-)

HQG mirrors HQCR's language on p63, while stating the opposite in a clearly-not-a-typo fashion on p60. Like I said, either way makes for a fine game, and which way is better is largely a matter of taste. Just the same, a rule-book shouldn't leave you guessing about what the rules are, especially for newcomers. I'll spare everyone the utter threadjack that recapitulating my rants from last year in the croudsource editing thread would entail. Still, another year has gone by and I still don't know whether@Jeff meant the p60 verbiage to be a deliberate change between CR & G with the p63 text inheriting some unedited copy from CR or what; but it would still be greatly appreciated for things like that to be addressed properly, even if just in a separate note rather than correcting the PDF. 

Edited by JonL
  • Like 1

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


×