That Charming Sword...

[Pentallion]

Bad guys are always fun to play.  Our recently completed Lunar Diaries campaign was full of very dark, twisted individuals.  We had a blast.  Last time I played a bad guy, however, was pretty funny.  The Ogre saw my vampire had been run through the chest with a spear.  So he left me there in the cornfield.  "Vampire didn't make it."  Was all he told the others.  I was like, "you big idiot!" lol.

But I agree, Chaosium shouldn't write it into their game.

[davecake]

Glorantha has always, right from the start, had a high degree of 'NPC symmetry'. Its basically worked on the idea that player characters and non-player characters work to the same basic rules. Literally, in RQ1, there was Black Fang, a cult that seems mostly intended for NPC villains.

Its been a bit of a practical issue for RQ (its a lot harder to improvise encounters on the fly for RQ than for many other games), and a major part of RuneQuests gritty, simulationist feel.

And RQ2 really doubled down on it with Cults of Terror, now seen as an absolute groundbreaking product for the entire RPG genre. But its never meant that PCs are supposed to want to be part of them. Wanting good rules for playable Thed or Mallia or Crimson Bat cultists is not the same as thinking players should play them - and I've appreciated the detail that goes into describing those cults many many times as a GM and have never had a PC want to play one. 

And, of course, moral ambiguity is part of the RQ 'flavour' as well. I certainly have had PCs that want to play Illuminates, Zorak Zoran cultists, assassins, etc. 

I don't think wanting the rules for villainous NPCs to work to work consistently is problematic. 

 

[Austin]

6 hours ago, g33k said:

Chaosium doesn't need to write, or publish, rules for that.

I do agree on that. It's great having those rules, but that's wayyy down the list of "Oo, I want this!" And as Davecake said, RQ2's Cults of Terror is a great example of RQ's history of offering villain rules in a way that would be usable for players.

The point I was trying to make (and I probably just mucked it up earlier) was more "If you include rules like this, players will use them" than "Chaosium ought to write rules for player villains!" based upon my own experience in three or four different playgroups. For example, I'm currently playing in an RQ3 campaign set mostly within the Lunar Empire, as "problem-solvers." One of my fellow players has told me that, if he dies, he's interested in trying out a broo shaman of Mallia. Of course he's a Trickster initiate, so he might have just been messing with me...

[davecake]

37 minutes ago, Crel said:

The point I was trying to make (and I probably just mucked it up earlier) was more "If you include rules like this, players will use them" than "Chaosium ought to write rules for player villains!" based upon my own experience in three or four different playgroups.

My players (or groups I know of) have never really expressed a desire to get into the real worst of Glorantha - Mallia, Thed, etc. - but I've had ogre PCs, Illuminates, etc. But I've certainly had players want to play PCs that would be considered monstrous by modern standards, and thats not even considered weird. An Uroxi is, for example, clearly a menace to society. 

My point is really that you don't want good rules for evil monsters because players will want to play them - that isn't really my experience. My point is that we want good rules for evil monsters because that is how RuneQuest works - its part of the experience that your villains can be developed in the same rich detail as other NPCs. This is in contrast to, eg 13th Age or HeroQuest which is the opposite, total NPC asymmetry - meaning most NPCs are, statwise, the bare minimum needed to fit them. 

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Zozotroll said:

Kind of sad I will have to cheat to get some obvious badguys into the game

Creating a set of rules and playing by them is not cheating.

[simonh]

8 hours ago, Zozotroll said:

In general I like my badguys to conform to the rules..  For major badguys sometimes I do a full PC write up on them.  Kind of sad I will have to cheat to get some obvious badguys into the game

I don't really get how that is cheating. We don't always roll for NPC stats, and certainly don't go through the process of rolling for their skill increases, rolling for their POW gain rolls, etc for their whole career, rolling for cult tests, etc. I don't see how waiving all of that is not cheating, but giving them the CHA they need, or waiving the requirement is. NPCs are always created arbitrarily, and given that we don't actually have the full cult writeups in question, you can set the requirements and other details fo the cult however you like perfectly legitimately. None of this is cheating, it's just ordinary conventional GM's prerogative.

[Jon Hunter]

I can see what Jeff is getting at, but my first reaction is that it seems a little arbitrary, high and not suited to all cults.

Now the counter arguments are that Runelords aren't suited to all cults, and that with significantly higher starting skills, something extra was needed to generate a more steady progression towards Runelord status.

However I feel I may house rule it down to 15, as 18 seems really high.

[Zozotroll]

I try to keep HR and explanations of "just because it is" to a minimum.  Some one has already made the suggestion I will use, at least until a cults of terror comes out, but that is probably some years down the road.

[styopa]

I find it curious to hear that some cults don't have rune lords...I presume their rune magic is cast by priests then?

Otherwise, if they don't have rune magic, I'd assume their principals are shamans?

[Richard S.]

22 minutes ago, styopa said:

I find it curious to hear that some cults don't have rune lords...I presume their rune magic is cast by priests then?

Otherwise, if they don't have rune magic, I'd assume their principals are shamans?

Rune magic has always been primarily the domain of priests, lords have been optional for cults from RQ3 onwards (and some cults even had lords with no priests), and it's only with this edition that they can even compete with the priests magically.

[David Scott]

49 minutes ago, styopa said:

I find it curious to hear that some cults don't have rune lords...I presume their rune magic is cast by priests then?

Otherwise, if they don't have rune magic, I'd assume their principals are shamans?

Lots of cults don’t have rune lords, Ernalda, Eiritha, chalana arroy to name but a few. It’s not a new concept. Rune lords are the martial aspect of a cult, if your not martial you likely don’t have them. 

[soltakss]

On 8/15/2018 at 12:28 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Darth Vader would have 18+ CHA in RuneQuest, he's a powerful leader and people do what he says.

Darth Vader would definitely have 18+ CHA in my world as well.

[soltakss]

On 8/15/2018 at 5:48 PM, davecake said:

I understand that CHA means leadership not charm. 

But it is a change. Formerly, some Swords of Humakts were leaders - and some were duelists, and some were champions supported by patrons, with no great need to get others to follow them. Given that they are generally "cold, fatalistic, merciless, and taciturn", it seems safe to assume that at least some of them were not overly charismatic. 

 

In the past, Rune Lords had to have POW 15, which meant that they were magically powerful. Now, they have CHA 18, which means they are charismatic leaders. I prefer that they are charismatic leaders.

However, I'd probably use CHA 15, rather than 18, leaving CHA 18 for Priest-Lords.

In RQ2, we played that a Rune Lord who went below POW 15 stayed a Rune Lord, but a Priest who went below POW 18 temporarily lost access to reusable Runemagic. I take it that this does not apply in RQG?

If you reach a threshold to become a runic level and then, at a later stage, go below that threshold, do you retain the runic level?

[soltakss]

On 8/15/2018 at 5:49 PM, Jeff said:

Thed and the Bloody Tusk are NOT NOT NOT intended for players. Frankly, I'd be inclined to kick any player who wanted to play a Thed cultist in an ongoing campaign out of my gaming group for obvious reasons. 

Boo, boo and again Boo!

[soltakss]

5 hours ago, David Scott said:

Lots of cults don’t have rune lords, Ernalda, Eiritha, chalana arroy to name but a few. It’s not a new concept. Rune lords are the martial aspect of a cult, if your not martial you likely don’t have them. 

Ahem, Arroin ...

[womble]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

...y in RQG?

If you reach a threshold to become a runic level and then, at a later stage, go below that threshold, do you retain the runic level?

The RAW says you lose the benefits of being a Priest. So your DI procedure would revert back to D100 vs POW+RunePoints rather than vs POW, and their other benefits would lapse. I can't find it now, but I'm sure I remember reading that a Priest who lapses because of a DI POW-related mishap could become 'just' a God Talker until they got their mojo back.

[David Scott]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

Ahem, Arroin ...

Not in RQG and upcoming GoG.

Quote

This is the subcult of the Arroin Healers, the healers who cure without Rune Magic. Initiates of Chalana Arroy with a 90% ability in all four Healing Arts, plus knowledge of the Healing 6 spirit magic spell, can join the subcult. Members gain benefits similar to that of Rune Lords in other cults (allied spirit, divine intervention, easier Rune point replenishment, and improved resistance to magic). 

(And not in RQ3 GoG or RoC writeups)

[Yelm's Light]

Or just call Arroin an associated cult as it was in the old days.

[simonh]

There were a few things published for RQ2 that really looked out of place - mistaken attempts to shoehorn something into Glorantha for the sake of a mistaken sense of completism or symmetry. Cults have Rune Lords. Chalana Arroy and Lankor Mhy are cults. Therefore Aaron healers and Sword Sages. Thank goodness this trend didn’t reach as far as the Uleria cult.

I have a feeling the Lanbril cult for RQG, if it exists at all, will also be pretty drastically reined in.

For those who were fans of this stuff that’s cool, I can understand why and the old write up still exist and are very easily adapted to RQG.

Edited August 17, 2018 by simonh

[Jon Hunter]

9 hours ago, simonh said:

I have a feeling the Lanbril cult for RQG, if it exists at all, will also be pretty drastically reined in.

For those who were fans of this stuff that’s cool, I can understand why and the old write up still exist and are very easily adapted to RQG.

I think as well as 'stuff thats cool', also its game balance.

The current system seems to massively favour the Major Gods, which is internally consistent with Glorantha, but does create some game balance issues amongst a playing group.

For me its a game world and I would always sacrifice realism( its a magical world ffs!!) upon the altar of maximum game fun. 

[womble]

Game balance is largely illusory in a system like RQG. While i agree that realism is entirely out the window, verisimilitude is extremely important in building a world that engages by being living and breathing. Ernalda's "Rune Lords" come from the Gor Sisters and Orlanth/Vinga. The relationship between the Cults is important. There are no Paladins of Chalana Arroy who've taken up arms against Chaos The Greatest Threat to the World having once been pacifists (not and retained their relationship with CA; if that God condoned violence of any kind the Mythical protection afforded all the Initiates and Healers would just go 'poof'.

You only have to look at the starting Occupations to see that 'game balance' isn't something inherent to the core of the system; building a mechanic that works is. The concept that all Cults should be equal opportunity-offerers is alien to Glorantha. If the players care about power levels, they are entirely at liberty to play a character that fits one of the (many and varied)  'Major Gods' and reap some of that 'massive favour'.

[Jon Hunter]

1 hour ago, womble said:

Game balance is largely illusory in a system like RQG. While i agree that realism is entirely out the window, verisimilitude is extremely important in building a world that engages by being living and breathing. Ernalda's "Rune Lords" come from the Gor Sisters and Orlanth/Vinga. The relationship between the Cults is important. There are no Paladins of Chalana Arroy who've taken up arms against Chaos The Greatest Threat to the World having once been pacifists (not and retained their relationship with CA; if that God condoned violence of any kind the Mythical protection afforded all the Initiates and Healers would just go 'poof'.

You only have to look at the starting Occupations to see that 'game balance' isn't something inherent to the core of the system; building a mechanic that works is. The concept that all Cults should be equal opportunity-offerers is alien to Glorantha. If the players care about power levels, they are entirely at liberty to play a character that fits one of the (many and varied)  'Major Gods' and reap some of that 'massive favour'.

Game balance and internal consistency ( or verisimilitude if you prefer ) are neither alien to each other, opposed or highly compatible. They are two differing factors that should be held in balance in world and game design.

You are right that it seems that internal world dynamics have must greater weight than Player Character in the design of RQG. I would prefer the weighting to be a little different and to my mind more balanced.

Your attitude of build the world and be unconcerned with players enjoyment,engagement and fulfilment seems to be incorrect to me.

Oh course we want the best world building we can have but to have a system that is built to aid all players feeling equally involved, important and engaged with the game is also highly desirable. So a system which doesn't balance players choices, or at least look to keep the imbalances to a playable minimum to my mind becomes highly flawed.

I'd like to avoid a scenario where a new player would choose a cult like Odalya which seems cool, but then after 3 months of the campaign a player feels left out or sidelined in a game, because he is finding his rune magic and progression options are much more limited than other players.

I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with RGQ, but in think there is an imbalance with this in the RQ/Glorantha community, where some voices would be very happy to sacrifice player enjoyment on the altar of personal world-building. 

[womble]

That is what the ref is for: providing opportunities for all the players to shine. Expecting every player choice to lead to mechanical parity is hoping for a nirvana that cannot be attained.

[jajagappa]

2 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

I'd like to avoid a scenario where a new player would choose a cult like Odalya which seems cool, but then after 3 months of the campaign a player feels left out or sidelined in a game, because he is finding his rune magic and progression options are much more limited than other players.

That sounds like a GM issue, not one with the cult per se.  

The major gods (storm, sun, earth, darkness) are powerful because they are broad and primary.  Hunters are not; and the basic magical choices and options for 'cult' advancement within Odayla or Yinkin or Foundchild will naturally be more limited.  The great thing with RQ was the ability of a PC to advance in multiple ways not limited to class (or cult or occupation).  The GM has to be able to explore with the player what advancement makes sense.  Is it skills as a Master Hunter?  Is it knowledge of the Great Forest in the Spirit World?  Is it recognition that Odayla is the Sky Bear (aka Orlanth's Ring) and that he is the power of the Storm too?  Or that Odayla is the stead of the Red Goddess, the Moon Bear that turns the Sky Dome and that she is the power of the Moon too?  All these are ways of advancement.  All these can be achieved within the context of RQG.  It's just not going to be spelled out as with a D&D Ranger class.

[Jon Hunter]

5 hours ago, jajagappa said:

That sounds like a GM issue, not one with the cult per se.  

The major gods (storm, sun, earth, darkness) are powerful because they are broad and primary.  Hunters are not; and the basic magical choices and options for 'cult' advancement within Odayla or Yinkin or Foundchild will naturally be more limited.  The great thing with RQ was the ability of a PC to advance in multiple ways not limited to class (or cult or occupation).  The GM has to be able to explore with the player what advancement makes sense.  Is it skills as a Master Hunter?  Is it knowledge of the Great Forest in the Spirit World?  Is it recognition that Odayla is the Sky Bear (aka Orlanth's Ring) and that he is the power of the Storm too?  Or that Odayla is the stead of the Red Goddess, the Moon Bear that turns the Sky Dome and that she is the power of the Moon too?  All these are ways of advancement.  All these can be achieved within the context of RQG.  It's just not going to be spelled out as with a D&D Ranger class.

I would argue a system which isn't balanced for gameplay, places an awful lots of pressure on a GM to counter balance the weaknesses in a unbalanced system. You just said the GM has to and described a number of things that require significant time for and there currently aren't published rules to do.

Is RQG a mass market RPG or is it designed solely for a fan base that has steeped itself in 30 years of law ?

I get the points of other advancement options, and difference between minor and major Gods.

However  I do worry about playability when foundchild cultists have a sum total of 3 specialist runespells available to them and Orlanthi have over 30 ( many much more powerful), it may work as a world build mechanism, but watch how many of your players will now choose cults like foundchild, odalya and the like?

I'd like all of cults that get right ups to be vaguely the same ball park in term's of power, progression and effectiveness, without i think we have a believable world, but a flawed game.