Jump to content
Scout

New to RuneQuest-Glorantha

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Pentallion said:

Ask and ye shall receive!  Since you are looking to start back in 1613, you're adding 12 years to the Family Timeline.  Characters that are born in 1604 with RQG are now being born in 1592.  Your grandparents were born in 1549.  Though your parents would be born in 1570, we're gonna fudge it ahead one year earlier.  Your parents careers start in 1597, fudging that back two years.

Year1549 Events:  Your grandparents were born this year.

Year 1569 Events:  Homelands All.  Prince Tarkalor crowned King of Dragon Pass and the Prince of Sartar.   Your parents were born this year.

Modifiers:  Lunar Tarsh -8. Old Tarsh -5.  Prax -8

1-10:  Nothing happens.  11-12:  Dies of Random Causes.  13-20:  Witness crowning of Tarkalor.  Gain Loyalty (Sartar).

Year 1582 Events:  Straight out of RQG

Year 1592 Events:  You are born.

Year 1597 Events:  Your grandparents career now ends.  Your parents career begins this year.  Other than that, this is straight out of RQG. 

All Events from 1602 to 1608: Identical to RQG except they happened to your parent(s).

Year 1610 through Year 1613 Events:  Your career starts now.  Your parents retire.  All references to "died" are replaced by "nearly died".  If you fight in any battles, give yourself +5% Battle for merely surviving, +10% Battle if you converted "killed at the Battle of..." or "died with great glory" to "damn! that was close!" (in addition to the other 'rewards'.)  Oh, and toss in a scar.  (gnarly scar if you used to play Stormbringer)

 

And there ya go!  Easy peasy.

This is ideal!

Thank you very much Pentallion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 10:23 AM, womble said:

In earlier versions, Initiates only got one casting of a Rune Spell per sacrifice for it, so it wasn't uncommon to come across Initiates with no Rune Spells, or only one or two, in case of emergencies. Now every Initiate under RQG rules will have at least one Rune Point and access to the Common Spells and one of the Special spells available to their Cult. There's the chance they might already have some unreplenished Points, naturally, but having all your antagonists 'running on empty' will ring a bit false after a while...

It ain't necessarily so. Though I mostly disagree with the direction that RQ RiG seems to be taking in making characters so much more powerful that their daily counterparts are (D&D anyone?), I have seen many comments from people high up in the Chaosium organism who have said that the players are extraordinary and that the average initiate does not have at least 3 RPs minimum and 3 Rune spells as well as all the spirit magics, etc that come with the office. That is kept for the extraordinary PCs.

On top of that, your game may vary so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

It ain't necessarily so. Though I mostly disagree with the direction that RQ RiG seems to be taking in making characters so much more powerful that their daily counterparts are (D&D anyone?), I have seen many comments from people high up in the Chaosium organism who have said that the players are extraordinary and that the average initiate does not have at least 3 RPs minimum and 3 Rune spells as well as all the spirit magics, etc that come with the office. That is kept for the extraordinary PCs.

On top of that, your game may vary so...

Yeah, I've seen some of the people behind the game claim that. However, in my eyes, there are a few things which tend to encourage me take Jeff's vision over Jason's.

First, the 'ordinary people' (random farmers, herders) you meet in so-far published RQG material are 'point-a-year' Initiates. With a Capital 'I' (as opposed to 'initiated into adult society' initiates, with a lower-case 'i'). While the progression from there is...patchily executed (Kareena has fewer RP in 1625 than she has  sacced POW in classic Apple Lane ?20? years before, f'r'ex), this is the least important point in my reasoning: new game lines can take a while to settle down, and sometimes designers make a set of stats 'what it needs to be to tell the story that's being told'. However, the rules and background material, including pre-RQG stuff and current, make explicit statements that there is a high proportion of Initiation in (at least) Sartarite society, into specific Cults.

Second, RQ has always, and it seems to me, it tries to continue to be, a game where the same rules apply to NPCs as apply to PCs. If a PC gets an automatic POW gain roll at Sacred time, based on 5 x the difference between their current POW and their racial max, so do the NPCs. And if PC Initiates can freely commit their Soul Force to their God and get a Rune Point, so can the NPCs, and they'll want to because Rune Spells are great (and the world is dangerous).

Third, in Glorantha (specifically, and that's where RQG is directly focused with quality collimation), your relationship with your God is IMPORTANT. Setting aside the mythic necessities, the material advantages of being a good little Orlanthi and going to as many Worship ceremonies as you can reach merit both effort and commitment. The disadvantages of your community's magic failing because you decided to stay in bed do not bear contemplation. So it seems to me that, as in the Real World, most people need to have a job to get on with their life, most Gloranthans need to get Initiated. It's not like it's hard to get Initiated in one of the Gods of your Pantheon, nor are the requirements to remain Initiated in Good Standing particularly onerous: medieval folk tithed 10% to the Church for nebulous promises, whereas your Sartarite farmer will see their crops come in better than their neighbour's if they have a family member with a snootful of Rune Points and 'Bless Crops', and the neighbour doesn't.

So, the second and third points, for me, support the background materials' statement of Initiation with a capital I being pretty much the default state of being for adults in Sartar, and pretty much everywhere that's theistic.

To address the point of PCs being 'exceptional', I believe the game system's blindness to whether you're a PC or an NPC means the PCs become exceptional by the actions they take under the direction of their players. They start off in play as exceptional because they went off to Nochet, or Aurochs Hills or Pavis or wherever, and their siblings, cousins and neighbours largely did not. But those relatives and acquaintances still have the opportunity (notwithstanding religious oppression, or suppression) to get their POW gain rolls annually, and their routine actions would mean they would tend to take those opportunities (though obviously that's not their motivation, nor how they view the world: they're just making sure the sun keeps coming up by participating in Sacred Time/High Holy Day rites). PCs will become more exceptional as time goes on because they'll be getting POW gain rolls and skill rolls in lots of skills other than Farm, Herd, Animal Lore and Plant Lore every season, not once or twice a year.

Another thing about this take on the world is that it destroys the notion of the 'first level farmer'. That 40-year-old field hand probably has a full CHA of Rune Points and either Lightning or Thunderbolt, can Heal Wound at least, and his Farm skill is way over 100 unless he's an immense dullard. He may even have traded soul force for Enchantments since he can contribute to the Priests' workings and needs something to do with his excess POW. This seems to me to be entirely in keeping with the game system's ethos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, womble said:

Jeff's vision over Jason's.

Isn't it Jeff who keeps popping in to remind everyone that the PCs are exceptional and that the character creation rules contained RQG apply to the creation of PCs, not everyone? 

Further, as far as I can tell, Jason really works his ass off trying to make sure he is speaking the truth of the book that Jeff wrote. If there has been any daylight between them I haven't noticed it. (I don't read every thread, so maybe I missed lots of such examples. But from what I have read, I haven't really seen them at odds on these matters.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Isn't it Jeff who keeps popping in to remind everyone that the PCs are exceptional and that the character creation rules contained RQG apply to the creation of PCs, not everyone? 

Further, as far as I can tell, Jason really works his ass off trying to make sure he is speaking the truth of the book that Jeff wrote. If there has been any daylight between them I haven't noticed it. (I don't read every thread, so maybe I missed lots of such examples. But from what I have read, I haven't really seen them at odds on these matters.) 

I've detected a deal of daylight between 'em, frankly. Not in the way you're reading it, perhaps. I entirely agree with both of them that PCs are "made" exceptional.

And there's a lot of daylight between 'character creation rules' and the 'rules of the world' (in an 'ongoing' sense). I'm thoroughly comfortable with the notion that the PCs are generated as superior to their 21 y.o. relatives and neighbours, but that says next to nothing about how adults then develop. What reason is there for adults to not be Initiated? What reason for any Initiate to not get biannual POW gain rolls (and, on average, hit half of 'em)? Do 'normal people' learn nothing in their jobs, season-to-season?

PCs will certainly develop into better adventurers than the common run-of-the-mill fellow, but a mature carpenter has a good chance to be significantly better at their job than a just-made-up-to-journeyman one. Since the rules of the world apply the same to everyone, PC or NPC, it is the PCs' actions which differentiates them from/raises them above Jo Stay-at-home-and-farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, womble said:

but that says next to nothing about how adults then develop. What reason is there for adults to not be Initiated? What reason for any Initiate to not get biannual POW gain rolls (and, on average, hit half of 'em)? Do 'normal people' learn nothing in their jobs, season-to-season?

All true. And these are questions I wanted answers for and I asked several times here. The answers ranged, as far as i remember, from "It's a tool kit, do whatever you want!" to wordy posts that I could not decipher. I know I can do whatever I want with the setting. But that it is so hard for me to get a clear answer to these questions from the authors of the setting--what they expect the setting to be like in their own vision--kind of boggles me.

Share this post


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

All true. And these are questions I wanted answers for and I asked several times here. The answers ranged, as far as i remember, from "It's a tool kit, do whatever you want!" to wordy posts that I could not decipher. I know I can do whatever I want with the setting. But that it is so hard for me to get a clear answer to these questions from the authors of the setting--what they expect the setting to be like in their own vision--kind of boggles me.

RQ3 handled aging better IMO.  Skills were based directly upon age.  Older NPCs were definitely better skilled than younger ones and it made sense.  Farmers farmed better, older hunters hunted better.  But adventurers increased in skills much faster than NPCs.  And that was good.   Being older in RQG doesn't feel like the NPCs improved enough in their skills.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 194: Magical Attacks and Strike Ranks

"[T]he first magic point used in the spell has no strike rank modifier. Any subsequent spells require 5 strike ranks to prepare, even if the same spell is being used."

"[C]asting a spell such as Bladesharp or Fireblade on a weapon held in the hand and striking with it in the same round only involves adding the normal strike rank to cast the spell to the normal strike rank for that weapon for that melee round."

Let's say I'm wielding a Dagger (SR 3), and in the same round, I cast Bladesharp on the dagger. Do I go on...

SR 8: Prepare Bladesharp (5) + Dagger (3)?

Next round I do the same so again I go on...

SR 8: Bladesharp (5) + Dagger (3)?

I'm just not sure about the magic point cost and the first magic point being free. Does this remain true for the second casting of a spell, the third, fourth?

Also, can you walk around with a spell already stored and prepared and ready to cast, effectively giving you SR 0 (because the first magic point has no SR cost)?

Sorry, probably over thinking this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Scout said:

Do I go on...

You normally will cast your magic first at the start of the round.  SR depends on the level of the spell.  Let's say your DEX SR is SR 1, SIZ SR is SR 2, and you cast Bladesharp 2 on the dagger you already have out and prepared.  

p.254: To determine the strike rank at which a spell can be cast, total the adventurer’s DEX strike rank plus the magic points of the spell (minus the first), plus any boosting magic points.

The spell occurs on SR 2 (1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You can then use your magically enhanced dagger on SR 8.  (2 SR's already into the round for the magic, +1 for DEX SR, +2 for SIZ SR, and +3 for weapon SR).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries or dodges).

If your dagger is not ready, then on SR 5 you draw out your dagger (5 SR's to prepare a weapon).  Now you cast your spell on SR 7 (same as prior example: 1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries, after SR 5, or dodges) as you need 6 SR's to attack with the dagger and that would be over the 12 SR limit for the round.

Note: most spirit magic spells last for two minutes (ten melee rounds).

Edited by jajagappa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Scout said:

can you walk around with a spell already stored and prepared and ready to cast, effectively giving you SR 0 (because the first magic point has no SR cost)?

No, not with spirit magic.  You must focus on the spell and then cast it.

Rune magic does act like this as it is instantaneous and occurs on SR 1 (unless boosted by additional MP's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

You normally will cast your magic first at the start of the round.  SR depends on the level of the spell.  Let's say your DEX SR is SR 1, SIZ SR is SR 2, and you cast Bladesharp 2 on the dagger you already have out and prepared.  

p.254: To determine the strike rank at which a spell can be cast, total the adventurer’s DEX strike rank plus the magic points of the spell (minus the first), plus any boosting magic points.

The spell occurs on SR 2 (1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You can then use your magically enhanced dagger on SR 8.  (2 SR's already into the round for the magic, +1 for DEX SR, +2 for SIZ SR, and +3 for weapon SR).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries or dodges).

If your dagger is not ready, then on SR 5 you draw out your dagger (5 SR's to prepare a weapon).  Now you cast your spell on SR 7 (same as prior example: 1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries, after SR 5, or dodges) as you need 6 SR's to attack with the dagger and that would be over the 12 SR limit for the round.

Note: most spirit magic spells last for two minutes (ten melee rounds).

Thanks jajagappa.

And using the dagger in the second example would occur at SR 1 in the second round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

using the dagger in the second example would occur at SR 1 in the second round?

No.  Each melee round for the most part has a "reset".  Exception is magic that requires multiple rounds to case (usually sorcery, or highly boosted spirit or rune magic).

Dagger attack in 2nd round will be at normal DEX + SIZ + weapon SR (unless you cast more magic first).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prinz.slasar said:

Is "Lore (local)" the same as "Homeland Lore (local)"?

The term "Lore (local)" appears only in the Occupation chapter.

Yes, it went through a terminology change during writing.  Originally was Area Lore (local).  Then changed to Homeland Lore (local).  Likely that occurrence in the Occupation chapter occurred during editing of the first, but didn't get Homeland inserted.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This attack v parry thing is a bit much to remember 😕 I know there's a table, but it's another table alongside the Resistance table you have to look up.

EDIT: So a shield's special damage is Crushing?

Edited by Scout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Scout said:

This attack v parry thing is a bit much to remember 😕 I know there's a table, but it's another table alongside the Resistance table you have to look up.

EDIT: So a shield's special damage is Crushing?

Not sure what you mean by "this attack vs parry thing".  You attack, I parry and vice versa.  You get the hang of crits vs specials, etc. quite quickly, if that's what you mean? 

Yes, a shield does crushing damage.  You could also think of it as Bashing damage.  Maces, fists, shields all bash you in the face.  Crushing damage isn't very good for most humans though it's crazy good for trolls (and Conan, but that's another thread).

Edited by Pentallion
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pentallion said:

Not sure what you mean by "this attack vs parry thing".  You attack, I parry and vice versa.  You get the hang of crits vs specials, etc. quite quickly, if that's what you mean? 

Yes, a shield does crushing damage.  You could also think of it as Bashing damage.  Maces, fists, shields all bash you in the face.

I mean there are a good few variations on a similar theme when attacking/parrying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Scout said:

...Resistance table you have to look up...

The 'algorithm' that generates that table is hardly worthy of the name: difference x 5 added to or taken away from 50% as appropriate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scores over 100%

Just to confirm, if your skill is reduced from 130% to 100%, you calculate special/critical success chances on the 100%? Just seems a little odd that the more skilled competitor also suffers a little from this rule.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don’t suffer. They reduce their opponents’ chance of succeeding. This means they are much more likely to land an undefended blow, or not have to bother defending themselves. 

It also means that they are much less likely to Be on the receiving end of a critical, which is the bane of every adventurer everywhere

 

It is a huge advantage. Huge. Especially against multiple opponents. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases, yeah, it's just right to reduce both, even if it seems a little counterintuitive at first sight. Where it gets hinky is situations where the higher skill would reduce the lower to below 05%, since the full disadvantage applies to the higher skill, but is capped on the lower. To make this feel right for me, I reduce both skills by the same amount, which is the lesser of "reducing the higher skill to 100" and "reducing the lower skill to 05". Means that the vastly superior practitioner retains higher crit/special chances against the greatly inferior opponent.

With the high skill levels possible in character generation, and the levels of buff available, this situation can occur even very early on in a character's development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, womble said:

In most cases, yeah, it's just right to reduce both, even if it seems a little counterintuitive at first sight. Where it gets hinky is situations where the higher skill would reduce the lower to below 05%, since the full disadvantage applies to the higher skill, but is capped on the lower. To make this feel right for me, I reduce both skills by the same amount, which is the lesser of "reducing the higher skill to 100" and "reducing the lower skill to 05". Means that the vastly superior practitioner retains higher crit/special chances against the greatly inferior opponent.

Very good. That would remove one of the main problems of the current rules. I have to present that to my GM.

Kloster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kloster said:

Very good. That would remove one of the main problems of the current rules. I have to present that to my GM.

Kloster

I'd like to think that the original intention of the rule was something similar, but that the framing of it in the Core book simply didn't consider that there would often be occasions where the skill differential would be higher than the lower skill, and so didn't address the issue in its language, but 150 vs 49 isn't going to be that uncommon, with Fanaticism and other buffs going around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, womble said:

I'd like to think that the original intention of the rule was something similar, but that the framing of it in the Core book simply didn't consider that there would often be occasions where the skill differential would be higher than the lower skill, and so didn't address the issue in its language, but 150 vs 49 isn't going to be that uncommon, with Fanaticism and other buffs going around.

Yes, you're right. At character creation time and including spells, there is a 105% difference between my character and the best fighting character in my group (50% no spells vs 90% pushed to 155% with Fanaticism and Bladesharp 2).

Kloster

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

×