Is Sword Trance broken?

[g33k]

I am certain that Bladesharp doesn't add to parry.  I know that prior editions and "table traditions" are unreliable guides in these new, nuChaosium, RQG days; but FWIW, "that's how we always played it."  Nevertheless, I know this to be a definitively insufficient standard...

So I turn to RQG for "canonical" answers.

 

Consider the spell "Bludgeon" which is the mace/maul/club equivalent of "Bladesharp."  The game-mechanics are identical (+5% to hit, +1 damage, including to Telmori/etc), except for the kind of weapon it is - Crushing.

Then consider the spell "Parry" -- it works on a shield, specifically not any other weapon -- despite a shield also being usable as a Crushing (bludgeoning) weapon; and it explicitly increases Parry, but does not mention attacking or "to hit". *

 

Consider also the spell "Dullblade" -- it explicitly reduces damage by one point, and to-hit by 5%, for every point stacked onto the spell.  It ALSO makes no mention of reducing Parry.

Finally, consider the text of Bladesharp where it discusses the interaction with Dullblade:  "the improved chance to hit from Bladesharp is not affected, but the weapon’s additional damage is reduced" but no mention is made of any effect on Parry.

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by g33k
* and now I wonder about Bludgeon+Parry each on dual-wielded shields...

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Sumath said:

I'm not trying to sow confusion, but this is very debatable. A successful parry is a 'hit' to the attacking weapon, otherwise you miss your parry. I would read this as being a bonus to all attempts to hit with the weapon. Otherwise are you saying that the spell can discriminate between hitting a person and hitting a weapon?

Up until the new edition, Bladesharp only added to Attack and not to Parry. So creativehum's interpretation is consistent with how things have been run in that past and how most long term RQ players would intuitively interpret it to be ruled. And the way Hell's Razor worked in Elric! where attack and parry were rolled into one skill would support this interpretation.

That's not to say that you don't have a point, but it "runs against the grain". Then again, quite a lot of RQG  "runs against the grain", so we can't reject your point out of hand. But I think the way creativehum interpreted it is what was intended. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Sumath]

I agree, that's how we used to use the spell in RQ2 & 3 as well and I only questioned it now because of the conflation of attack and parry. In light of the other weapon affecting spell descriptions, it does seem to only affect attack.

[Atgxtg]

I think most of this kinda stuff stems from the fact that there are several changes between RQG from previous editions, and that combined with text that was often cut& pasted from previous editions, makes sections of the rules somewhat ambiguous.

This is compounded with the fact that some of the new changes are unique to RQG and constrict long standing policies (i.e., rounding and how to determine special and critical chances, two weapon use, etc.) so we can't just fall back on previous editions and past rulings to clarify these things like we used to.  

[womble]

29 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think most of this kinda stuff stems from the fact that there are several changes between RQG from previous editions, and that combined with text that was often cut& pasted from previous editions, makes sections of the rules somewhat ambiguous.

Sir, you may have a small talent for understatement.

29 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

...rounding...

Which is confused in the rules in numerous places. And the general "round in favour of the player" which would inherently mean different crit/special/fumble chances for PCs and their opponents is frankly ridiculous, untenable and contrary to the ethos of "what's sauce for the goose"...

Frankly we're all better off just deciding how we like the thing to be and letting that be an end of it; attempting to divine the 'correct' interpretation is a futile exercise.

 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, womble said:

Sir, you may have a small talent for understatement.

 I'm trying to be diplomatic about it. 

1 hour ago, womble said:

Which is confused in the rules in numerous places. And the general "round in favour of the player" which would inherently mean different crit/special/fumble chances for PCs and their opponents is frankly ridiculous, untenable and contrary to the ethos of "what's sauce for the goose"...

That's a key example. Up until RQG the rule was always"round to the nearest" (with one exception that few people would be aware of).So whenever someone asked about rounded we always knew what the answer was. The change didn't benefit anybody, or fix a problem or something, so why change it? 

 

1 hour ago, womble said:

Frankly we're all better off just deciding how we like the thing to be and letting that be an end of it; attempting to divine the 'correct' interpretation is a futile exercise.

Or roll back to an earlier version of RQ (RQ2 or RQ3) where most of these problem don't exist. 

[Kloster]

10 hours ago, womble said:

Which is confused in the rules in numerous places. And the general "round in favour of the player" which would inherently mean different crit/special/fumble chances for PCs and their opponents is frankly ridiculous, untenable and contrary to the ethos of "what's sauce for the goose"...

In order to avoid this problem, I understand 'rounding in favor of the player' as 'in favor of the character'. In that case, PC and NPC have the same rules, NPC having the GM as 'player'.

[creativehum]

On 1/28/2019 at 4:11 PM, Atgxtg said:

Or roll back to an earlier version of RQ (RQ2 or RQ3) where most of these problem don't exist. 

But for some of us, this has little appeal as a plan.

First, I have no experience playing or running earlier editions of RQ. So I'd be starting from scratch as much as I'm starting from scratch with RQG.

This matters because there is a lot to love in RQG. The Traits, Passions, seasonal phases, and all the deep integration of Glorantha into the game and mechanics. I love all this stuff. I really have no desire to cut and paste various editions of RQ to try to make my own version. I have plenty of other games where I don't have to do this.

Now, I think (but am not certain) you still have not read or even skimmed RQG. Not that you have any obligation to purchase it. But to keep dismissing it without having seen what someone like me find appealing about it keeps confounding me.

If I do settle down to run it I will have to make some decisions about how to interpret and handle certain rules. I shouldn't have to do this (it should be an option, not a requirement), but there it is. But I do think there is enough in RQG that might make it worth the effort.

Edited January 30, 2019 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, creativehum said:

But for some of us, this has little appeal as a plan.

And I get that.

Quote

First, I have no experience playing or running earlier editions of RQ. So I'd be starting from scratch as much as I'm starting from scratch with RQG.

Wich makes it even, except that you already own RQG.

Quote

This matters because there is a lot to love in RQG. The Traits, Passions, seasonal phases, and all the deep integration of Glorantha into the game and mechanics. I love all this stuff.

I don't blame you, I've seen traits, passions, a epic timeline, and deep integration with the setting in Pendragon, and when it works it can be awesome. But the thing is in Pendragon, the majority of the people running it can understand the basic game mechanics. Things like how hit points works, multiple actions, ultra high skills, and such are clearly explained and most people can agree on how a rule was intended to be used.  People might houserule some things, but generally the RAW is pretty clear. 

But not so with RQG. There seem to be more posts trying to figure out the  RQG game mechanics in the past six months than for all the other incarnations of  Chasoium's RQ and Chaosium's various BRP spin offs combined, over the entire life of this forum. The game has been out for six months, yet we have pages and pages of threads with people all trying to figure out how to do very basic things, most of which are still unresolved. We have a thread where people are trying to figure out just what the designers intentions are as to how hit locations are supposed to work. We have this thread where we are all trying to figure out the various ramifications of combining attack & parry into one skill,  skills over 100%, multiple opponents, cumulative parries, and which modifiers count towards the over 100% rule and which do not. 

I have seen traits, passions, a phased time line and a deep integration of a setting with the game mechanics. In Pendragon, where the system works and where most people who run it generally understand the game mechanics.  I've also seen RuneQuest without such things, where again, most people who run it generally understand the game mechanics.  

 

Quote

I really have no desire to cut and paste various editions of RQ to try to make my own version. I have plenty of other games where I don't have to do this.

And there is where the problem lies. There are indeed plenty of games where you don't have to try and make your own version. Unforntualty, RQG doesn't seem to be one of them. It's gotten to the point where some standard responses to questions about how to do thing come down to "whatever way you prefer". Like it or not, your stuck trying to make your own version.

 

Quote

Now, I think (but am not certain) you still have not read or even skimmed RQG. Not that you have any obligation to purchase it.

No I haven't read it or skimmed it yet,. I have asked questions about it here (as you are no doubt aware) out of both curiosity and concern for RQ. I have no intention of purchasing RQG until I see posts from more people who understand it, and generally agree about how things in it are supposed to work. It worries me that people who have been playing one version or RQ/BPR etc for decades are still puzzled over stuff that is very basic, generally cut & dried, in earlier BRP games. 

Quote

But to keep dismissing it without having seen what someone like me find appealing about it keeps confounding me.

And to keep praising it when no one outside of Chasoium even knows how to run or play it confounds me. Ultimately it doesn't matter what great new thing or other is in the game if nobody can figure out how to actually play it. 

What RQG needs are some clear concise actual examples of play than resolves all these questions. But until everyone knows how something like hit location damage is supposed to work, those who want to play it are stuck. Either they houserule something or they don't play it. And when there are lots of things to houserule, they end up making their own version. 

Now, I didn't say that you had to roll back to an earlier edition. I can can certainly understand why you would want to stick with the edition that you bought. I can also sympathize with you and all the other RQG fans for liking the things you do about the game and actually wanting to play it. In my eyes you all the victims here. You genuinely like the game, want to play it, and would like to have a better understanding of how to do so than you have now. But, until the day comes when somebody can ask a question about the game mechanics and, more often than not,  and get a definitive answer, that is generally the same  from most people , I will dismiss it. I got lots of other great RPGs that I can play, and can wait to see if and when  the bugs get ironed out. 

But if you happy with it and the status quo, by all means enjoy it. If not, then you have to decide what you should do about it. You've got a limited number of options. You can hold off and wait until things get clarified to your satisfaction; you can play something else, or you can try to figure out your own way of handling things. In you are going to do the latter, previous editions can help a great deal.  

 

Quote

If I do settle down to run it I will have to make some decisions about how to interpret and handle certain rules.

You've had the game for six months, want to play it, yet haven't settled down to run it? Is that becuase of rule question or something else? I ask because if people aren't running the game because they don't understand the rules the RQG has a big problem. 

Quote

 

I shouldn't have to do this (it should be an option, not a requirement), but there it is.

I agree, you shouldn't have to. But ultimately if you want to play the game, you are going to need to have "work arounds" for whatever problems you have with the game. What better sources for solutions that other versions of the same game? 

Quote

But I do think there is enough in RQG that might make it worth the effort.

Which is why I keep suggesting looking at RQ3 or RQ2. Why reinvent the wheel? Either of those games are over 85% compatible with RQG and generally have solutions to the things that you are already going to have to make decisions and interpretations about.That's a huge advantage to the GM when the time comes to make a ruling. Not only does it give you a solution, which you are free to reject, but,  the fact that the vast majority of all these game systems are functionally the same helps to establish a precedent. Many of the difficulties that people are having with RQG seem to be  due to text that was cut & pasted from earlier editions, so having the "source" for a given bit of text will help to determine the context, and what the original authors of said text had in mind when they wrote it.  

Edited January 30, 2019 by Atgxtg

[creativehum]

 

There seems to be some confusion here. I have been, consistently, one of the book's biggest critics. From the get go. I've been accused of being too harsh by some of the people here because I consistently point out the problems in the text.

After my frustrations reached a boiling point with the replies from Jeff Richard ("Do whatever, youe want with the rules, they're your rules..." "There is nothing confusing about the text..." "The only people complaining are Grognards...") I picked up a copy of Kill Team. I was simply so frustrated with how Chaosium was responding to Criticism I wanted a game that simply worked.

I am not a fan of the game. I am, however, a fan of the possibility of the game. This might make me a fool...  but it is why I am on the fence about it. (This is I believe the second time you have suggested I am some sort of staunch defender of the game. I am not.)

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

You've had the game for six months, want to play it, yet haven't settled down to run it? Is that becuase of rule question or something else? I ask because if people aren't running the game because they don't understand the rules the RQG has a big problem. 

To sooth your concerns on this matter:

I haven't run it yet because:

1. I simply don't have the time right now to wade through an RPG to figure out how to make it work. The game has a lot of interlocking pieces. My players will all be new to it. I'll be on my own trying to answer confusion about how all those pieces fit together. I want as much of the game clear in my own head before I do that. If I'm going to send time on a game, I want that time to be about making stuff up... not scrying the author's intent.
2. My Monday Night Gaming group is stuffed with games. I am currently running a Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign. But we switch off GMing, with all sorts of games being run on a regular basis.
3. I already have other games that I don't have to figure out that I want to share with my players. Among them is King Arthur Pendragon. (I said somewhere online that since Runequest Glorantha is such a heavy load for me to figure out, I'd rather run KAP. And I've been prepping notes for that.) But there are another dozen RPGs I'd also like to run for the gang... all of which simply work out of the box. So -- even though I really, really want to run a game in Glorantha -- running Runequest Glorantha has not been a priority. 

Setting up a game in Glorantha is something I really want to do. But figuring out which rules to use has become part of the process. Simply haven't figured that out yet.

[PhilHibbs]

2 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Setting up a game in Glorantha is something I really want to do. But figuring out which rules to use has become part of the process. Simply haven't figured that out yet.

That's fair enough. RQG is a tricksy beast, as have all the previous editions of RuneQuest. If you're after something a bit simpler but with great BRP credentials, Elric! is a good substitute. It's what my brother uses for his "crunchy" Gloranthan games, when he's not using HeroQuest, his own Apocalypse World variant, or his Rune Hack (Black Hack inspired super-minimalist RQ).

[creativehum]

Again... the issue is not simplicity or complexity. 

The text of Runequest Glorantha is sloppy. The issue is clarity.

Certain people at Chaosium can continue dismissing the people pointing this out. But that doesn't change Atgxtg's correct observation that this forum is filled with people and posts trying to make sense of the game's text. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

There seems to be some confusion here. I have been, consistently, one of the book's biggest critics. From the get go. I've been accused of being too harsh by some of the people here because I consistently point out the problems in the text.

Oh, I would have put a few people ahread of you there.

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

After my frustrations reached a boiling point with the replies from Jeff Richard ("Do whatever, youe want with the rules, they're your rules..." "There is nothing confusing about the text..." "The only people complaining are Grognards...") I picked up a copy of Kill Team. I was simply so frustrated with how Chaosium was responding to Criticism I wanted a game that simply worked.

Then I suggest stop buying the products. Ultimately, it's sales that drive this, much like other products. If everybody keeps buying the products and telling Chasoium how great things are, then not only will they make more money, but they will get the impression that the majority of people are happy with things. As long as the products sell, then why should they bother to waste thier time fixing anything. especially if they feel that everything is clear and only grognards are complaining. If, on the other hand, their sales drop, and people claim it's because the rules are confusing, then they have a reason to do something about it. But as long as the game is selling like hotcakes, the rest doesn't matter.

It's one of the bad things about RPGs. Companies only make money when people buy the games. If they play them or not, or even like them doesn't matter, as long as the games sell. So if you have complaints and don't like the responses your getting stop buying things from them. Sadly, it really the only thing you can do. One of the reasons why I haven't bought RQG is because doing so simply promotes whatever game they have released. I learned that with MRQ.

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

I am not a fan of the game. I am, however, a fan of the possibility of the game. This might make me a fool...  but it is why I am on the fence about it. (This is I believe the second time you have suggested I am some sort of staunch defender of the game. I am not.)

I don't consider you a fool, just more optimistic about this than I am. The powers that be aren't going to address any of this stuff if they don't think it is a issue, and if they money is rolling in. It would be spending time on a non-existent issue, in their eyes. Why do that when they can spend the time making more supplements that they can sell to make more money? 

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

To sooth your concerns on this matter:

I haven't run it yet because:

1. I simply don't have the time right now to wade through an RPG to figure out how to make it work. The game has a lot of interlocking pieces. My players will all be new to it. I'll be on my own trying to answer confusion about how all those pieces fit together. I want as much of the game clear in my own head before I do that. If I'm going to send time on a game, I want that time to be about making stuff up... not scrying the author's intent.
2. My Monday Night Gaming group is stuffed with games. I am currently running a Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign. But we switch off GMing, with all sorts of games being run on a regular basis.
3. I already have other games that I don't have to figure out that I want to share with my players. Among them is King Arthur Pendragon. (I said somewhere online that since Runequest Glorantha is such a heavy load for me to figure out, I'd rather run KAP. And I've been prepping notes for that.) But there are another dozen RPGs I'd also like to run for the gang... all of which simply work out of the box. So -- even though I really, really want to run a game in Glorantha -- running Runequest Glorantha has not been a priority. 

Setting up a game in Glorantha is something I really want to do. But figuring out which rules to use has become part of the process. Simply haven't figured that out yet.

I haven't bought the game in part for reasons #1 and #3. When I started up a new campaign I had considered RQG, but went with Pendragon for just those reasons. And if I wanted to run a Glorantha campaign, I'd probably go with RQ3 or maybe RQ2 (for Glorantha) for similar reasons. I know how to make those games work, and most rule questions about those games are easily answered, typical in one or two posts. Any text that I can't understand is usually explained by a previous edition, making it fairly easy to work out how a rule is supposed to work. 

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

Again... the issue is not simplicity or complexity. 

The text of Runequest Glorantha is sloppy. The issue is clarity.

Certain people at Chaosium can continue dismissing the people pointing this out. But that doesn't change Atgxtg's correct observation that this forum is filled with people and posts trying to make sense of the game's text. 

Thanks. That's kinda been my point for months. I'm not so much arguing against a particular rule here or there (I will note that some will be game changers, but try not to make a judgment call), but just pointing out how confused people around here seem to be. People who have decades of familiarity with the core system. 

If it true that only grognards are complaining, then where are the majority of RQGers who apparently understand all this stuff? Why aren't they chiming in and setting us straight, they way people do in all the other RPGs? Surely sombeody with a clue would pipe up and spell it all out for us muddled grognards. I think we all love it if one person who understands the RAW could explain this. 

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Atgxtg

[drablak]

I can add my voice to those who have RQG, really like many things about it, like @creativehum mentioned, like passions, etc. but has decided to wait until next year (perhaps) to try to run a game. We have 5 pages of 'Core rules questions' and most of those are still unanswered, and some that were answered are still confusing. For someone new to RQ, it's quite something to grasp (everyone has magic, there are 3 magic systems, lots of spells, etc.). I don't need fuzzy rules. @Atgxtg is right that we need extensive examples of play to make things clear. We need clear and definitive answers to core rule questions.

So this seems like a great system but I'll pass for now. I'm gonna run CoC instead. If things clear with RQG I'll give it another try. @Jeff and @Jason Durall need to address these issues.

[womble]

On 1/29/2019 at 12:11 AM, Atgxtg said:

Or roll back to an earlier version of RQ (RQ2 or RQ3) where most of these problem don't exist. 

And lose all the good changes? Not for me: hybrid, hybrid, hybrid, is my chant!

[womble]

For me, as a 'veteran' of previous D100-y versions of Glorantha, the "filling in the bits that don't work how I like with old ways of doing it" is sufficiently small effort required for me to avail myself of the new concepts that getting additional Chaosium product in the future is pretty much a no-brainer. I accept that there will be things I love, things I can take or leave and things that I'll just discard as retrograde steps.

I still wish they'd grown the combat system rather than engaging in some false nostalgia for a system which got moved past decades ago. I also wish they hadn't copy-pasted bits of rules and elided context without which the included parts of the old rules are incomplete.

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Excuse me if this has missed the point, I’ve not been following all the details of this thread, but I thought that Jason Durall’s answer to an opposed roll question  in the Q&A thread seemed very appropriate for this discussion 

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/8399-runequest-core-rules-questions/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-129321

He's making a complete mess of the mechanics over on that thread. He's suggesting that if you have 200% attack against a 55% parry, then because you lost 100% and they only lost 50%, you could apply the other 50% as a penalty to their attack. Presumably you will be doing that separately with your superior parry skill. What if they already attacked before you did? What if they are attacking someone else? If you are parrying with 200% and 180% against two attackers, do you apply the extra antiparry to their attacks as well, not only reducing their attacks from 55% to 5%, but also both their parries as well? It's a nightmare. Playing loose with the rules is one thing, it's ok for a GM to make a decision that doesn't make sense (or is ok in the situation, but not scalable) every now and then, but suggesting it in an official clarification thread should be done with more care. We've seen this before with Detect Enemies and Countermagic, he makes fast decisions and doesn't think through the consequences.

Edited January 31, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[RosenMcStern]

Perhaps someone could have invited Jason to read this thread before addressing the subject of skill reduction? He complained about lack of time, I doubt he has had the chance to read all of these threads during the last weeks.

 

[Kloster]

21 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Perhaps someone could have invited Jason to read this thread before addressing the subject of skill reduction? He complained about lack of time, I doubt he has had the chance to read all of these threads during the last weeks.

The question asked to Jason had been posted October 22, 3 month before this thread has been started.

[RosenMcStern]

I know. It seems to me that he has (correctly) prioritized answering his "backlog" of official questions over reading these discussions. Reading all of our blahblah posted here could have changed his POV when replying to that old question, though.

Edited January 31, 2019 by RosenMcStern

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Yep the question needs to be put to him again on the Q&A thread with the points raised here. Be good to see the points succinctly put there be someone in the know - We owe it to RunewQuest ✊

 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[RosenMcStern]

I am more in favour of putting a link to this thread. Sometimes brainstorming is more useful than resuming.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

23 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

I am more in favour of putting a link to this thread. Sometimes brainstorming is more useful than resuming.

Yes perhaps, though I think part of the reason for the Q&A is that it’s easier for Jason to see the points raised without having to wade through a long thread. I get the impression that time is a rare commodity for a small team 

Edit: Best of both worlds. Make a clear succinct post with bullet points on the Q&A, and put a link to this post there as well - I did the same for the hit point questions which had contradictory answers from Jason in the Q&A. If Jason can clear things up there, then that will free him up, as we can answer future newbie questions on his behalf. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[womble]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Reading all of our blahblah posted here could have changed his POV when replying to that old question, though.

He shouldn't have had a POV that needed changing. He just needed to clarify what the design intent of the rules was meant to be across a broader range of use cases. So we could ignore it or not. That thread is absoultely the worst place to have the line editor change their mind about how the game is supposed to work.

This thread should be (amongst other things) a place for people to spitball alternative approaches to use if we don't like what Jason states is the original rule more clearly and broadly than was done in the published material.