RosenMcStern
Mongoose
Judging from the last comments that have appeared on this forum, the majority of the community has somehow adapted to the Mongoose ruleset. There is still a lot of stuff that requirese fixes, but these are on the way according to Matt Sprange. There are points that are houseruled away by almost everyone, but that's fine. I never use armor penalties and armor-bypassing precise blows, for instance, as many others do. The two games I played at Tentacles, both the one I GMed and the one where I played an elf, went rather fine.
There is, however, a point that totally spoils the MRQ rules when used for Glorantha. I would like to discuss it here, as I want to run a Second Age Glorantha game sooner or later, and I prefer that my houserules are as similar to "Generally Accepted tweaks" as possible.
I got the Player's Guide to Glorantha at Tentacles (thanks for the prize, Fabian!), and it has a nice chapter on the reasons why one should capture a defeated enemy and allow its friends to ransom him instead of just killing him. One thing that I appreciated in the old RQ scenarios for Glorantha was that there was a ransom value set for each NPC, encouraging the GM and players to practice captive exchange or ransom. This is covered in detail in the new rules, too. However, no matter how well written is the chapter about ransoms in the PGtG book, IMO there is no way a GM can persuade his players to spare a non-chaotic enemy's life. The reason is quite simple: runes.
Most theist opponents that your party meets will have one or more runes integrated, with the leader having usually four or five at least. Given the recent discussion on the price of runes on this list (2000 sp each at least), this means that a foe's runes are usually worh much more than his weaponry and armour, not to mention the fact that runes are usually not sold at temples, so their actual value to the PCs is even higher. Considering that the suggested ransom value for a strong warrior is 2000, and the rules clearly stated that the rune cannot be reattuned until the original owner is dead, what sort of idiot would ransom a foe for money when killing him outright provides at least five times more value in magic items? Whether you are a powerplayer or not, killing is the most profitable solution here.
I think the problem here is the strict connection between reattuning and original owner being dead. If the rules allowed a character to forfeit their runes, that would be a nice incentive to ransom, instead ("You have bested me in honourable combat, so I'll grant you a portion of my Orlanthi magic if you send me back to my family"). To be fully effective, however, the rule change should also include some means to "curse" a rune so that your enemies cannot attune it if they take it from you, making ransom a more viable option for them.
Any opinions? I would like to hear how others who have already played in Second Age Glorantha manage this kind of situation.
There is, however, a point that totally spoils the MRQ rules when used for Glorantha. I would like to discuss it here, as I want to run a Second Age Glorantha game sooner or later, and I prefer that my houserules are as similar to "Generally Accepted tweaks" as possible.
I got the Player's Guide to Glorantha at Tentacles (thanks for the prize, Fabian!), and it has a nice chapter on the reasons why one should capture a defeated enemy and allow its friends to ransom him instead of just killing him. One thing that I appreciated in the old RQ scenarios for Glorantha was that there was a ransom value set for each NPC, encouraging the GM and players to practice captive exchange or ransom. This is covered in detail in the new rules, too. However, no matter how well written is the chapter about ransoms in the PGtG book, IMO there is no way a GM can persuade his players to spare a non-chaotic enemy's life. The reason is quite simple: runes.
Most theist opponents that your party meets will have one or more runes integrated, with the leader having usually four or five at least. Given the recent discussion on the price of runes on this list (2000 sp each at least), this means that a foe's runes are usually worh much more than his weaponry and armour, not to mention the fact that runes are usually not sold at temples, so their actual value to the PCs is even higher. Considering that the suggested ransom value for a strong warrior is 2000, and the rules clearly stated that the rune cannot be reattuned until the original owner is dead, what sort of idiot would ransom a foe for money when killing him outright provides at least five times more value in magic items? Whether you are a powerplayer or not, killing is the most profitable solution here.
I think the problem here is the strict connection between reattuning and original owner being dead. If the rules allowed a character to forfeit their runes, that would be a nice incentive to ransom, instead ("You have bested me in honourable combat, so I'll grant you a portion of my Orlanthi magic if you send me back to my family"). To be fully effective, however, the rule change should also include some means to "curse" a rune so that your enemies cannot attune it if they take it from you, making ransom a more viable option for them.
Any opinions? I would like to hear how others who have already played in Second Age Glorantha manage this kind of situation.
that the former bearer has completed his purpose as intended by the god in question, so the rune may be passed on to a new bearer; and (rule reasoning
