Rune binding query

[Balbinus]

So,

With binding runes. The rules say you can't remove someone's rune, but they also seem to indicate that they are physical objects that you bind to.

What stops enemies just taking them away? You've then sacrificed a pow for nothing, your magic is gone, if they chuck it in the sea you'll never find it again.

Bit unclear to me this bit.

 

[Vadrus]

Aye that's the way it reads. If someone takes your rune the only way to cast the associated spells is to find another and re-integrate it at the cost of another point of POW.

There also doesn't seem to be a limit to the number of runes a person can have, so don't annoy the rich merchant as he's likely to have bought a stack of them and have bonuses from here to next week :shock: Any noble family worth their salt would also have a large collection passed through the family.

The idea seems like a first draft and not a fully thought out idea, simple things like would you be able to integrate opposing runes (i.e. light and dark) are not answered.


Vadrus

 

[MongooseMatt]

The idea seems like a first draft and not a fully thought out idea, simple things like would you be able to integrate opposing runes (i.e. light and dark) are not answered.

To be fair, that sounds like a presumption, rather than a fully thought out idea.

There is no reasojn you cannot integrate both of those runes. . .

 

[H]

Aye that's the way it reads. If someone takes your rune the only way to cast the associated spells is to find another and re-integrate it at the cost of another point of POW.

There also doesn't seem to be a limit to the number of runes a person can have, so don't annoy the rich merchant as he's likely to have bought a stack of them and have bonuses from here to next week :shock: Any noble family worth their salt would also have a large collection passed through the family.

The idea seems like a first draft and not a fully thought out idea, simple things like would you be able to integrate opposing runes (i.e. light and dark) are not answered.


Vadrus

um, your power limits them, and common sense. if you have power 18, and integrate 18 runes, you have now pow left so can't cast spells? that sounds pretty darn limiting to me.

 

[Vadrus]

um, your power limits them, and common sense. if you have power 18, and integrate 18 runes, you have now pow left so can't cast spells? that sounds pretty darn limiting to me.

Except you'd have been using hero points to get POW raises in the meantime, no point having spells if you had no MP to cast them :roll:


Vadrus

 

[Vadrus]

The idea seems like a first draft and not a fully thought out idea, simple things like would you be able to integrate opposing runes (i.e. light and dark) are not answered.

To be fair, that sounds like a presumption, rather than a fully thought out idea.

There is no reasojn you cannot integrate both of those runes. . .

Ah another part for the Gloratha book, or are Stormbull characters going to be happy integrating Chaos runes, Yelmalions darkness runes and trolls light runes, etc ?


Vadrus

 

[SteveMND]

To be fair, that sounds like a presumption, rather than a fully thought out idea.

Matt, I understand you've been on spin-control duty the past couple of days, but maybe you could answer the question posed as opposed to merely defending the game's design decisions?

I absolutely loved the idea of rune-based magic, although I'm not sure the aproach decided upon by Mongoose is the one that suits my needs best. Regardless, there are some question that could benefit greatly from some official clarification...

Ah another part for the Gloratha book, or are Stormbull characters going to be happy integrating Chaos runes, Yelmalions darkness runes and trolls light runes, etc ?

I suspect that sort of stuff will be more in the Glorantha book; remember, as an OGL product, the basic rulebook has to be somewhat 'generic,' and the issue of whether specific cults or paths allow conflicting runes is more of a 'flavor' thing as opposed to a 'mechanics' thing.

After all, who'se to say Light and Dark are opposing (in a cosmological sense). In someone's campaign, they may be opposite side of the same force, and thus would easily go hand-in-hand by a master of that force...

 

[Urox]

The idea seems like a first draft and not a fully thought out idea, simple things like would you be able to integrate opposing runes (i.e. light and dark) are not answered.

To be fair, that sounds like a presumption, rather than a fully thought out idea.

There is no reasojn you cannot integrate both of those runes. . .

The I hear about runes, the more munchkin they sound.

PC1: I have a +5 Sword of Broo Slaying, top that!
PC2: I have a Chaos Rune!
PC1: Ooooh... Ahhhh...

Runic opposition does exist in Glorantha -- for example the Dara Happans who worship both the sun and the moon.*

As for some of the contentious runes, say light and dark, I see no problem integrating them at a heroic level (something that Arkat would do).

*well, I guess they are not really in contention as one is upper sky and the other middle sky. I suspect some of the co-opted Orlanthi in the Lunar Empire would be a better example.

 

[iamtim]

Ah another part for the Gloratha book, or are Stormbull characters going to be happy integrating Chaos runes, Yelmalions darkness runes and trolls light runes, etc ?

That's exactly it; probably a Glorantha book thing. You have to keep in mind that while MRQ assumes Glorantha, it is a generic RQ rulebook. As we've seen with Trolls, not everything in the RQ book is going to conform to Gloranthan standards; that's why there's a separate Glorantha book coming out.

 

[iamtim]

Runic opposition does exist in Glorantha -- for example the Dara Happans who worship both the sun and the moon.*

In Glorantha, yes. In generic RQ, maybe not.

 

[Vadrus]

Ah another part for the Gloratha book, or are Stormbull characters going to be happy integrating Chaos runes, Yelmalions darkness runes and trolls light runes, etc ?

That's exactly it; probably a Glorantha book thing. You have to keep in mind that while MRQ assumes Glorantha, it is a generic RQ rulebook. As we've seen with Trolls, not everything in the RQ book is going to conform to Gloranthan standards; that's why there's a separate Glorantha book coming out.

Aye and I accept that, probably my inate bias against generic systems showing through, I prefer games to have rules than emphasise the feel of the setting rather than being lumped on top and hammered into place.


Vadrus

 

[MongooseMatt]

[ maybe you could answer the question posed as opposed to merely defending the game's design decisions?

Fair enough - the answer is nothing. Nothing is to stop an enemy robbing you of a rune and chucking it in the sea, other than your own mettle.

Think about that for a moment, from the point of view of player characters. . . and then of their opponents. . .

 

[SteveMND]

I think he meant that the rules also say that you can't have your rune removed from you, which seems at odds with the idea of a physical, stealable rune. I think that was his concern:

"Runes may not normally be removed once integrated, though it is possible that particularly powerful magic would be able to part a character from his rune (without killing him)."

That certainly sounds as if they are talking about the physical rune being unable to be parted with.

I guessing that the rules mean that once integrated, you can't lose that integration, although the rune itself could be removed...? If so, hopefully elsewhere in the rules such a thing is made more clear.

 

[Urox]

Matt, I understand you've been on spin-control duty the past couple of days, but maybe you could answer the question posed as opposed to merely defending the game's design decisions?

Oooh opposed skills! With the halving rule, you might just be able to get answer through his high resistance!

 

[Rurik]

I think the rules are pretty clear. You must have the rune or runes necessary for a spell to cast it. If your enemies take your rune, you can't cast the spells it is required for. Moral of the story: Protect your Runes.

Once a Rune is integrated it cannot be unintegrated easily is what the passage about removing a rune is referring to.

There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from integrating two opposing runes. However, in my game, if you are a Storm Bull and integrate the Chaos rune, your god is going to abandon you and your old homeys are going to give you a beating out you won't forget for the rest of your life.

Which might be quite short.

 

[Vadrus]

[ maybe you could answer the question posed as opposed to merely defending the game's design decisions?

Fair enough - the answer is nothing. Nothing is to stop an enemy robbing you of a rune and chucking it in the sea, other than your own mettle.

Think about that for a moment, from the point of view of player characters. . . and then of their opponents. . .

Aye, most folk would just kill you and keep or sell the rune.


Vadrus

 

[Balbinus]

I think he meant that the rules also say that you can't have your rune removed from you, which seems at odds with the idea of a physical, stealable rune. I think that was his concern:

"Runes may not normally be removed once integrated, though it is possible that particularly powerful magic would be able to part a character from his rune (without killing him)."

That certainly sounds as if they are talking about the physical rune being unable to be parted with.

I guessing that the rules mean that once integrated, you can't lose that integration, although the rune itself could be removed...? If so, hopefully elsewhere in the rules such a thing is made more clear.

That was exactly what I meant, Rurik's answer below yours answers it for me.

Thanks everyone, much appreciated.

 

[Rurik]

I had interpreted what they meant correctly, but can easily see how someone could have misunderstood that passage.

Another one for the errata and second printing.

 

[ChesterDesmond]

Hi all, I'm new here

It would appear that the proof-reading of the "core" rulebook was pretty much non-existent since so many ambiguous passages still exist.

"Runes may not normally be removed once integrated" is sadly just loose language. If you replace the word "removed" with "unintegrated" you get the correct meaning. But why use the word "removed" in the first place?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Here's how I'm going to do it.

Once you have integrated a Rune it is fused with your spirit, the physical object the rune came from becomes just an ordinary object, or crumbles to dust.

To use a spell you must have a focus that has the rune carved/written etc. upon it.
An enemy could take this from you and you would have to prepare a new focus rune before you could cast the spell again.

If your enemy kills you then the runes you had integrated may be looted from your corpse - they may be in your blood, hair, teeth etc.