RuneQuest’s Unwritten Rules

I love RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha (RQG), but it’s hard to claim that the game is “simple.” With features such as two task resolution systems, three magic systems, and inconsistent circumstantial bonuses or penalties, any argument for “simplicity” would be based on my familiarity with the system rather than its actual properties. That said, rules complexity isn’t categorically a flaw! Even if some portions of the tabletop gaming community are in ardent disagreement.

RQG‘s complexity runs in parallel with the system’s robust internal logic. Providing ability rolls and resistance rolls as two ways to resolve situations offers the gamemaster with rules options. Choosing the most useful rules option can help shape the game’s narrative. Drawing on RQG‘s “simulationist” roots, these task resolution options model whether a situation focuses on an adventurer’s intrinsic traits (like their POW characteristic), or their learned abilities (like their Fire Rune or their Broadsword skill). While robustness certainly is not the sole cause of RQG‘s complexity, this game design objective naturally increases it. Like most complex topics, RQG‘s complexity emerges from a combination of elements in the core rules. For example, the desire to be backwards-compatible with 1979’s RuneQuest 2 or the system’s (in my opinion excessive) fondness for spot rules in spell descriptions.

Among the causes of RQG‘s complexity, my experience teaching the game to newcomers taught me that a significant factor is unwritten rules. These are consistent elements of RQG which aren’t actually published in the books. While they usually have a small impact on gameplay, these rules assumptions add up throughout the game line. The result is reduced clarity and increased frustration for new players.

As a creator for RQG I’ve stumbled across a fair number of unwritten rules. While producing Monster of the Month I spent a fair bit of energy trying to understand how the Glorantha Bestiary‘s non-player characters, creatures, and monsters were designed.

With these articles, my goal is to help smooth over some of the bumps for newbies to RQG. “Unwritten Rules” are especially aimed at aspiring gamemasters and Jonstown Compendium creators who want to improve their understanding of how the game’s unwritten mechanics explain the published designs. This isn’t going to be an organized series—I don’t have a list laying around—but I’ll just write up an article whenever one catches my brain.

This week we’re going to look at damage bonuses in the Glorantha Bestiary. There’s two basic types of variant damage bonuses in RQG‘s creature design. They’re consistent throughout the game, but aren’t explained because RQG lacks a chapter on monster design—like the chapter in the Dungeon Master’s Guide for Dungeons & Dragons.

---

Reduced Damage Bonus

A number of creatures have either a halved damage bonus or no damage bonus applied to one of their attacks. This is typically the case with secondary natural attacks, like a Bite. There are three variations:

• The damage bonus’s die size is halved
• The quantity of damage bonus dice is halved
• The damage bonus does not apply

The first variation is analogous to the rule for javelins and slings. If it’s a thrown weapon, use half the character’s damage bonus. For example, Vasana’s +1D4 damage bonus is halved to +1D2 if she makes a ranged attack by throwing a javelin. One creature that uses this variant is the magisaur. A “mediocris” magisaur’s damage bonus of +2D6 is halved to +2D3 when attacking with a Bite. According to the Glorantha Bestiary‘s footnote, reducing the die size this way constitutes “halving” the damage bonus.

One creature that uses the second variation is the hadrosaur. For example, a hadrosaur’s Bite has a damage bonus of +2D6, while its Kick has +4D6. Intuitively I feel this is the most common variation, but I’ll admit I can’t be arsed to re-skim the entire Bestiary and do the math. There’s no additional note in the rules about this change.

I keep these variations in mind as a writer and gamemaster when rolling up randomized versions of a creature. If the creature’s base damage bonus varies from the Glorantha Bestiary‘s average, I’ll need to adjust the damage of secondary attacks.

The third variation is easier, because I don’t have to actually adjust anything. For example, an average hippogriff’s damage bonus is +2D6, but their Bite attack has no modifier. Thus, if I randomize a hippogriff I don’t have to make sure I’ve adjusted the Bite damage.

Some people will probably say they don’t see the point in this attention to detail. That’s cool—do whatever you see fit. I enjoy striving for accuracy this way because I feel it makes Austin’s Glorantha more consistent for my players. This is a small example, but over time incongruities do add up.

---

Increased Damage Bonus

A very common unwritten rule in the Bestiary is that a Trample attack’s damage is double the quantity of dice in the creature’s damage bonus. This is exemplified from brontosaurs to mammoths. This is notated simply as the total dice pool. For example, a bison’s damage bonus is +3D6, and the Trample attack deals “6D6 to downed foe” (Bestiary, page 153).

This does introduce a noteworthy ambiguity. A crushing special deals extra damage equal to a maximum roll on the creature’s damage modifier. With the Trample notation, it’s not clear if the “damage bonus” is 6D6 for this attack (dealing 6D6+36 on a special!), if the bison’s damage bonus is used only to calculate the Trample’s base damage (but is an exception to normal damage rules), or if the Trample base damage ought to be read as “3D6+3D6,” with +18 damage on a special success (the maximum roll for the bison’s damage bonus).

In most circumstances a special Trample is going to simply wreck whatever location it hits. However, I encourage gamemasters to think about the topic and decide in advance how to handle the situation. Players care a lot about their adventurers, after all. Creatures with smaller damage bonuses (like horses) or adventurers protected by Shield can produce situations where how the special’s damage is calculated determines whether an adventurer lives or dies.

Being able to apply a ruling consistently to a situation left open-ended by the RQG rulebook, in my experience, reduces discussions or arguments about the rules. This helps everyone stay immersed in the fun.

---

I hope this article helped explain some of RQG‘s internal logic! If you’d find more “unwritten rules” features interesting, please do let me know—I enjoy trying to make RQG more accessible, especially if readers find it interesting.

Until next week, then!

---

Want to keep up-to-date on what Austin’s working on through Akhelas? Go ahead and sign up to the email list below. You’ll get a notification whenever a new post goes online. Interested in supporting his work? Back his Patreon for early articles, previews, behind-the-scenes data, and more.

You can also find Austin over on Facebook, and a bit more rarely on Twitter.