One nice thing about having a Kink Shelf is that even if you don’t get to play it, reading through one game improves your gamemastering tools in others.
It’s even better yet when the two games are related to one another, like Chaosium’s recent Pendragon 6E and their 2018 RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha (RQG). As I mentioned in passing during my Pendragon Core Rulebook review, the two systems traded many ideas back and forth during their forty-year history. In general, I’d characterize Pendragon as mechanically simpler with a strong focus on a specific roleplaying experience. RuneQuest’s more complex mechanics create a more generalist set of rules for a wider array of game concepts (albeit while retaining a strong emphasis on a single setting, Glorantha).
In particular, RQG borrows a conjoined set of narrative mechanics from Pendragon: Traits and Passions. Arguably, Pendragon originally borrowed these from RuneQuest! A version of Traits—called Personality Factors—were first published in 1981’s Griffin Mountain for RuneQuest 2. (I’m a little fuzzy on the history, but that’s the earliest I know of—please correct me if I’m mistaken!) These were picked up for 1985’s first edition of Pendragon. This in turn led to the publication of a popular “Pendragon Pass” ruleset in the Enclosure fanzine. To my understanding this was basically “Pendragon with extra Glorantha bits.”
My personal knowledge of the trail goes cold around 2000. Pendragon continues to have new editions. RuneQuest goes down the Mongoose branch, developing eventually into Mythras. Meanwhile Glorantha is attached to Hero Wars and its list of admired-but-unsuccessful children, the fourth edition (?) of which is Chaosium’s forthcoming QuestWorlds. I don’t know the extent to which ideas are traded back and forth—if at all—in between Pendragon 2E and RuneQuest 3, and Pendragon 6E and RQG.
However, RQG re-introduced two Pendragon mechanics in its own way. Passions are what they say on the tin, whereas Traits became implemented as RQG’s Rune affinities. In particular, the opposed Power Runes and Form Runes are quite similar to Pendragon’s opposed Traits. Yes, there are some substantial differences. A Player-knight can’t cast Flight with his Reckless trait (Movement Rune).
Why all this history?
Well, it provides the mechanics with context. (I mean, I do think it’s just plain interesting, but that’s because I’m a nerd.) It also helps illuminate why I found reading Pendragon 6E to be helpful, and why I encourage other RuneQuest gamemasters to do the same.
Narrative Mechanics in Pendragon
Pendragon 6E’s narrative mechanics are given a hefty 34 pages for development and explanation in the Core Rulebook. It’s the longest chapter in the book, and with good reason: Traits and Passions are central to playing Pendragon. Stafford uses them to shape Pendragon’s roleplay experience with precision.
Players interact with their Traits and Passions using a mixture of simple tests, opposed rolls, and comparisons to a flat value. In most circumstances, if a Player-knight fails their Trait roll, they roll against its opposite to see if they’re influenced instead in the opposite direction. For example, in The Grey Knight if the Player-knights defeat Sir Vardilain, inviting him to yield requires a Merciful roll. If that fails, the Player-knight rolls against Cruel to see if they’re determined to kill the fallen foe. This creates a concrete and measurable back-and-forth in a Player-knight’s personality. Since one adventure is played per in-game year, Pendragon’sArthurian saga shows players how their knights are changed by adventure and age.
Traits can be modified by Passions, and vice versa. For example, a knight with Cowardly 14 might rely on their Adoration (Queen Guenever) 17 to give them courage during a tournament. This functions as a roll against the Adoration which, if successful, reduces the knight’s Cowardly. Because Traits are opposed, reducing Cowardly also bolsters this knight’s Valorous—they are inspired by love! In a similar way, tests of a Passion might require rolling one half of a Player-knight’s conjoined Traits if they fail the roll. This depends to some extent on gamemaster adjudication and the roleplay context.
While Traits are within opposed pairs, Passions are not. Instead, the Passions are organized into four Courts: Fidelitas, Fervor, Adoratio, and Civilitas. A Player-knight’s total Passions in a single court can’t exceed 40. Essentially, there’s a limit to how intensely one can feel in certain ways (with a handful of modifying exceptions, like the critical bonus or Directed Passions).
Passions can be invoked to gain a modifier during relevant situations—analogous to rolling for an augment in RQG—but Traits, generally, cannot. However, whenever a Passion is invoked there remains the risk of Madness on a fumbled roll. Various types of Madness are described, and the duration of a bout of Madness depends on the intensity of one’s Passion.
Put together, this system is well-designed to create the dramas of Arthurian legend. For example, in Le Morte Darthur Sir Lancelot is repeatedly banished by Queen Guenever, driven half-mad, then performs some heroic deed which provides an opportunity to explain the circumstances for his seeming betrayal of their love.
RuneQuest Insights
How does this compare to the use of Runes and Passions in RuneQuest?
In general, my takeaways for RQG revolve around how central these mechanics are to Pendragon. Runes, obviously, are very important to RQG but my experience is that Passions get a bit left by the side of the road. In addition, there’s a tendency among my players and myself to view Runes as “something you have” rather than “something you are.”
I don’t think that’s the design intent behind RQG. I do think the intent is for RQG’s narrative mechanics to be central in the way that they’re central to Pendragon. It may just be that I’m dense, but it took reading Pendragon (and playing a bit) to get some fairly obvious principles into my skull.
Power Runes are Internal
There’s a tendency in groups I’ve played in—both as gamemaster and as player—to be comfortable handling augments on the Elemental Runes. If you’re wielding a spear or bow, that’s the Fire/Sky Rune. That feels straightforward because it’s concrete, material.
We’ve taken this mental attitude and applied it to the opposed Power and Form Runes as well. Not in the sense of “I’m holding something mobile, so I can use the Movement Rune.” More like “I’m trying to Dodge, so the Movement Rune applies, yeah?” These Runes aren’t as “material” or “substantial” as the Elemental Runes, though, so the fit is a bit messy.
The distinction which recently “clicked” for me, though, is between activity and intent. We had been treating Power augments based on if the activity matched—like Dodge, or like using Illusion because you’re trying to deceive. Instead, comparison to Pendragon is leading me to emphasize the adventurer’s intent in more recent sessions, with improved thematic appeal. For example, if an adventurer uses Fast Talk to deceive someone intending to rip them off and get some silver, that’s probably Disorder (selfishness), not Illusion (moral relativism). That’s the ethical distinction between “it may be wrong, but I don’t care” and “is theft really wrong, anyway?”
Looking back to RQG’s adventurer creation chapter, this “internalizing” element is certainly in the opposed Rune affinities. While being aware that Rune affinities were the source of an adventurer’s personality, it took Pendragon for that to sink into my head and understand it more clearly. I think that’s why I misled myself in the activity/intent dichotomy.
Constraints Strengthen Passions
A common complaint I hear from players is that the RQG adventurer sheet lacks sufficient space for all the Passions generated during adventurer creation. My own experience agrees, based on when I’ve created adventurers—Honor plus seven blanks isn’t enough space.
The restriction of Pendragon’s Courts and the lower initial value of new Passions provides constraints such that a Player-knight’s Passions are fewer and more significant. Likewise, the variety and specificity of downsides due to Madness emphasizes how strongly Passions impact a character. Combined with the fact that players can only use Passions—not Traits—to augment their abilities, this makes Passions a tempting and engaging narrative mechanic.
Beginning RQG Passions begin at 60%. In Pendragon, new Passions begin at 1D6+6 (equivalent to 35–60%). Mechanically, in Pendragon fumbles are more likely at this range, along with critical successes (both happen about 5% of dice rolls unless the ability has a critical bonus). Currently, I think this flat starting value impedes the extent to which players value different Passions. Looking at an adventurer sheet, they all look sort of … similar.
For example, my RuneQuest trickster Illostan has:
- Devotion (Laughter) 68%
- Hate (Lanaast) 65%
- Love (Ulanina of the Dundaleos) 60%
- Loyalty (Turtle Clan) 75%
In contrast, the Arthurian knight I’ve played for the last few weeks, Sir Clefford, has:
- Honor 14
- Love (family) 17
- Love (Lady Trish) 11
- Hate (Saxons) 7
(Pendragon 5.2E rather than 6E due to the gamemaster’s preference, but there are no meaningful differences for this example.)
I’ve played the trickster for around 130 sessions, and I view those Passions as pretty essential to the adventurer’s personality. Especially Hate (Lanaast)—I’m really looking forward to putting that bastard into the dirt. The first time I murdered him might be the most intense roleplaying experience I’ve had at any table. Yet, they’re really not that different from a base Passion’s value. Looking at Illostan’s whole list of accrued Passions, the only one which really sticks out is Loyalty (Turtle Clan).
Sir Clefford, however, has quite a bit of diversity in his Passions. He has others (though fewer, since I’ve only played him three or so sessions) but looking at the page his values and attachments seem more distinct. In particular, his low Hate (Saxons) really makes him stand out in our group of Player-knights. I hate Saxons, sure, but it’s like an off-hand, casual hatred compared to Sir Moried’s intense bloodlust.
Restricted quantity and more diverse quality of Passions makes them more interesting. RuneQuest’s experience system, I suspect, is one cause of this hindrance. Improving +1D6% is comparable to about half of a 1-point increase from experience in Pendragon. So a Passion which is used frequently doesn’t necessarily raise high enough to stick out during a visual skim of the page. The same might apply to Rune affinities.
A related challenge is figuring out when and how Passions go down. This is something I’ve seen a moderate amount of discussion about in the RQG fan community over the years. For example, if 60% is “starting” and 80% is “mandatory actions,” when you’re indifferent is your effective Passion 50%? 40%? The likelihood that repeated fumbles will cause Despair to reduce a Passion all the way to 0% feels rather small considering the concomitant progression upward via experience checks.
Use More Narrative Mechanics
RQG’s core rules do include narrative mechanics utilizing the Runes and Passions which are comparable to those in Pendragon. However, they do seem less emphasized due to the great deal of description and advice which the latter game provides. More frequent use of RQG’s narrative mechanics—such as a Magical Test to enter the Court of Silence (RQG 230)—should strengthen these thematic elements in my players’ perspective.
Likewise, I feel I have a much better grasp on the subsequent Conflicting Runes section’s design intent after reading Pendragon. The notion of “deep self-introspection” is more clear to me in light of its historical context as a borrowing from Pendragon’s use of Traits. The strength of Traits is in emulating Arthurian literature; while nothing with the power of Le Morte Darthur or The Once and Future King exists for Glorantha, having a point of literary reference improves my understanding of how such a conflict plays out.
As a tangent, Robert E. Howard’s original Conan stories may provide meaningful context for Gloranthan emotional drama. After all, “The Phoenix on the Sword” opens with the claim Conan to be “a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth” (The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian, page 7). Yet my memory of the Conan tales does not recall his internal emotional conflict as a centerpiece. Some useful (but less accessible) ancient literary comparisons would be Gilgamesh’s conflict after the death of Enkidu, or the loves and obligations which tear apart Creon in Sophocles’s Antigone.
A mechanical aspect where RuneQuest and Pendragon stumble upon one another is opposed rolls. In Pendragon, opposed rolls rarely tie; in RuneQuest, ties are common. When dealing with Runic conflicts or mandatory rolls, I think a Pendragon-style house rule might improve clarity.
If two Runes and/or Passions are opposed, roll the first as an augment and apply the result as a bonus or penalty to the second.
For example, in an opposition of Air Rune 60% (representing violence) and Harmony Rune 80% (representing mercy), the player might first roll Air and then—assuming they don’t want to accept their foe’s surrender—use the result to reduce their rating in the Harmony Rune. If they succeed in the Air Rune, their Harmony Rune is down to 60% to be merciful and accept surrender. Another option might be that, the Harmony Rune dropping below 80%, the adventurer is no longer restricted by the rule about mandatory Rune and Passion rolls.
While it’s still not entirely clear to me how I want to implement more narrative mechanics into my RQG games, the goal feels pretty solid. I also feel I have a better understanding of why some adventures state things like “the adventurers Passions are tested” when the text—to my reading—makes minimal reference to Passions and drama (Gamemaster Adventures, page 4). There’s a fair bit of Pendragon subtext beneath those sections of the adventures, which I had been missing.
Madness Should Matter
In RQG a fumbled Rune or Passion results in Psychic Turmoil or Despair, respectively. Both last a comparable amount of time, and have similar in-game effects. About a sentence of advice or directions are given to the player in both cases.
In comparison Pendragon’s description of Madness is quite extensive, dedicating several sections to types of Madness, its duration, and its cures. This is in addition to the less pervasive afflictions of Melancholy or Misery. These substantial downsides create dramatic story consequences for the voluntary and involuntary invocation of Passions (such as the death of a loved one to disease or age in the Winter Phase).
It’s important to note that Pendragon takes place within a context of “one adventure per year.” Consequently, running off to be mad in the woods for a few months isn’t really a long-term impact on the Player-knight. It just means they’re out of that adventure, as if slain.
On the other hand RQG plays one adventure per season. The RQG campaign pace is somewhat slower than in Pendragon. The game’s structure has a more “simulationist” bent due to scheduled holy days, specific time requirements to learn spells, etc. If an adventurer’s Despair lasts for several weeks, they may lose the opportunity to replenish Rune points or even participate in the next adventure.
Despair and Psychic Turmoil have, to be honest, always slightly bored me. The specific consequences of Madness in Pendragon make it more exciting. There’s a strong connection between the risks and the rewards of intense Passions. RQG’s randomized table for the extent of these downsides undermines the roleplay experience of “intense emotion” behind, say, a Hate Passion with a rating of 90%. Again, it feels that there’s some assumed familiarity with Pendragon behind the RQG text. As a gamemaster, I better understand RQG’s intent behind these mechanics by comparison to the game’s cousin.
Impulsive Final Thoughts
Do RQG’s Passions need to be percentile? What about the Rune affinities?
Most of the game’s abilities are, sure. But what if they were on a 20-point scale? The characteristics already are, more or less (and that’s basically the intent of the resistance table after all). Put on a 20-point scale, Passions and Runes might feel like a fundamental, “intrinsic” part of the adventurer in the same way that their STR or POW is subjectively fundamental.
After all, in most games characteristics are the first thing a player generates for a new character. RQG begins with Family History, but in my perception that’s very much not typical. Most new players I’ve played with still see characteristics as the “core” of their character, not their Family History or their Runes, due to prior experiences with other systems.
Put on a 20-point scale, these abilities could change more readily than the percentile skills, and could be used in resistance rolls against one another to handle conflict. However, there does emerge a serious question: if we do that, why don’t we just play Pendragon Pass and get it over with?
And I do like the more incremental, piecemeal feel of the Basic Roleplaying percentile gameplay.
Analogous to the above, what would RuneQuest look like if the only abilities which could be used for augments were Passions? Even without augments Runes still matter for your magic. Augments are an important way to gain experience checks in Rune affinities with a low rating, but increased use of personality conflicts and other tests might offset the loss of augments.
One reason Passions really stick out in Pendragon is that they’re an important—but risky—player tool. I suspect that design principle could be effective for RQG. It would also reduce the quantity of rolls performed for each game action at the table, since Runes and skills could no longer augment other abilities.
Reflecting, I quite like that.
In particular, a major use of Rune augments in my game has been to augment POW resistance rolls. Restricting this to only Passions—so you could use Love (family) to try saving your life from a Lightning spell, or Hate (Lanaast) to finally clobber that jerk with Multispell’d Disruptions—would center them in the player’s mind. Instead of “Oh, I have a list of 60–70% Passions I kind of care about,” the player might view those Passions as valuable tools which explain why they adventure and help them adventure for a purpose.
TLDR: If you play RuneQuest, read Pendragon. The narrative mechanics will make more sense, and it’ll probably inspire additional ideas about how to play and/or gamemaster your RuneQuest campaigns.
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. Or head over to DriveThruRPG to peruse his publications!
You can also find Austin over on Facebook, and increasingly more often on Twitter.
Akhelas 