Magic, Ritual and Mechanics

[Daredevil]

I've recently strated playing (GMing) Heroquest in Gloranthan campaign, and some things still confuse me, mostly due to being quite new to the setting. One of these issues involves the frequent mention of ritual magic (and I'm not sure if I am using that term to mean the mechanical ritual magic described in the Heroquest book) in the Gloranthan material.

Quite often, frex. the Orlanthi do conduct ritualistic worship to ensure a desired outcome, such as a better crop yield, to appease the spirits, etc. The problem here is the following: From the setting material alone, which often states these things quite off-handly, I don't know what magic is actually being worked mechanistically. Not knowing this, I can't determine (mechanistically) what is happening and if it is succesful or not. So, it just becomes backdrop flavor and in a way quite non-magical. In that process I feel it uses all of its potency.

The thing is, I want to roll for these things. I want to know who is using what magical effect and on whom, how succesful it is and all that sort of thing. This way it can become "the good stuff", instead of just descriptive flavor text.

To break it down into a few problems.
1) I have trouble identifying when something is actually magical based on the setting material itself when it doesn't explicitly say so. (Sure, everything is supposed to be more or less magical, but that answer doesn't really help much, does it?)
2) When something is decidedly magical, I often have little idea about what magic is actually at work.
3) Even knowing that something is magical and deducing what magic (affinities or spirits, or what not) is at work, I don't know if the magic is ritual magic (mechanistically) or just straight up use of magic, or maybe something all together different.

I'll take an example out of a book, Heortling warfare as described in Orlanth is Dead. This is not the most unclear that these mentions get, but it's still quite uninformative in my opinion.  On page 23 it describes the different levels of magic, Tactical, Operational, etc. There is even a more detiled description of Tactical Magic, but even after reading the text I still don't know any of the answers to the above three questions which is what I need to use this material in the game. Sure, I get some kind of an answer: the basic unit gets +4 from its wyter/equilevant. Color me not impressed.

Then, it goes on to describe that some magic can effect larger groups of people. Ok, but how I do know that? Back to the three questions Somewhere in the book it also mentions that the bonuses depend on the type of sacrifice made, with no mention of anything else. Is this supposed to factor into the roll somehow or is it just one more way to explain things after fact?

Any experienced Gloranthan Heroquesters out there who could help me with this? I would much appreciate it.

- Joachm Buchert -

[Mike Holmes]

[

1) I have trouble identifying when something is actually magical based on the setting material itself when it doesn't explicitly say so. (Sure, everything is supposed to be more or less magical, but that answer doesn't really help much, does it?)

Can you give an example?

One thing that might help here is that in the vast majority of cases what goes on is some "mundane" task augmented by magic. That is, every smith knows some smithing magic that allows him to do his job, from his POV, properly. Every farmer knows some farm magic. So everyday tasks are, largely speaking, "accompanied" by magic. Note that I think that the idea here is really that the Gloranthan doesn't see it as two separate things in many cases. When smithing, one does the smithing and magic together, and that's smithing to that smith.

2) When something is decidedly magical, I often have little idea about what magic is actually at work.

You're saying that you don't know the name of the ability in question? Or what the ability looks like? Mechanically, the only thing that's important is the level of the ability. Past that, the nature of the ability is yours to create. For instance, let's talk about the smith example. If he's in an animism culture, and he's working bronze, then I'd say he's probably got a "Heat Bronze" spirit, or a "Work Hot Metal" spirit, or somesuch.

Are you saying that what you want is a list of all of the abilities available to everyone? Or something exhaustive on all types of characters? One of the advantages of the HQ magic system is that it's really much more like "real" magic or magic from literature in that there are no limited lists of abilities, and it could be literally anything.

Yes that means that you as narrator have to make these things up a lot, often on the fly. But it's my experience that this is very simple to do, and quite fun. Are you saying that this is not your thing? Or am I missing something here?

3) Even knowing that something is magical and deducing what magic (affinities or spirits, or what not) is at work, I don't know if the magic is ritual magic (mechanistically) or just straight up use of magic, or maybe something all together different.

This one is pretty easy. Mechanically, it's a ritual if somebody is using one of the ritual elements on the list. Including just taking their time with it. That is, the way I see it, the" ritual magic" bonuses are simply situational modifications to using any magic ability. Technically speaking, in-game, this also implies that there is some sort of procedure being followed...meaning that, in theory that there would only be a limited number of rituals. But also implied is that rituals can be improvised to some extent, and extant ones can be modified. Consider the typical cliché of the rushed ritual in which due to time constraints they have to get it done in less time than they would like in the source literature.

What this means is that, again, you simply make up what you need. Far more complex than the question of what thousands of magical abilities exist, is the question of what rituals exist that one can use with each. In practice all I do is just say yes. That is, if a player wants to do a ritual, I say, "OK, come up with the details of the ritual, and let's do it." The details should include potentially some mythic background or cultural notes on the ritual, but in a pinch, even that's not necessary.

So, basically it's a ritual if somebody says it's a ritual, player or narrator, and treats it like a ritual. Mechanically. Then you tailor your description of the mechanical effect around what's selected. 

The basic unit gets +4 from its wyter/equilevant. Color me not impressed.

Again, you're worried about the name/appearance of the ritual or magic ability? Then make one up. Simple description is often all that's needed. If the Wyter provides a bonus in a fight, then obviously the ability is called something like "Protect Tula." Note that the Gloranthans probably don't even speak like this, they simply know that the Wyter can protect the tula, and some details on how limited that may be.

Is it that you're worried that you might make an "unfair" ruling or something? Like calling on Wyter's ability "Protect Tula" and another's "Protect Clan Members and Their Property" and the latter being broader than the first? If this is the problem then there's a deeper issue going on that needs to be addressed. In short, however, it doesn't really matter much. It's far more important to be plausibly colorful than it is to have the ability be "balanced" or "correct."

Then, it goes on to describe that some magic can affect larger groups of people. Ok, but how I do know that?

Actually this is a problematic area. That is, there's some supposition that an ability like "Bless Congregation" allows you to target larger groups of people because "obviously" from the name of the ability, that's what it allows. There's an opposing camp, however, that says that this is an exception to the rules that elsewhere say that multiple targets creates a penalty. And actually I can argue either side effectively if you want.

But it really doesn't matter. That is, give the multiple target penalty if you feel that it's better for the conflict in question. Don't if you feel it would be more fun not to have the penalty. I tend to always apply the penalties myself, but then I allow them to be mitigated. This is all because I like magical detail. For instance, for the Liturgist example, I rule that, yeah, the 30 people in your congregation mean a big penalty to bless them all, but that normally you do the blessing in a church and take a good while doing it. So those ritual bonuses mitigate the penalties (in fact I say that they simply cancel). So a liturgist is able to bless large numbers of people, the better the church and longer the ritual, the more he can be effective in blessing. And in the field he can probably just bless members of his congregation one at a time. See how that seems to fit the nature of such blessings?

Essentially the rule is, to me, that the penalties and bonuses apply such that they make the magic seem like magic should seem to me. Which is cool because instead of the game's magic system telling me how magic has to work, I use the system to make it work how it seems to me that it should.

Back to the three questions Somewhere in the book it also mentions that the bonuses depend on the type of sacrifice made, with no mention of anything else. Is this supposed to factor into the roll somehow or is it just one more way to explain things after fact?

Actually the Ritual Magic chart does give some examples. But, basically, here's the rule: the cooler it is, the bigger bonus it gets. Cooler to who? The players. No, there's no in-game logic really going on here, other than the players project it. That is, a human sacrifice is probably pretty thematically interesting (there's probably a lot of interesting play about getting the sacrifice ready in the first place, and it says a lot about the character doing it, etc), and should rate a large bonus. Unless you're getting bored of them. Oh, you can keep the rating high for consistency's sake. But largely give out bonuses based on the player's creativity in coming up with the ritual elements. The bonuses are, essentially, player bonuses for coming up with a more colorful and descriptive version of the magic in question. That is, if the player wants a bonus to succeed, they have to work some for it. The system rewards that.


Now, all this said, what I'm taking about here in terms of using the system to emulate cool and fun magic in play is not something that comes automatically, it is a skill. One that takes some play to develop (or so it did for me). But that said, it's all still actually easier than other magic systems to implement, and the results are so much more satisfying that I'd climb mountains if I had to in order to get the sort of play output that the HQ magic system produces.

Am I helping here at all, or does this just all seem like obfuscation?

Mike

[Web_Weaver]

Let me try to answer this a different way, as I suspect you are more interested in the narration of background than the rules per say, and just want to better understand the background and how it fits with the mechanics.

1) I have trouble identifying when something is actually magical based on the setting material itself when it doesn't explicitly say so. (Sure, everything is supposed to be more or less magical, but that answer doesn't really help much, does it?)

I would say that in much Glorantha background material the way to see it is in Mythological themes. So, during a ritual preparation for battle a common theame is the arming of the hero, or specifically the arming of Orlanth. read the myths if you can find them but the important thing is to understand what is being done and what they are trying to achieve.

The ritual (in this case and often throughout Glorantha) is an assosciation of the mundane act and the mythological actions of God & Heroes. "If we do it the way our gods did it then he will look favourably upon us and support us". (note this is intinsically conservative.)

2) When something is decidedly magical, I often have little idea about what magic is actually at work.

The major mythological figures in Glorantha don't act independantly, but their worshippers perceive that they do, so the description of what is happening would be cast in a mundane way. i.e. the crops are ripening quickly or the vermin shy away from your grain stores, but the ritual performed to achieve this and the interpretation afterwards are seen as mythological and magical. What is actually happening is that the modifiers gained from the ritual have enhanced the outcome.

"Is my blade sharper, or are my thrusts divinely inspired?" the answer is a matter of interpretation.

3) Even knowing that something is magical and deducing what magic (affinities or spirits, or what not) is at work, I don't know if the magic is ritual magic (mechanistically) or just straight up use of magic, or maybe something all together different.

I think what you are getting at is a matter of flavour. In this context ritual magic is the deliberate and often communal re-enactment of mythology for a more pofound influence on things.

Mechanics wise, this is up to you. Often elements of the ritual will involve standard magic use to augment a key individual - ie the arming ritual above where a champion or group of ellite troops will be given multiple augments and modifiers for the comming contest greater than they could achieve alone.

But often rituals will attempt to have longer term effects than basic magic - ie a permanently enhaced weapon or good crops for the year, mechanically this can be handled in multiple ways (just like anything else).

• with the simple rule system of factoring in everything that is in the ritual, arriving at a skill total and resistance and rolling for an outcome.
• Establishing action points and running an periodic extended contest over a long time between game sessions. For instance annual crop rituals involve many actions throughout the year so you could start with a winter preparation ritual and establish the contest, have a spring ritual to continue etc. and the current effectiveness is represented by APs.

Is this approaching what you are after?

Jamie