Atgxtg

Yea! Finally. I mean while there was always room for improvement, and everyone has thier own preferences and such, the fact that people played the game with the rune magic system as it was from RQ up through BRP is proof that it "worked". And that is quite valid. My complaint was with the statement made by some that it didn't work. That is just silly.

Some of us consider it a superior system,. Yes, becuase Avlaon Hill got control of it and mismanaged it. Well that's your opinion. Others have usually said it was that the took Glorantha out of the game system. Well we disagree. I think a lot of the rules are a step backwards, some of the changes either unjustified or baffling (i.e. the change ot the critical and special chances) and some of the new rules much more complicated.

Yes really. People used it for years, including those playing non-Priests. Actually it was sacrifice for it, don't uses it unless you need to, and hope it doesn't take too long to get your POW back. In old RQ POW vs POW (or MP vs MP) rolls were common and POW went up fairly often, so Rune MAgic was viewed as back up spelles. It worked out fine becuase everybone who knew Rune Magic also knew Battle Magic. What's a decent percentage. In most RPGs the fact that it works for the priests would be considered a reasonable percentage. RQ broke the trend by letting it work for the non_priest too. Yes it did. I was there ans saw it happen, and the majority of PCs who had Rune magic used it. Three characters? You are saying that the Rune MAgic system didn't work becuase of your experience with three characters. I think you need a larger sample size before you can declare that. I've played many more characters than three and run more than three hundred, easily, and Rune Magic worked for the vast majority of them. You got something from every cult. You also gave something back. It wasn't supposed to be cash & carry, but a religion. If it didn't work then people wouldn't been playing RQ, RQ2, RQ3 and so on. Now if someone prefers RQG system of Rune Magic that's fine, but the old one did work.

Okay, let me know when you think I'll cooled off enough. I'm not angry, just disappointed. If people cannot disagree and debate things then we can't work to find a common ground to resolve conflicts. Oh, and a little sad. There used to be a lot people who I could really disagree with and have good productive debates about things. People, myself included have even changed their minds about things and learned from it.

I'm not getting heated. I'm disagreeing with your position, and attempting to explain why. But, If I were getting heated could I "X-Card" this debate over and silence those who disagree with me, because I was getting genuinely upset? Yes it is and it has more than one meaning. 1.) *popular and well known definition* triggered is when someone gets offended or gets their feelings hurt, often used in memes to describe feminist, or people with strong victimization. (the use of this word through social media is generally ableist.) 2.) *actaul definition of triggered* trigger is something that sets off a memory tape or flashback transporting the person back to the event of her/his original trauma. trauma in the form of flashbacks or overwhelming feelings of sadness, anxiety, or panic. The brain forms a connection between a trigger and the feelings with which it is associated, and some triggers are quite innocuous. For example, a person who smelled incense while being raped might have a panic attack when he or she smells incense in a store. Triggers are very personal, and generally people with severe PTSD or/and anxiety can be triggered by everyday things. Note how easily 1) can be passed off as 2). God is also a real world (the existence of whom is another matter) and should be Capitalized. The phase "For God's Sake" actually a real phase and has multiple meanings too, but is usually used as an exclamation, and is offenseive to some devote Christians, Jews and no doubt others whom, I am forgetting or unaware of when used that way as it is taking the lord's name in vain. Now if that bothered me would I (or should I) be allowed to restrict your usage of the term in the manner that your intended? Yes, and someone who is at risk of actually being trigger by something that is likely to happen in an RPG shouldn't be playing the RPG. Against, these people are supposedly able to function in society. There is nothing that will come up in an RPG that they won't be exposed to on TV or at the cinema, yet we don't have special tools in place that force TV stations and Cinemas not to show something because it might upset somebody. If they did, they wouldn't be able to show anything. Which is something that you GM should be made aware of and could detention not only what he might run, but also if you should be playing something. I mean if the GM was planning on starting of a campaign with the old A series of D&D modules, then they are either going to have to run something else of game with somebody else.

Yes, exactly. ANd we don't need special rules to handle it. Two of the playersin my group lost parents recently and as a GM I'll probably try to avoid such a thin gfrom happening in my game for a bit. But I am running Pendragon, and at 1 adventure per year and an aging table, it is going to come up eventually. I don't think so. Anymore than TV, film, literature or any other form of story telling should be controlled by the audience, especially a minority of it. At that point is isn't about common decency and consideration it's censorship and control. A player is tellin gthe GM what they can or cannot do without any justification. It's the old Black Ball system. Yup, as opposed to the countless masses who can't handle hearing the name Catherine. And if it is done an anonymously we will never know who is is either. This whole thing is really about catering to a very small subset of gamers, whose issues should probably be addressed in advance anyway. No and someone who can't handle a name probably doesn't belong there either. Again there are extreme cases where I can understand why a GM might wish to accommodate a player.But there is no need to introduce a tool to do it. If someone can handle writing an anonymous note about something that bother them they can handle telling the GM that Catherine was the name of thier ex-girl;freind or whatever and that it bothers them. Yup. People can be cruel caullous and unfeeling. We all know that from personal experience. Yes, being iopne and upfornt about things is good, but X-Cards are not the solution, just a rabbit hole to a whole new level of censorship.

I agree, when I first picked up RQ I had the idea of people questing for Runes and learning how to use them to work effects somehow. Instead, what i got was a a magic system where runes were more stage dressing and team branding.

Oh yeah, I agree that it could have been improved upon, especially for annoy who wasn't a Priest. I won't ague that. But the claim that Rune Magic works in RQG but didn't in the 30+ years of RQ before is false. I can see someone preferring the new Rune Magic rules and running with them, but that didn't make the old ones non-functional. And as far as best/consensus goes there are some people who were put off by the new Rune Magic rules.

Yeah, some. Actually thanks to God. Thanks to something called Divine Right, the land all belongs to God, who created it, and he in turn decided to led Kings run it for him. From that point on you're okay. Pans think a little differently, but such cultures usually have something similar with rules being descended from the gods. But basically the idea is that things are the way they are because that is how it is supposed to be. That is very different that the will of the people thing that most of us are raised with today. Uh, no. How could those cavalrymen support themselves? Someone has to feed them and thier horses, but they armor and and weapons. Here is a little Feudal System 101 that might help. In general it takes about 9 family working the land to support one person who does something else, such as blacksmith, merchant, working as a servant, or a soldier. The who reason for the whole knight is the boss thing is so that they have enough income to support the knight, his warhorse, his squire, the knight family, and the small army of servants, and craftsmen needed to support them.So all these cavalrymen, (check out the sergeants in Pendragon), need about £2 per year to feed and maintain themselves and their very expensive mounts (which somebody would have to buy). So there really isn't a big pool of eligible horsemen floating around than the land can't support. Every soldier, mounted or foot has to be supported somehow. Somebody is providing food and shelter. About the closest you get to "more eligible military people" are mercenaries, and they are actually paid for by somebody, just not on a regular basis. Okay, that's basically as it stands except for the gender natural wording and works out fine. Well excepted than a LAnced Equire would be a Knight, and that someone can be put in charge of land that isn't theirs, but the gist of it is fine. Only if the land were granted to a knight so that it would pass down to his heirs. The key thing here is that the land is never truly belongs to the knight, here is just the caretaker for a higher lord, who also holds it in trust, and so on up the ladder to the King, who in turn is holding it in turst for God.TO Keep the land the knight must have provided good service, and keep providing it. Look at less as land ownership and more like a very long term lease agreement. I mention this because unlike today, you can't get into a situation where it your land free and clear. You always own somebody for it. Actually it still like that today, just the underlying justifications for it have changed. Nobody is entitled to just consider themselves a esquire or a knight, they have to be given those honors by a higher ranking nobleman, or, at least, another knight. To become an esquire one must have first served as a squire, and then not been promoted to knight for some reason. To be a knight one has to first be a squire and then get knighted. Neither of these thing are automatic. Well, if your the son of a king or something they might as well be, but even Arthur, as Uther's son, ran into trouble because of his youth and status as a squire. He actually had to get knighted and he was King! One of the reasons why nobles started to rein in on the prvide of raising someone to the status of knight was because all those knights were going to have to make a living somehow, but the only job they knew how to do and could be allowed to do socially was fighting. So how could those guys earn a living? Uhhh, maybe. The question here is what exactly are they entitled to, if anything? Okay, it works like this:. Let's stay Elaine father had four manors. Don't ask how he got four manors, I don't know exactly but it does happen. He must have done something really good . Anyway he dies without any sons, or any younger brothers. So the land passes down to his daughters, but he only has Elaine so she gets all of them as her dowry. She isn't a knight though, nor a squire who could be raised to knighthood, and never will be, so she cannot fulfill her military duties, so the Count appoints someone to watch over the manors, possibly her, and pockets the money that would have gone to a knight. He probably uses it to maintain another household knight to make up for being a knight short, but he could spend it on wine, and women if he wants to. Now some knight comes along and wants to marry Elaine. Okay, first off that means the count loses that extra income he's been getting. Secondly just who is this new guy? Is he better than the household knight/booze/fine clothes/armor/loose women that the Count has been spending the money over the past few years? Thirdly, can this new knight be trsuted? Four manors means he'll have three other knights and 8 footmen at his beck and call. Would he betray the Count to a rival lord and open up his manors to assist an invader and fight along side him? What does the Count gain from this new knight? And why should this one guy get a manor instead of the other 100+ household knights who already serve the count? Why four? Those are the things going through the Count's head at times like this and why Liege Lords get a say in who marries whom. It's why Loyalty Lord is so important. The game now starts it off at 15, but in the character actually had to earn than and demonstrate it. Someone marrying Elaine is only going to happen if the Count thinks the marriage will be an improvement over the status quo, or that the Count is somehow forced into allowing. Period. BTW, The land management thing is one of the major reasons why I don't run Pendragon with modern day equal rights. It opens a big can of worms. And the dynasty and generational aspects of the game are important. The women fighting as warrior stuff is easy. Fedual inheritance, however, is a minefield. I can be navigated but it's more likely to go boom, and if you got to cross it it;s better to just take out the minefield, and if you take out the minefield, it is't feudal anymore.

Uh, the Rune Magic system worked before. People might prefer the new one, but the old one worked.This thread is the first place that I've read someone ever claiming it didn't. As for Passions Pendragon still does them better. Shamanism, especially on Glorantha has always been problematic.. And as for a consensus, well, a lot of the RG3 people just don't bother with the RQ section anymore. So I think it is less of a consensus than a dividing of the fanbase. It's not so much that everyone has been won over than the folks who don't like RQG don't speak out against it much on the forums or have moved on. There are alot of new faces around here (welcome!) but also a lot of old friends don't show up here anymore (😭). Not that all that is because of RQG. Most of it is probably just life. Similar stuff happened when the BGB came out and didn't meet everyone's expectations. It kinda comes with new editions of RPGs in general. Come out with a new edtion, lose some fans and gain soem n ew ones. Hopefully you gain mor ethan you loose, and the new fans buy more than the old.

I'm not saying your up to something bad ther eor anything, just that we all have out biases and houserules that affect out outlook on this. Yeah, it similar to what happened over at Mongoose with MRQ, only not as bad as at least the people behind RQG were familiar with RQ. It's been better marketed and is pretty than any other version of RQ. I wouldn't be surprised it it has sold better than AD&D did. Back in the RQ2/3 days you had to have a RPG shop, and know about it to ever have a chance of getting the game, or at least somehow already be aware of the game to try and order it by mail. Now RPGing is more mainstream and someone can DL the rules from Chasoium or Drivethru and be reading the pdf in a minute or two. I'm not saying that makes RQG a worse game, just that it's not a fair comparison. Maybe a better comparison might be how it sells compared to it's competition . RQ used to be one of the top 5 selling RPG back in the day. Of course, there wasn't as much competition back then etiehr. I mean for FRPGS there was D&D, RQ, DQ, C&S, EotPT and T&T, plus their variants and derivatives. Yes, plus I think some of it was the fact that because of there being so many different takes on the rules over the years very few people are running things exactly as written, and not everybody uses every rule or remembers them the same way. For instance back with the BRP came out, Jason once stated that someone could, using the optional rules make it run just like RQ3. Except that category modifiers in RQ3 added to skill improvement rolls and the Skill Category Bonus in BRP do not. I suspect Jason didn't run as much RQ3 as some other version of D100, so wasn't a rule he was using. It's not a stoning offense, or anything but it does play a factor in how and why RQG is the way it is. RQG is really more like RQ2+., with ahandful of RQ3 things thrown in. That's entirely subjective as people won't agree on the best bits. For instance I prefer RQ3 hit points over RQG hit points, so my best version would differ from RQG right there. Same with category modifiers (I hate big monsters being combat masters due to high STR), and skills over 100%. So to me it would look like RQ3 with a couple of house rules. Your Best RQ May Vary. That's a new take on the story. They way I heard it , RQ wasn't suitable for Glorantha, hence HQ used a different system, and that someone suggested porting the passion over to him as a solution. Yup. I, for one, haven't exactly been shy about my preferece of RQ3 over RQG. Part of that is becuase I like the RQ3 game mechanics more that I like Glorantha. Since RQG was, as far as I know, an attempt to make RQ work better for Glroantha, I find many of the rule changes to be a a step backwards or inferior to the RQ3 equivalents, for instance two weapon use. For those who love RQG, great, enjoy. But if someone else, such as the OP would prefer to stick with RQ3 and add a couple of things they like from RQG to their RQ3 game, that's fine too. That's what all of us ol' timers have been doing for decades, and what the BGB was all about.

Sorry but if someone is going to go postal because the GM named somebody Catherine or some such then they got issues that need professional help, not special tools to avoid being triggered. If a player can't handle "Catherine", then that's their problem not the GMs. And the statement that changing the name isn't a big deal to the GM isn't necessarily true, especially when bringing anew player into an establsiehd campaign. For instance, I've ben running Pendragon for the last year. What if someone new wanted to join the group but they had had bad relationship with someone who has the same name as a pre-exisiting character, and that name is a trigger for them. I'd have to retcon everything, including old notes to accommodate the name change, and this would confuse the other players. What if the name is one used by a player character, shoukld the othe rplayer be foreced to change thier character';s name to such the new player? What if that bad relationship was with someone named Arthur? Should I run King Bert Pendragon, and change everything?And if they can't handle a name used in a game, how are they going to be able to handle the actual bad things that happen in the game? And what if somebody had a bad experience with X-Cards and that triggers them? Then what do you do, introduce a new tool to offset the problem caused by the last tool? Plus the whole thing is just ripe for abuse. A player could actually stop a game dead in it's track by playing the X-card repeatedly for no reason other than to keep the GM hopping. Ans the GM is going to have to do a lot of work to accommodate. A GM is not a care provider and didn't sign on to cater to everyone's special needs, they agreed to try and run an entertaining game. If someone doesn't find what they do entertaining they are free to complain or leave the game, not to force the GM to change things to suit their wishes. Especially when this is not going to be an issue with the vast majority of gamers, and will never come up. All these bad experience are not new things yet people have been gaming since the 70s and didn't have special tools to avoid upsetting people until recently. They didn't need them. The overwhelming majority don't need them now.

Yup. That was why Superworld used hit points in a different way, with people being knocked out rather than killed. Even so, BRPS generally "girtty realsim" bent does not work all that well for Superheros. Mind you the x4 force = +1d6 damage bonus progression doesn't help either, and alterting that would address a few problems, such as large animals. A tiger only bites with about 30% more force than a human, but he does a lot more damage in BRP thanks to a +3D6 or +4D6 db. Now recently Cahsoium has been reducing SIZ to address this, hence the smaller horses, but I think that is tackling the problem at the wrong end. I think smoothing out the db in die steps instead of full dice would fit better. If that +3D6 db were changed to +1D10 or so, a lot of things would work out better.

Well, In over 30 years of playing Pendragon it has never come up. I've gotten close to a few times, but generally it does't happen. The GPC has a rule where both take 1d3 through armor on tied criticals. That would work here. Morien's house rule is probably the best soultion for eliminating the problem entirely. Bumping this down to 20 vs 20.

Yeah that turns more into a case of politics and clot. The younger brother could be totally in the wrong but get the land if he has powerful relatives and friends whom the liege wants to keep on good terms with.

Ah. The thin is in medieval times the land holder owed military service (and other things) to the liege lord. Steward in the latter sense is more akin to their Esquire role from the Renascence. The reason why that worked in latter times was because by then feudal armies had been replace with professional standing armies and mercenaries paid for by taxed. I hate to tell you but you probably can't solve it. The "men go to work, women stay home" thing is as much about the realities of earning a living as it is about "misogamy". The problems are that there is only a limited amount of income to go around, somebody has to go through pregnancy and rear the children, and both running the household and fighting require different skill sets and training. In the modern world we have gotten around this with two working parents, day care, school, 9-5 jobs, and the ability to commute. Women's liberation and women in the work force happened/is happening when it did less because men were keeping women down than because that is when it became viable. Just like with the marriage thing. It used to be that men would try to earn a promotion at work so that they could support a wife, and employers would factor that when considering who to promote. A married man was considered more reliable as he had a wife and family to support. Today that doesn't happen because the wife also woks, and the husband is expected to support her (at least not to the same extent as before). IMO your simpliest solution is probably the ones I mentioned above, especially scutage as there would be £4 of income left over that would normally support the husband. That could easily go to the liege lord (until a knight inherits) so he could maintain another household knight, or hire some mercenaries, and everybody is happy. The estate keeping another knight would also works but raises it own problems, such as what happens to him once the heir is of age. If the wife wants to suit up and be a knight for a few years, that's fine too. The only real problems with that are the time it takes to train and the risks of the job. But my suggestion is scutage.

Yup. Probably Yes, and even his turning against Arthur wasn't there or at least wasn't clear originally. In some sources she is actually the cause of Camlaan. Apparently the conflict was between Arthur who wanted to keep Gwenhwyfach, and Gwynhafar's (Guinevere) supporters who wanted her reinstated as Queen. Someone got slapped and things escalated. I suspect that Gwenhwyfach got dropped because she provides an easy solution to the Lancelot-Guinevere affair. Arthur could put aside Guinevere for failing to produce and heir, marry Gwenhwyfach., Lancelot marries Guinevere and all four would have been happy. Gwenhwyfach pretty much ruins the whole love triangle. I think Morgan gets it worse from more Modern soruces. Most people tend to forget the other sisters (Morgause and Elaine in Mallory) and just dump everything bad onto Morgan who ends up being Arthur's one wicket sisister, the mother of Mordred, and sometimes takes Vivanine role as Merlin's apprentice turned jailer.

All too true. Game systems are like toolkits, and which one to use depends on what you are trying to accomplish. It's less about which one is the best, and more about which one is best suited for a particular application.

Yes, and that is certainly fine. GMs get to decide things like that, especially with magicians. The jury is still out on Morgan and Merlin.I just wanted to clarify that she isn't necessarily a villain in the sources, so that people don't automatically assume so. I don't believe she was his twin sister either. If you want to bring in Merlin's sister as an evil echantress, go for it!

Because it isn't their own land. A steward is someone assigned to run the holding, like a caretaker or grounds keeper, or the manager of a store. He doesn't have any claim upon it by being steward, so he has no right to inherit. Now if the Steward also happens to be a younger son (sticking with primogeniture) of the land holder then he might be inline to inherit. For much the same reasons why most others in a household can't. Here are a couple: Because the leige lord has to pay for the upkeep of the wife. This is most obvious with household knights, but the same economic facts hold true down throughout the whole feudal system. A wife means another mouth to feed, typically at a higher station, and the liege lord pays for it, and for the children. If the steward has some status, which he probably does, then the marriage is also political in nature and effects alliances and loyalties. If a steward were to marry a Saxon woman then maybe her loyalties might be with the Saxons and she might give them information on the manor or even open the gate for them during a siege. Actually it solves a problem that you created. Even assuming you are throwing out the land passing down to the male heirs, technically the land was either granted to her husband, not to the wife. So when he dies either: If the land was a gift, it reverts back to the Earl, as a gift of land only last for the holder lifetime. Traditionally, the widow got on-third of it to support herself as the widows portion. So in this case the land would never go to her. The reverse would hold true if the land had been given to a female knight who died and left a husband. If the land was a grant, then is passes down to the heirs of the knight, which would normally mean his eldest son, however in am emancipated Britain this could mean the eldest child, so the daughter could get it. If the child were underage a steward might manage the land until the child were old enough to claim it, and that might be the wife of the deceased knight. So in this case the land would never go to her. Now if you want to change things so that the spouse inherits on a grant rather than the children, okay, but remember that they would also inherit all the duties and responsibilities that go along with the grant. So if the wife did inherit, then she would owe knights service to the liege, meaning that she had better get armor, horse and learn how to fight.Now this might sound all well and good to people with modern sensibilities there are some real economic and logistical problems that need to be addressed about it. It is expensive to a knight with horse, armor, weapon, squire and all that. Paying for this expense was a primary reason why the feudal system worked the way it did. In KAP terms that another £2 per year compared to the wife, and that income would have to come from somewhere. So most manors probably couldn't afford to have both husband and wife outfitted as knights. It would probably have to be either/or. It also takes time and is expensive to train someone to be a knight. That's why there are squires. So to function as a knight the wife would have to work of these skills, as opposed to her social ones. A Jack of all trades approach like that means that she would probably be a mediocre knight and an mediocre steward. Again the same would hold true for a man who wasn't raised to be a knight. Now to make a wife inherits system work, then non-combatant spouses (of either gender) who inherit would either have to take on another knight who can fulfill their military duties, or pay sctutage, which is essentially a portion of the estate income so that the liege can hire mercenaries to do it instead. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that you can't or should have female knight or women inheriting land, only that if you do, you need to deal with the economic, logistical, and military repercussions of it.

Consider what tossing in things like Illunimation and the Red Goddess actually means, too. Or the God Learners. Or HeroQuests. I start to wonder if the Gloranthan gods really existed or it they were created and sustained by the worshipers who believe in them (and sacrifice POW and magic points to them). It may very well be that Olrranth is the way he is because people say he is, and believe it. If a movement stated up claiming that his favorite color was a Grey like an overcast sky, would that become true? Ultimately I think a big reason why the religions tend to tell us more about the people rather than the gods is because the people are the ones telling us about the religion. Almost all the stories about the gods are subjective, and told from the view of a particular cult or pantheon.

Yes, the same can be said for the way the game awards skill checks. The rules make it seem far more difficult than the way it is handled in the adventures. But I think it really is becuase Greg added that stuff (no roll for traits less than 16, a stricter policy for awarding skill checks for those GMs who want to have control over character improvement) to try and please people who didn't like the existing rules. Lots of people do not like having their actions decided by die rolls rather than having a free choice. Of course the problem is if they had a free choice, it would play out like Arthurian stories. Personally I'd rather just drop the 16+ restriction, and just leave the decision of when a roll is needed up to the GM, as in the old days. The 16+ rule messes up more stuff than it helps. The stories and the game are full of tests of character where "only knight who is X is worthy of/can do Y" and getting rid of tests ruins that. Sure you can just set thresholds for stuff like they do with the relgion bonuses, but that also has it's drawback as far as playing goes. It's much better for a character to have a chance at something that to just fail. Also, people are contradictory. A kind person can sometimes be cruel , and vice versa. The roll allows for that. Well, thats probably because the poison rules were a late addition to the game, and the scripted nature of the key events.. Before that most poison was handled ad hoc. For instance Uther and all the nobles dying from poison after St. Ablans was in the Pendragon Campaign in 1985, and was Greg's invention, too. In Mallory Uther had been ill and succumbs to his illness after the battle. Greg changed to the Uther and all the nobles being poisoned. The poison rules as they exist now are a KAP5 addition. One of the things about Greg that was both good and bad was that he was always tinkering with things and often didn't update previous stuff to reflect the changes. For example, I've mentioned that the Pict Warrior in the rulebook being SIZ 8 was fine in KAP1 where we rolled 3d6 for SIZ, and the average PK was SIZ 10-11. But, with latter editions switching to 2d6+6 and now 3d6+4, Picts really should have had their SIZ increased to 11 to reflect the 3 point difference. As for the 21 CON and survival, well realistically that would depend on how much poison he consumed. It is quite possible to take so much of something that you won't survive, even with a 21 CON. Sometimes 50mg might made the difference between a 50% mortality rate and an 100% one. I think ultimately it comes down to the situation being a bad one to run, as the GM just kills off anybody who is there, with no chance of a a character of detection, avoiding or surviving the situation. It litterally the GM just killing off characters by fiat, and that really shouldn't happen to player characters in an RPG.

Most of what I've read about her had her as good. Yes, the incubus story was an attempt to justify him in Christianity, and also to help with his taking Ambrosius place in the story of Vortigern tower. Prior to the HRB, it was Ambroius who was the fatherless boy brought to Vortigern. But Geoffrey mixed Ambrosius with Myrddyn Wilt, creating the figure of Merlin Emrys. Of course you with your knowledge of the Welsh sources are well aware of this.

Ah. Come to think of it, Ringworld had root skills, which were somewhat similar.

Not it's not. It's more about the reverse sitation where something happends and the "offended" party go off on an a GM. Now yest someone having a PTSD flashback or panic attack cannot be expected to try and understand, but if they are that upset by something that happens in an RPG, they probably shouldn't have sat down to play it the first place. And if it were something that could happen they should have informed the other gamers about the problem instead of being a ticking time bond. If a Vet is having flashback problems about the Vietnam War, maybe he shouldn't be playing Recon? Except that's the the equivalency I'm trying to make. The one I'm making is that most RPGs have setting and themes that are known to some extend long before you sit down to play. If somebody has a problem with traumatic combat situations due to real world military experiences, then they shouldn't be playing a game about solider s in a war zone., and virtually every game about that sort of thing is open about it. They advertise what these games are about. So unless the GM is really going of the beaten track, the player will have a good idea of what sort of situations to expect. Now if the player sits down to a game of Toon and the GM runs it like Night of the Living Dead, that's different. Yes, and that brings up a few things to consider. First off the fact that a Gm, working on an adventure could stay into uncomfortable territory without knowing it. Secondly many Gms use prewritten adventures so someone else wrote it. Lastly. anybody who has such strong reactions to events that can come up in an RPG should consider if this is the right hobby for them, or at least be very picky about what games they play and make it know what so tof stuff they want to avoid. Most RPGs have particular settings and themes and they can raise red flags concerning what sort of adventures you might have, and if something bothers a person so much that they can't alert their fellow gamers about things that could set them off, then they shouldn''t be there. If somebody can't handle things like Zombies and Gore then they shouldn't play RPGs like Callof Cthulhu or Chill. I think thier intention is good but utlimately they are just feel good tools. Yes, "midgit" is no longer socially acceptable, which is why I referred to the more acceptable term "people of short statue". My point though was that if someone is sensitive about height and terms like Dwarf, which isn't all that popular as it ususally denotes an asymmetrical reduced size, then a game where half the characters are under 4 feet tall might not be a good idea. What if the safety tools trigger such an event? That part of the problem with that situation. If don't really know what will set someone off then you might do so even why trying to head it off. I'd hate to see it reach the point where a GM need to get people to sign waviers before running. I wonder what happens with video games? I don't blame you for being reluctant, but just what sort of event triggered that? And what could at a open table RPG? I'm curious. Oh, and the closest I've ever come to an "off limits" topic was when I was gaming with a guy who, for religious reasons didn't want to play any RPG that had magic it it, because he believed that they were all trying to corrupt you, lead youinto the occult and worship the Devil. So we mostly played modern day and futuristic stuff with him. Although I do recall playing Pendragon with him, but I think that was before he came to that conclusion.