Atgxtg

As fast as I run without armor-just not for as long. And I'd bet I could run even faster if people were shooting arrows at me. The 24m/round is excluseto RQG, too. Characters in RQ2, RQ3 and BRP are faster.

Yes, but the problem is that the 24m/RQG round is the running speed! The RQG walking speed is only 8m/RQG round, or about 2.4kph or 1.5 mph. Hence why I keep saying it is too slow.

Not much room to swing an axe in close.

That's odd. The "broadsword" in RQ has always been "about 1 meter" in length. So the swords got shorter in Glorantha.

Yeah, it's pretty much a shortsword or longknife with a subpar hilt. Does that apply to their "broadswords" too? On Earth leaf shape blades were usually knives or shortswords. I'm kinda curious now about what we've been toting about all these years as a broadsword, or bastard sword. Seems like they probably are something different.

I think staped to the thight (point down) could work. It could even be shorter than the Zulu weapon. Functionally they want is the equivalent of a thrusting dagger or shortsword. The advantage of it being a spear is for training purposes and familiarity bonuses. I know. It's essentially a small gladius. Come to think of it, one of the PCs in my Pendragon campaign got a hold of one. I didn't realize Orlannti were familiar with such blades.

It's also not bad tactically. If the Sun Domers are fighting in some sort of Glorantha Phalanx formation, an iklwa would be an excellent weapon for in close fighting. Plus it would be a 1H spear, which would help for training and skill purposes (for Yelmalions).. Something along the lines of: Spear, One Handed: Iklwa STR: --, DEX:--, Damage: 1D6+1 (imp), HP: 15 (same as a short spear?), Cost: 15, ENC: 1, Length: 0.6m, SR: 3 In the front rank dropped thier pikes and draw Iklwas they could probably destroy an opposing Phalanx.

I don't yet. I forcing myself to wait until my taxes come back next week, as I kinda splurged on something big recently and need to catch up on bills first. But I do plan on getting it soon. Since I plan to run my PKs though Vortingern's and Aurlieus' reigns SIRES will be invaluable just for the official timeline, events, and names for people from that era. I hoping to modify the family background tables I did for 366-409 era (so I could start my PKs in 410) to match up with the ones in SIRES too. So for me SIRES will be more than just history and background-my PKs will be living through it. Battle of Finnsburg, perhaps? I was thinking that the Saxons from Surrey would be relatives of Finn. It sounds good, and there really hasn't been a bad Pendragon supplement- so I think your hopes will be met. Good Luck.

That would be fine, if it were presented that way, and if running were incorporated somehow. It makes a huge difference with how many attacks missile troops can make before the target gets behind cover or closes to melee distance. I could live with that. But as it stands now the base move of 1m per MOV works out to a slow walk, and 24m. round is a brisk walk, not a run. That's based on how fast people actually move rather than just preference. I could also live with a increase to movement when out of combat, like some RPGs have. But five rounds to run 120m is too long, and give archers a huge advantage. Only if your DEX SR was 1. For most characters, it would be less. For DEX SR 3 characters it would be 24m. But in RQ3 you could double that by running.

I'm looking forward to that bit. I'm running my group in the reign of Constantin, and was hoping to make the Berroc the "Good Saxons" who will try to warn the Brits about Hengest, but are ignored by Vortigern.

Okay, but as RQ, RPG, Pendragon and various games were not designed to be "balanced" I don't think they will meet your expectations. What you are looking for doesn't really exist in RQ. Per Jeff from Chaosium per this thread about balancing encounters (my bold & italics):

It's that you dimssed Statstics, in favor of Passions as the dertemining factor for culture. I cut & pasted the text to try and show you what I mean. That's what you typed, and why I mentioned that statistics. While you might consider such a character Cymric, and write Cymric in the culture box, his statstics are a visible repsentation of his racial and cultural heritage. But passions are the same from culture to Culture. Very few Cultures have specific passions tied to them. Cymri, Saxons and Romans all start with the same Passions of Loyalty (lord), Love (Family), Honor and Hospitality, and all at the same values, so how can you use Passions to identify a character's Culture as Cymric, Roman, or Saxon? So by going with Passions and not caring about Stat mods you are ignoring something that can be traced back to culture for something than generally cannot. Then can you please clarify how you can determine Culture by Passions?

That's a bit of a change, but I can understand it, since the Berroc Saxons have been there for generations and have proven their loyalty. It would be different though for a new group of Saxons. Yup. It could also be used to explain why the Saxons got the blame too, as anybody with a Hate (Saxons) passion (quite common in the area at the time) would be inclined to believe it, if the Saxons were accused.

It's still tea. Exactly. And Babeester Gor is supposed to be a bad-ass warrior born from her mother's corpse. A merciless, cruel, blood drinking avenger daughter. That's her thing. Yes but it never says that her cult's abilities are "balanced" off against the other cults to make sure everybody gets equal sized pieces of rune and spirit magic. Some cults are actually more powerful than others.

Exactly. It's not like Vivamort or Thanatar are supposed to be nice guys either. The abilities and restrictions are tailored to the nature of the deities. We don't have to get all politically correct with the various cults and balanced them all off against each other, and make sure they all are "special" in the same way? Do we? Just look at what the followers of major deities get compared to the followers of minor ones. The major cults get more and better rune spells, more allied cults (and access to even more spells) more allies and so forth. That's just how it is.

No, it's inferred, not implied. Bewcuase tyou need limits to challenge the players, and you need a way to resolve conflict. Without limits of some kind then the players will easily do whatever they want, and will get bored. It's the percieved ability to overcome the obstacles and succeed that keep the game exciting. Without a way to resolve conflict then everything can bog down into "No, I shot you first." Again that's you're inference, not the design of the rules. Nor does sticking to some arbitrary point value actually make the various characters "balance" with each other. Strong players will still dominate, weak players, regardless of character stats. No it doesn't. By definition unforeseen traps and weaknesses in the rule set are unforeseen, and therefore not protected against, because they weren't foreseen. Yup, poorly designed encounter (uninetional or deliberate) do just that. But the problem is with whoiever designs the encounter, not with "game balance." One myth that has been perpetrated since D&D 3E is that just because some game system uses some sort of method (level for instance) to "balance" off character with each other, or with the oppositions in a designed encounter that those characters and opponents are actually balanced. It's just not true. The reality is that there is no easy way to balance off one stat against another, spells against more hit points and so on. The value of all that stuff varies depending on the situation the characters are in, and how the players actually play the game. I've slaughtered more groups with inept opponents that they should have waltzed through, that I have with competent ones who were designed to give them a run for their money. In the vast majority of those situations is was because of how poorly the players actually played that session. Sometimes dice even make a difference. Yes, and the blame for that should fall squarely on the shoulder of the GM, not on some mythical "game balance". The GM is running the game and should try to work things out. If a game is "balanced" and the group still steamrollers the bad guys, what then? Do you blame the game for "bad balance"? If so then who or what do you blame when you run another group, with the same characters, and they have a hard time? Did the adventure suddenly become more balanced? The real danger her isn't that a game system isn't balanced properly, but that a GM just assumes that an adventure must be balanced because some sort of point of Challenge Rating says that it is. Which, BTW, if you look at such systems closely, warn you about. A group of Kobold or Trollkin archers in no armor might be meat according to the Challenge Rating, Treasure Factor or by some other point method, but if they are on the battlements of a fort, with cover, while the PCs are out in the open, then the encounter isn't "balanced" And speaking of balance, most "balanced" encounters are not supposed to be balanced, they are supposed to be fixed in favor of the player characters. There was a time when GMs and DMs were expected to be able to fix the fights on their own, and didn't need instructions on how to do it. Yup, and with every RPG there are trade offs. You get X but give up Y. Prince Valiant is much simpler than Pendragon (or RuneQuest for that matter). Both Prince Valiant and Pendragon are Arthurian RPGs. If I wanted to run a pick up game or play in one shot adventure with inexperienced players, I'd opt for Prince Valiant any day. It's much simpler to understand, doesn't require dice, most players will be up to speed within an hour, and you can run the same sort of adventures with it as you could in Pendragon. But, that simplicity comes at a price. There are features and nuances in Pendragon that Prince Valiant just doesn't have. And players can do things in Pendragon that they just can't do in Prince Valiant. Now I like both games, and have had lots of fun running and playing both. But it's still a trade off. Because game balance is a myth. Give me a group of experienced players in any game and they will trash a group of novices nine times out of ten. They probably only lose the tenth time because luck counts too.That's the learning curve and that's life. I can't think of any game where familiarly with the game and with similar situations doesn't play off. Certainly not any RPG. Not unless the GM is fudging things excessively to force whatever outcome he desires.

Who ever said that it was supposed to be balanced?

What???What edition what that???? D&D has been, and still is a very "restrictive" RPG when it comes to character choices. Just try to place a wizard who is decent with a sword without multi-classing. Sandy Peterson's statement about RQ giving you a lot more freedom with you character in RQ comes to mind. Despite the multitude of things about RQG that I don't understand, I think that one thing that I do understand is that game balance was not the driving reason for the various restrictions of the cults. It was the very nature of those cults that created the need for the restrictions. The Baberster Gor thing isn't (or at least) wasn't about game design philosophy but about the setting and cultures of Glorantha. It would be like playing in Ancient Greece, and being upset that in order to play an Amazon "you had to be willing to play as a girl." It's not a game balance issue is a setting issue. Yes, some RPGs toss all that stuff out and let people play whatever they want without any sort of cultural context, and that is why those RPGs always feel and play the same regardless of what setting they are trying to emulate. It's the various restrictions and idiosyncrasies that give the settling "flavor" and make the game. As far as game balance goes, you could let Humakti use any weapons, allow anybody to take gifts and geas (or just toss them out), remove the restrictions on coming back from the dead, etc. If you do so, though, you will wind up with a generic "war god" similar to what D&D cleric get, but it wouldn't really be Humakt anymore, and Humakt wouldn't be different from all the other war gods anymore.

I think that might be the one thing about RQG that we all agree on. As RQG is a mix of RQ2, RQ3, and new rules figuring out just how somethings should work out is problematic for anybody who didn't write RQG. That's why the "use common sense" approach doesn't help. "Common Sense" just points out that Rule A wasn't designed to be used in conjunction with Rule B , and New Rule C alters how both A and B interact with each other cause Rule D not to work the way it was originally intended to, making Rule E pointless. Even things that used to be clearcut have meandered into the realm of ambiguity. In the past I could usually just try and figure out what the author had intended and that worked for RQ2 and RQ3. When that failed I could usually find a related Chaosium game which gave context to the problem and an example of how it was to be resolved. The various people I gamed with all played RQ with, from all over the country, all played it about the same way, as we could agree on the RAW. Yeah, ever so often a grey area would pop up. But it was ususally an odd, one off case. Now? It seems like the only thing about RQG that is clear to the fans is that RQG isn't clear to the fans.

And if so, what is the point of long term extension? Maybe what Jason means is that the character under Sword Trance is in a trace for the duration of the spell, and has to break the spell and come out of the trance to be able to sleep, or do anything else that doesn't revolve around his sword? That would make sense, especially if Sword Trace is like Arrow Trance, but it wouldn't be a a limit on extension, but the burdern of being under Sword Trance all the time. Much like how it wouldn't be much fun to go around all the time in an extended Bersek state. You could do it, but would you really want to?

See how helpful the table was! Yeah, but that really didn't affect chargen. He was Roman and his family stayed that way. I think we are straying into nature vs. nurture here. As statistics in KAP are physical characteristics, it logically makes sense that genetics would play a bigger role than society or religion. Saxons aren't bigger because they think bigger than Cymri. Nor do Romans think themselves into a higher APP score. Now you can make a case for things like diet, personal hygene and such all paying a factor in attributes, but they would take generations to has such an effect as we see in the culture in KAP.

Partially. A lot of it is also logical cause and effect, with people being prejudiced and reacting to stereotypes. Most people i\will probably made decisons about such characters before they even interact with them, and disproving those preconceptions will be an uphill battle. Yes and no. Yes there are times when a GM has to make a judgment call about something in the game, but no, this doesn't seem to be one of those times. Most of this stuff would work out a certain way based on the setting and interactions between the cultures. It's not really something that the GM should need to work out for himself. For instance, the chargen for characters from Salisbury tends to give characters a Hate (Saxons) passion. So logically, a GM should realize that Saxon characters are going to have problems being accepted in Salisbury. It's not really open for interpretation. If a GM wants to say that people in Salisbury just accept a Saxon character because that is how he wants to play it out, well he is deviating from what was intended. That's not to say he can't do so, but it does mean he is making a choice to divert. He wasn't left on his own, he chose to go it alone. Now that's okay, but it a situation of the GM's making. For example, for years I've been thinking of one day letting a PK actually succeed at drawing the sword from the stone. It will turn out that the PK was actually Arthur, raised in secret, with no knowledge of his true parentage. I can even find a vague point in Boy King and the GPC to even make it mechanically possible to do so. I'm perfectly free to do that some day,and I just might, but if I do so it will be entirely my decision to deviate from the time line.

Yes, you did indeed. Sorry. Probably only when a character gets land from Salisbury, especially if the land he gets is greater than what he had elsewhere (or if he were landless). I could actually see this happen a few times, especially during the anarchy when a lot of the (Romans) cities get conquered by Saxons. It actually happened with a Roman character in a campaign. He was a backup character, who had fought alongside the PKs (from Salsibury) and saved their lives with Chirugery (both were at negative hit points). When the Saxons took his city, the PKs took him in and he eventually distingusihed himself in from of the Earl, got landed and settled in. He stated Roman though, as did his children. He probably would have considered it a betrayal if his children turned their backs on their Roman heritage. Tables can help quite a bit. So can common sense. As for cultural tensions, that depends on if there are any. Since knights from Sarum are Roman (and that might include the Earl) I don;'t think there would be cultural problems with Roman characters. I think the problems would be with Picts, Saxons and other cultures with a history of attacking Britain.

I interpret it as a bad idea. 24 meters per round is a lot closer to real world walking speeds than running speeds. In RQ2 a character could stroll 240 meters in a full turn (25 melee rounds), and run 1000 meters in a full turn. That worked out to a running rate of 40 meters per round. In RQ3, an average character moved at 3m/SR, but could double that by running, to about 48 meters per round (the actual amount varied by DEX SR) In the BRP BGB, the rate was variable, with an average of 3m per MOV, but as much as 5m per move at a run. So characters are now running about half as fast as before, and slow compared to real world rates.

True, but traits, passions, and skills are not culture either. What the text box does state is that the character has parents of different cultures. Nothing actually states anywhere what the culture of the character would be. I'd probably say it was mixed (Pict/Cymric). But his children (or grandchildren) would probably be able to cement the family culture one way or the other. That's probably where most of the "Roman" character came about in KAP. Certainly. I can see such a character following his mother's religion. It's uncommon, but could happen under the right circumstances (probably for political reasons, such as the Pict married a heiress in a predominately Christian county). And to make it worse, the Picts would probably consider him a Cymri. in the bad old days before racial equality was even a concept, such a character could have troubles. A lot of that would depend on when/where/who, and much of the rest would depend on his actions. A half-Pict with 10,000 Glory known for his Loyalty (Lord) and Loyalty (Pendragon) passions is probably going to be accepted more easily that some naked, tattooed guy who ambushes knights on the road. Oh, okay. I thought you meant that we were somehow bound to cater to the players wishes. If a GM wants to run something a certain way, that's a whole different kettle of fish. BTW, a Roman knight moving to Salisbury isn't all that unlikely. All it takes is for a Roman knight without land, such as a second son, to marry a heiress from Salisbury. A knight from Sarum (Roman) who became a household knight of the Earl would be a prime candidate for such a thing.