Atgxtg

You mean something like Pendragon's Family History tables, where you can see what happened in Dad's and Granddad's day? And which could be used to jump in anywhere in the timeline?

It probably makes the various alliances between tribes more interesting too. I wonder how much of it is politics, how much ideology, and how much about finding a complementary force.

I'm hoping that we get to see a lot more of the Pendragon gang from Nocturnal over here, now that Chasoium has Pendragon, and will the pollution of the Nocturnal forums. First off, any idea when BoS is due out. I know before the transition the talk was by the end of the year, but that window is closing pretty fast. As far as a PK pulling the sword, well way back (KAP3's Boy King) I came up with that idea. Put a PK in Arthur's role,and the other PKs would be his young friends and go from there. I'd probably need to use Merlin in a sort of deus et machina role early on so save the Pks bacon much the way Merlin saves Arthur's for the first few years. I never did it for a few reasons. For one it's a big departure from the normal campaign. Secondly,. it would be very tough on the PK's especially "Arthur".I also made the mistake of mentioning it to my players so they were alert and looking out for it, which partially defeated the point of doing it- the total surprise factor. On the plus side, though my players are never sure just how the "Sword in the Stone" will play out. Yeah. My idea was that a PK was really Arthur, and that his parentage was kept secret to protect him. We don't, but I think there are those "mainstream" gamers who do. I used to game with a guy who had a terrible time playing a wizard in Decipher's LotR. The problems were of his own doing. He refused to use any weapon other than a staff or dagger (because it was "wrong": for wizards to be able to use other weapons) and kept running into problems with his magical capabilities compared to D&D. And problems because the High Elves were more like D&D Grey elves and vice versa. The latter proved quite humorous when the player tried to show how LOR was "wrong". It pretty much boiled down to Gygax not really knowing his Tolkien that well. I think that's the problem some people have with Pendragon. They expect it to work like D&D and believe that something is wrong with the game if it doesn't. Oh sure. The game mechanics are based off of RQ/BRP and are a solid enough foundation to use for just about anything. A GM would probably want to even need to adjust some rules to handle other character types well (thieves would need to make a lot of things skills instead of just using DEX, IMO). But I don't think it is a case of what the game can handle or not, just some people believing that something is wrong about KAP because it doesn't have the usually FRPG mix of character types. Pendragon is really a game about Knights.

Yeah, it's a problem though when we try to apply logic and scientific laws to Glorantha. While Glorantha does seem to operate under some sort of physical laws, and while they appear similar to our own for the most part, there are obviously differences. 15m giants simply aren't possible by our physical laws, let alone mountain sized dragons. So just about anything that "doesn't make sense" to use or is a "Bad idea" to our way of thinking could be operating under different laws of reality in Glorantha.

OH yes, the game system is certainly flexible, and GMs can modify things quite a bit. It wouldn't be too difficult to run a "historical" Arthur with KAP, and I still want to one day have a PK draw the Sword from the Stone and discover their "true" parentage. What Creativehum brought up is how some people believe that KAP is somehow flawed because it's set up for knights and not like typical FRPGs with their assortment of warriors, wizards, elves and the like. BTW, Hzard10 welcome to the BRP forums.

Perhaps the only way of fighting giants that has the potential to become a tradition. But it does open up the way for other questions about Glorantha creatures and living.. If the giants are somehow able to exist in defiance of the know physical laws of Earth, and many other creatures as well, then we must conclude that Glorantha must operate under somewhat different physical laws. And that opens up a Pandora's box of trouble as far as working stuff out logically. Everything said about "jockey" sized riders, might not hold true. It's quite possible that they could be stronger than would be expected for their SIZ.

Yeah, and that also why you don't see mounts past a certain size. To get horses past a certain size you need to feed them on more energy rich grains, and not let them forage on grasses. The same probably holds true for other mounts. So Praxian animals are probably the same. So the smaller size and ability to feed of what grows in Prax are both advantages in that environment and more important than raw size. That depends on how realistic you want to be. Said giant would also have to carry that weight on his two legs, his heart would have to pump blood twice as far, his lungs would need to oxygenate that blood, and so on. Past a certain point the giant wouldn't be able to function. And past another point and his body wound't be able too support his weight. His armor would be much heavier, and he's big an easier target for missile weapons.

I'm not disagree or arguing with you here. YOu, like most Pendragon players" get it". It's just that these people don't "get it". They are coming from another world. Years ago I was trying to explain RQ to a D&D player, andm, once he saw what one cult (Humakt) got for gifts and he couldn't understand why anyone would want top p[lay anything else. Everything about the game was evaluated from that "this class gets more than that one" point of view. KAP doesn't have things like balanced classes or game balance in general, controlled steady escalation, or any of that. So people coming from that mindset just don't "get" it. In D&D you don't hand out a +5 Sword to a low level character. If you did lots of people would come out of the woodwork and tell you that you did something wrong and why it was wrong. But that's exactly what happens with Arthur. Low level Squire gets to be king and gets a powerful magic sword, etc. etc. Ironically, what makes Pendragon work so well for Arthurian knights is precisely what makes it work so poorly for something else. Yeah, it can be adapted, but at the expense of loosing what makes it such a great game for Knights. If somebody ever altered Pendragon to make it more like "mainstream" FRPGs then there would kinda be no point in playing it. No game does D&D better than D&D.

In actual game terms, well yes. For better or for worse.Mostly because it's written that way. There is really very little difference, functionally, between having a cranequin on a crossbow or casting a Strength spell so you can pull back the string. But the methods do matter. Just like someone could ride a horse, or fly in an airplane might transport someone from point A to B. The end result might be the same, but there are differences between the methods. I think that's an over generalization. It's like saying an apolgy is a a way of getting what yo want, or that a boat is a type of horse (as both are used to transport people). I think it was more of a means of dealing with things that were outside of their control. Either as an explanation, or as something someone can do to have some degree of control over something that is beyond their control. Much like how some people pray to a higher power for help in a tough situation. Yes, sowehat. It's just that the rational behind a lot of magic isn't logical to modern ways of looking at the world. Many things that people used to consider to be of importance, like similar shapes or materials, aren't, and many things that they dismissed (i.e. thunder and lighting being seperate things) are in fact linked. So it's not that magic was irrational, just that the rational behind it was flawed to the point where most of it was nonsense. Yes, but I think that has a lot of do with modern mindset and RPG thinking. Modern mindset encourages "problem solving" thinking and that creative thinking can find new solutions to problems, and RPGs in general tend to present adventures as a series of obstacles to be overcome, and everything in the game is treated as tools towards that end. It's why most spells in RPGs tend to be combat related. If you think about it, it would be out of combat where most magic would be most useful. Imagine just how good Heal 1 , Glue, Repair and Mobility could be in day to day life. Literally meaningless isn't necessarily meaningless. It's possible something could have a meaning that we are not aware or or don't understand, or even a meaning that we are incapable of understanding. You would have to prove that. In real life there are plenty of things that people do that are not coherent, but that they still do. Or things that they do because of beliefs that have than cannot be proven. The fact that they cannot prove their beliefs doesn't prove that those beliefs are wrong either, just unproven.

Yes, or maybe not. I could see magicians having goals that they want to accomplish for magical reasons, and needing knights to accomplish those goals. For instance, if a certain mage wanted to get a certain magical sword from a Lady of the Lake, but had to get past Unseliee monsters to do so, then he might be better off getting some knights to fight the monsters than to try and confront them magically. Especially in a game without a lot of direct damage offensive spells. So magicians could have some sort of agenda, and work behind the scenes to manipulate knights into accomplishing their goals for them.That would fit with the literature, and keep the focus of the game on knights.

Take a look at the thread where someone was asking about the game and how it took several posts from several us us to really drive home the point that KAP is about playing Knights, period. Itsomething that most gamers just won't understand until they play the game and start to see how the standard FRP characters and themes don't fit in the Arthurian world. Yes, both characters and the game can be adapted to accommodate such characters, Pagan Shores, Saxons, and Land of the Giants do just that, but all do so by shifting the focus of the game away from knights. Magicians present another problem is that you have character parity issues to deal with as well. Most standard FRPGs are constructed so that all characters of equivalent experience have equivalent capabilities. That is a 10th level wizard is supposed to be just as powerful as a 10th level fighter, just in different ways. But that';s not necessarily the case for something like Pendragon, where Magicans can do things that are impossible for knights. Ars Magica solved this by focusing the game on the magic with everyone else a supporting character. KInda like Pendragon but with magi instead of knights.

I'm not saying that the magic wouldn't be a wash, just that a little bit of magic would pretty much wipe out all the "Small SIZ" problems. That can make small warriors far more practical for Glorantha than for Earth. But that's now how RQ has treated it so far. In game terms a 50% increase in weight is only a 4 point difference in SIZ. At least it was per the old SIZ table. Not sure about RQG, but as the stats for most species haven't changed much, I doubt it would be much more than that. Probably less if they are striving towards making bigger creatures a little weaker than before. Now a 4 point SIZ difference isn't huge in in the game. If fact with the (old) eew HP formula, 4 points of SIZ means even less that it does in RQ3 or Pendragon. Yeah,if that's all they got. Frankly I see them being skirmishers, more like 18th-19th century calvary who can ride on their mount all day because of their light weight. A crossbow isn't easy to use or load mounted. Most of the loading aids don't work so well from the saddle. Javelins come to mind. Even a scaled down Alt-alt. But I'd probably expect composite bows and riders with good upper body strength for their SIZ. IMO they really can get by with a light (20 pound draw weight ) bow and rely on mobility. Plus some ancestors to ostriches could be rather nasty in combat.

Lots of practice can help, but again it depends on just how small.One thing that Glorathan character s would have that could make a big difference is the Strength Battle Magic spell. A couple of points of that could make all the difference. Yeah, I don't see sub-100 pound (SIZ<=8) warriors being that much of an option but 140 Pounds (SIZ 11-12) being quite possible. Muscle mass and thus STR roughly depend on body mass. In other words you can't have 100 pounds of muscle mass if you don't weigh 100 pounds. And that's my point. Skill and organization can compensate for SIZ, at least up to a point, especially with calvary. Just how much it can compesate for depends. Yes. But I think just how much of a problem small SIZ would be would depend on just how much of a difference, if mounted or foot, and if there is magic that can compensate for it.

Which cam be compensated for by using a composite bow. Think Huns. Very good on horseback, terrible on foot.

I think you are mixing what is desirable from a fighting standpoint with what might be available. It's not like somebody goes "Let's all be SIZ 10". And the advantages of lighter riders and smaller burden for the mount could offset the disadvantages. Small riders with long weapons, such as lances who could rise all day, thanks to a small SIZ might be more useful that larger riders who need to have multiple mounts. But just what is considered "very small". The Romans were rather successful, and were shorter and smaller than most Norther Europeans. The Huns were another fairly small people, but still effective. So I think you might be overestimating the importance of size for the rider.

From what I hear though it will be different than in KAP4. Apparently one of the things that magicians will be able to do is temporarily run adventures as the GM. The idea being to pull a "Merlin" and send the PKs on some sort of Quest.

I think it's a case of not really understanding what the game is about. One the surface KAP appears similar to many other FRPGs, so many people think that it should have playable wizards and such. Of coruse KAP4 had wizard PCs, and there is a new take on that for kAP 5 in the pipepline, but the focus of the game is still on knights..

Yes, that's because the skill scores are doing double duty. They represent both absolute level of ability and relative level of ability, and both at the same time. So you end up with a lot of "failures" that wouldn't be failures per say in an actual head to head contest. It's like running a footrace where nobody finishes, or a basketball game that goes into overtime tired zero, zero. I think that in cases where somebody should win, rather than bumping skills down so the higher skill is at 100% maybe they should bump the skills up so that someone has a 100% chance of making the roll.

Does that have an effect or arrow or arrowheads? I would think it would,e specially with higher draw weights. I would expect hunting arrow heads to fare worse than combat arrows though,.as the former has long, sharp edges and the latter are designed to penetrate armor. Yes, which is why the high draw weight Welsh warbow probably wasn't used much for hunting. Then again, all that required practice time, would have helped with that. Actually it's more work, but it's easier and in smaller increments. It's like the inclined p[lane or a block & Pulley. I wouldn't. I'd expect less, per the laws or thermodynamics, which is what happens. Yes, and velocity is more important than mass as far as energy goes. and probably penetration as well It's a question if the extra speed offsets the loss of mass. That would depend on the numbers.

It doesn't, but going from shooting straw to hitting bone, rock and tree, probably would. For a Longbow 70 pounds wasn't a monster bow. What's happening is that you actually do put the extra energy into the bow, but the nature of the pulley system stores it in a way that itis easier to hold back. I'm not certain about momentum. Lighter and less thick means less mass, and less inertia, and so greater susceptibility to crosswinds, although the lower surface area would help. Now just how much of a change would be needed to have a significant effect is the question.

I'm skeptical, especially when dealing with high draw weight bows, such as long bows. Yeah a 20 pound bow probably isn't that hard on the arrows but an 80 or 100 pound one? Add to that the impact from wherever the arrow does hit (Target, tree branch rock). I'd rather waste the hour than have the arrow snap in my face. It is provable.. F=ma, so if the mass is a constant, and the force is increased, then the acceleration must be increased at the same ratio. So a 60 pound compound bow would have 50% greater acceleration than a 40 pound recurve,

Except they wouldn't want too. When an arrow is fired it bends around the bow stave, which actually weakens the arrow. Especially with more high powered bows. That's one reason why wooden arrows aren't all that popular today for practice shooting. Then there is the effect of impact, especially on the arrow head. So most archers probably wouldn't want to scavenge for arrows, unless they were were in a fix.

I love this picture! And the whole concept: dinosaur howdahs!

You could just have a bigger one for the example. It doesn't have to be a typical specimen. If it's like horses solider might gravitate towards larger beasts for mounts. Which can be done with computer, I hope. Have you considered some type of wood and rope "ladder" that could roll up and be dropped down to mount.

Yes, it wasn't quite hopeless. Generally after a whil;e, they had enough knowledge to get an idea of where they were and to get to where they were headed, eventually. But there was a lot of stuff that could go wrong, such as the weather. Figure out what you believe the typical results should be the work the rolls and math to fit. For instance, I think most ships made it from point A to point B and that the big question was how long did it take. Some ships were lost but probably not the majority, or else there wouldn't have been any cross ocean shipping. The shippers would have went bankrupt. Weather played a factor, but could be minimized somewhat by avoiding sailing in certain times of year. It's not that being able to fix the longitude made long distance sea travel possible. It was possible. It just made it a lot safer.But if it hadn't been mostly safe to begin with then it wouldn't have reached the point where fixing longitude became important. Of course the ships themselves made a difference, and got better over time. Crossing the ocean in a sloop or brig was safer than doing in in a longship or pentakonter. If that's the case then once a navigation roll is successful and a navigator find a current it should be easier to stay in the current. In the age of sail that is precisely how ships got back and froth from Europe to the Caribbean. At least once they knew about those currents. So a ship would slot into the current and ride out out, and would reliably get from Point A to Point B, barring storms or enemy action.