Atgxtg

Okay, here is a short table that gives an average SIZ and an average range of SIZ for a given height of horse in hands. As the data includes some breeds that are modern it might be a little off from ancient or medieval values but probably not by much, since those earlier horses were short but often stocky. The ranges are somewhat small compared to the RQ SIZ range, but a larger horse would tend to be taller, given each breed/type a range of heights.. The table also gives a SIZ rating as the percentage of the horses's weight for purposes of seeing how big a rider the horse can comfortably carry. The rider SIZ values are probably a little low at the low end, as the low hand size data is almost exclusively from Shetland ponies, which are very strong for their weight. Most light calvary horses would carry a load (rider and kit) equal or less than 20% of the horse's weight. Heavy Calvary/Shock would carry a load of 25% or even 30% of the horses weight, but usually for shorter periods, and only in actual combat. Note that this doesn't factor in for STR, or more accurately assumes a given muscle mass and STR for a given mass (or SIZ) or horse. I'm working on factoring in for STR, but as most horses types have a a SIZ about 4-6 points than their STR, I'd have to add about 2-3 points of SIZ to the load weights of horses in the middle of the table, but little or nothing to horses at the ends (draft horses). Oh, for those who don't know, a hand is considered to be 4" or 10 cm. So a 15 hand horse would be 60"/150cm tall. If anybody canto confirm/deny that the RQG's SIZ table is the same one that Chaosium has been using since RQ3, I can try to update the table to the newer system. Height RQ3 SIZ Range Rider 20% Rider 25% Rider 30% 9-9.3 26 25-26 7 11 12 10-10.3 27 26-28 8 12 13 11-11.3 27 25-29 9 13 14 12-12.3 29 26-31 10 14 15 13-13.3 33 28-35 14 18 19 14-14.3 34 31-36 15 19 20 15-15.3 35 33-36 16 20 21 16-16.1 36 35-36 17 21 22 16.2-16.3 37 35-38 18 22 23 17-17.1 40 38-41 21 25 26 17.2-17.3 41 41-42 22 26 27

Do you know approximately when was that plague? I've read and though that breeds such as the Welsh Cob and Shetland Pony went back at least as far as the Icelandic Horse. All three (and other horse breeds) have been bred with other horses at various times. Much of the original Icelandic stock was wiped out after a volcanic eruption, of all things, in 1780, hence M Helsdon's comment on the Icelandic being a relatively modern introduction.

I was working on some horse breed info for Pendragon, and collected some same weights and converted them into SIZ values for Pendragon, and also for RQ3 (I'm not sure if RQG uses the same SIZ progression or not). I made a table that gives a SIZ value for a given height (in hands). I was hoping to use it to see about medieval horses. I usually can find info on height, but very little on weight. If you want I can post a table with average SIZ stats per height in hands. It varies a little by breed, but not by more than about 3 points in either direction. LOL! I know that feeling. Repetition helps.

From what data I've seen for real world horses, an 11 hand high horse would probably average around 560 pounds (272kg), which was about SIZ 28 in RQ3. 3D6+12 average out at SIZ 28.5, so you're probably on the right track as far as the height. Well, you can certainly fake it pretty well. Better than some artists I've known.

Considering how tough Mythos nasties can be, and how zealous some of the followers can be, I could easily see the bad guys bidding a really tough bid and either because they are resistant to injury (Mythos nasties) or fanatics (cultists), This could cause some troubles for the players if they get stuck with a suicidally high difficulty, and a sort of kamakaze result.

I'm not saying that they need to add the complexity of the supplements just bring the book in line wit the newer stuff. For instance using the same Luck table as Cymric characters get in K&L, and giving them spear expertise and generally incorporating things that are updates or changes to the core rules, not alternate or advanced rules. So things like the basic battle system in the book could stay as it is, but we could get haubergeons on the core armor table in the rulebook. What I'd like to see is the characters and stats be the same regardless of what level of details GM chooses to use. No it isn't. I agree more detail isn't needed in the game. But what I would like to see is, in cases where Greg changed something basic, that the next version of the rulebook incorporate it. Greg did some of that with 5.2. Some of the manorial improvements from Book of the Manor were added to the price tables. Simple, easy, and doesn't make KAP any more complex. I think all the various "Book of" supplements should remain separate add ons, but that any thing that changed or was added to the core system be incorporated into the main rules. For example, Siege skill was added in the GPC and K&L, so I thinkit should be added to the knights starting skills. None. A GM could actually start the campaign with that, if he wanted to, if his players understand enough of the game mechanics and culture to follow along. In fact in 3rd and 4th edition the actually started the campaign even later, after Arthur had become High King.I'd even go so far as to say that as most people expect to play in the time of King Arthur, that the latter time might even be more appropriate. But the Uther expansion isn't about giving players needed time, but to expand the timeline. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. What I was talking about was making sure the various rules and stats remains consistent. For example Gothic Plate is listed as 18 points in KAP, but 21 ((with a Frog Helm to boot) in K&L. I think Gothic plate's stats should be the same regardless of which book you pull them out of. So the different values should be reconciled in some way. In other words not so much change the game or make it more complex, but edit it so everything is consistent with the other books. That way if someone decided to buy a supplment in mid campaign he won't have to alter his existing characters.

Definately. Juding from some of the stuff in the Book of Uther, I think an update was probably in the works. Personally, I hope they hold off in a GPC update until they release the stuff that's in the pipeline. THat way if they do update the GPC they can incorporate the stuff from Sires, Castles and Magicians into it. That way we won't need a third update.

Welcome, and good luck. Obviously Greg was a tough act to follow, but it's nice to know that things are going to be in some of the same hands that have been overseeing the game in the last few years.

I wonder just who will be in charge of it now. Greg was working on a successor of sorts over at Nocturnal, but I don't know if any of the creative team from Nocturnal will be handing Pendragon now or if Chasoium is going to assign somebody.

You can get a "Print of Demand" Hardcopy of the GPC at DrivethruRPG. . Technically, I think Paldadin is considered to be it's own game, and isstill owned by Nocturnal. The is a lot of KAP stuff in the Pipeline and Book of Sires could be out by the end of the year. Based on the original post, I expect things to improve as far as new stuff availability goes. Stormbringer and Elfquest would be difficult, since they are games based on someone else stories and settings, so any "return" would requires new arrangements with Mr. Moorcock or the Pinis. Base on what I've read on the forums, it would seem doubtful, as the properties might not be profitable enough to be worthwhile, after the licensing fees. Especially as neither Elric or ElfQuest are as popular now as they were in the 80s.

It's the one I ended up running the most. Stormbringer and RQ got good playing time, but Pendragon is my players' RPG of preference. It looks like it's going to get it too. From what I've heard from Nocturnal, there are several Pendragon supplements in the pipeline, and some new RPGs that use the Pendragon game mechanics.

I've ran across it, and by an unlikely path, paper minis. HArd is probably the best as far as a historically accurate economy. Pednragon's not bad, it holds up well enough for knights, but I suspect it doesn't hold up quite as well as Harn.

Yeah, Harn is like Pendragon, but without the Arthurian backdrop, and with more detail, and more RQ like rules. I only wish they would do a version set in Medieval Europe instead of Harn.

It's inferior in terms of range , space needed to use , and the ability to "hold" a shot. That's probably the reason. If you had to relying on hunting for your food, you'd probably want the bow. And if you are a leader going to war, you want your people to use the weapon they have the most skill with. Sounds about right to me. Maybe a skilled user can hit S/MR, but I'd have to see it to believe it. Maybe for two or three shots but not sustained. I think back when they wrote them up for RQ the thought was that the alt=alt could be use to boost a regular javelin. hence the add on stats. Yes, it crazy. Either the Javelin/Alt-alt should be reduced or the Bow increased. Even if we look at bows in the variant RQ games, such as the Melniboean Bone Bows or the normad bows in Wind of the Steppes, we don't get near 1D10+1D6. That's crossbow territory. I'd probably go with 1D8 instead of 1D6+1, but either way it's an improvement. Yup, although some other BRP games reduce the Javelin to 1D8. Personally I think I'd prefer 1D6 for javelin (not quite as good as a self bow, unless you have a db) and 1D8 for Alt-alt.(comparable to a self bow, but not quite as good as a long bow, again unless you have a db). As it stands now Alt-atl with speeddart (1D10+1D6+3, average 12 points of damage) or multimissle rules missle combat. If you can get close enough.

Except in RQ it ends up being superior to a strong bow, as javelins do more damage than bows to begin with, and an alt-alt even moreso. If an Alt-alt is more of an oversided arrow, maybe it should do lower base damage to begin with?

I certainly should work with RQG. The question though is why do it? It already works fine with RQ3, what would be the advantages to converting it over to RQG? Most of the new bits in RQG are Glorantha specific, or backwards compatible to RQ3-saving the GM the effort of recalculating hit points, lowering armor values, combining skills all that for the NPCs in the prewritten scenarios. . Probably an overhaul. Most of the Furthark are not in in opposition to one another, and most have different meanings than their RQG counterparts. An overhaul could be done, but a GM would need to considered the pros and cons, and how much magic was going to be in the campaign. If a GM wanted to add personality traits and passions, they could port those over to RQ3 easy enough. I don't see much reason to adapt it to RQG. Now if/when the new RQV (RuneQuest Vikings) comes out, then it might be worth thew switch.

Well the example from HW was someone in a jumping contrest. The flier won hands down, since they could fly higher and say in the air longer. Notg exactly the same. The jumper could only grab a leg when the Griffin was close, the flier could chase. So there are limits on one mechanically that don't apply to the other.

Mostly because it would make magic redundant and pointless. If Magical Flight 2W2 and Jumping 2W2 both worked the same, then there is no advantage or reason to have Magical Flight. I think magic needs to work somewhat differently, just to justify it over another ability. The nice thing about Magical Flight is that it lets people do things they couldn't do just by jumping. Well, unless they are the Hulk.

No ones' told me. I've read the SRD, but what's so special about the skills & traits?

Low/High fantasy doesn't matter so much as how much money and what type you have, and why it changes. If you are using a D&D type model with thousands and thousands of gold pieces, then where does it all go? You might be going from an economy where 1 gold coin won't get you a room at an inn to one where 1 gold coin can provide for you and your family for a year. If you are unsure as to what to use for money, you could invent some new metal that cam about during the catastrophe,or has been recently discovered.

I agree. Harn is probably the best as far as economics goes. Nothing I've seen has been as detailed or as good. The basics aren't that complicated or that different from RQ3 or Pendragon either. The basic wage is 1d per day, but varies based on the job. Montly pay ends up being less than 1d/day due to Sundays and holidays. I can dig out my books, if it would help. One of the books, Harnplayer, has it down to 2 pages-really a page and a quarter. With one page for prices and the quarter for daily and monthly wages.

If you are running a fantasy/medeival Erupoe you might not need many coins at all. Historically it was almost all barter.

Well, what you need to figure out is how many lead coins does a take to feed and hose a person for a day. That should be about the 1d amount. Then you can multiply the other grades by some number (RQ3 used 4) to get the next grade.

Actually it was silver pennies in RQ3. The d was my fault. I've just started up a Pendragon campaign and abbreviated with d by reflex. Although denarius does mean penny.

Well the BGB doesn't use money per say. Character have a sort of wealth level that influences what they can afford to buy. RQ3 had an economic system that used coins though, and it seems close to what you got, although it has a few more tiers. Daily "Income" 1d: Menials, prisoners. slaves, beggars, drafted soldiers. 4d: Minor Crafter, Landed Peasants, NCOs, Peddlars, minor priests, ship captains. 16d Knights, Minor Nobility, merchants 64d Counts, Earls 250d/ Dukes, High Priests, Magic 100d Princes, Archpriests 4000d King 16,000d Emperor The values are multiplied by 7 for a week, 30 for a month, and 360 for a year. So you could work from this if you want.