Atgxtg

I disagree. I've ran all the editions of Pendragon, and have had quite a few powerful PCs, including some Round table members, with just a few 15s and 16s on the sheet. So its possible. If you go with the recommended, standard method in KAP5+, including the Book of Knights & Ladies, traits are not rolled but set at 10 plus religious, cultural, and regional modifiers. With that method, a few 15s and 16s is about the best you can hope for. So the higher traits aren't really a design goal. More a by product of roll over a dozen traits randomly, then applying a few modifiers, then being able to raise something to 16, and then have 6 points to spend on top of it all. That doesn't mean that the results will get out of hand, but It has the potential to. In my last campaign I wound up with half a dozen paragons of virtue and chivalry. Most weren't that bright though, and died before they could ride the glory train. The ones that did survive, though, became something else again. I've never seen PKs as powerful in Pendragon, except for Lancelot.

Yes and no. By Lovecraft's thinking, the Mythos beings shake people up because they are things that shouldn't be, and seeing them makes someone question reality as they know it. Part of the problem I have with this is that it's probably more of case of what Lovecraft himself couldn't handle, as opposed to something mankind can't handle. Much of Lovecraft's attitudes were shaped by his sheltered upbringing. The Mythos takes those fears and insecurities and magnifies them. I'm not thrilled with the SAN mechanics.It always seemed odd to me that humans can't accept all these beings running around, but none of the beings have any problems.

Plus the fact that a lot of artists now work in pencil, scan it, and then finish it digitally on a computer. These days the brush pens are probably the best pens, but are harder to master. For 0.1mm I use a Sharpie of all things (not too bad, considering) and a Kuretake brush pen thingy that behaves like a felt tip. I've got a Pentel Brush Pen which is fantastic, but I lack the control to use it reliably. But try the Kuretake. It's fairly cheap but sort of the best of two works. It can work like a felt tip, but lay down a heavier line when required.

Yeah, although they kinda lost the introspective bits as the series went on. Plus Roddenberry was trying to sell the show as a "space western" (westerns were popular on TV then). Eventually it evloled away from all that into it's own thing. LOL! That is probably like when he was selling off the pops. In the early 70s Trek was "dead" and he just kinda got whatever last bits of cash out of it he could. When the series proved to be far more popular in syndication that it had been during production, things changed. As for the cloaking device, the problem is for a series standpoint, you really don't want the Enterprise to be able to cloak, but it's obviously incredibly useful and would logically be incorporated if possible. IMO the best solution would have been to say that the sensors got better and negated the technology. They actually did state than in a TNG episode where an old TMP era Bird of Prey shows up. Since the Fed seem to have the best science tech, it could be that they couldn't come up with acloak that defeated thier newer sensor systems, and didn't want to gamble that the same wasn't true with the Klingons or Romulans.

The +3 CON, in fact Attributes in general aren't so much of a problem. It's the traits, because they have the potential to bring in lots of glory. In my last campaign we rolled them randomly per 5th edtion and the Book of Knight & Ladies, and between the cultural and religious modifiers, 6 free points, and the ability to turn one trait into a 16, I very quickly wound up with several knights who qualified for both the religious and chivalrous bonuses, and were racking up over 300 glory a year. Combined with adventuring,they were earing a glory point every other year. And that opened up the door to rapidly bringing skills up over 20, which in turn helped to increase their glory per year. Having 15 in several combat skills ins't a problem, it that by starting that high PKS can quickly and easily get up past 20. I had a PK riding around with something like a 34 sword skill! He started with a 15, worked it up to 20 (which is quite sensible for a knight to do) and then put that glory point he was getting every other year into it for awhile. He also got very lucky and rolled a string of 20s for improvement (it got to the point where everyone at the table would stop and watch when he rolled to improve Sword). In previous editions PKs didn't start off quite so skilled, or with as many trait modifiers, nor with a religion that helped so much with the chivalry bonus, so characters netting 300 glory/year from traits were a lot less common, and happened over time.

Yeah, all methods are supposed to help enhance the gaming experience, not detract from it. While ECs can do what soltakss said, simple contest can also detect from the game byresolving things too quickly, reducing drama and tension and make things anti-climatic. Yes ECs can be overused, can slow things down and detract from play, but that true of anything that adds complexity to a game. conversely they can also enhance it. You could make the same claim about keywords or ability scores in general, or the differences between cultures. Doesn't mean those things don't enhance the game too in some way. Same with ECs. There are reasons why and entire fight isn't decided with one opposed roll in virtually every RPG. So I agree with you ECs have their time and place. It's the GMs job to work out when that is.

Yeah. It's a relious pantheon that happens to be an empire.

The adopt the people, but I don't see the Lunars riding sables. But then Rome started out as a city-state that expanded and merged with it's neighbors. The Lunar Empire was probably larger and with more of it's culture worked out.

Yeah, the Romans were very pragmatic. If it worked better than what they had, they'd take it and use it. I still get a kick out of their laws for suicide. Attempted suicide was punishable by death (Romans hated inefficiency) while suicide was not a crime ( they couldn't do anything to you anyway). The Gladius Hispanica they did indeed get from the Ibernerians, apparently after being given a "demonstration" of it's advantages over the spaetha. the oval shield was from the Gauls, although it might have come to them by way of the Greeks, along with pretty much everything else that was Greek. Mail supposedly originated with the Celts, but I think it was already widespread by the time the Romans got into Gaul. Going back to Glorantha, I think that might be one the the differenes between the Lunar Empire and Rome. The Lunars don't seem to adopt as much from other coutures.

Nice. It's got a 'reference book" quality to it that makes it seem more like a historical reference book. Like something I might see on a shelf at the library. The armors look a bit Roman with the cheekplates, muscle cuirass and greaves, but not in a bad way.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if multiple opponents just became one opponent who was augmented by the others. Maybe bend the 3 augment rule for this a little (3 augments plus helpers), and let PCs roll to see what their augment value is? Seems to me that would eliminate the need for penalties too, as the extra augment would accomplish the same thing.

I know what you mean. It's been awhile since I played HQ (or much else for that matter) but it used to be that "damage" came off of the ability score being used. Plus, with the way all abilties work the same there would be little reason to switch to a lower ability score, and every reason to try and change to a higher one, if possible. I don't think resistance value should change under normal circumstances. Not unless there was some sort of in game reason for it.

Yeah, player interest is key. It's also why combat tends to be the man focus in most RPGs. It's an easy thing to hook the players into, and there are rewards and consequences that the players care about (treasure, survival, character improvement). Provided that the players have a vested interest in the outcome, any conflict can be worth treating as an extended contest. Interesting. Did they make any allowances for changing the ability used during the extended contest, or just the standard ability plus three augments?

Oh, no, I was just thinking of Western Empire stuff. Yeah, that could be scale, hard to say for sure in black and while at that size.

At home? The office? the beach? I don't care.

You have a nice pseudo-Greeco-Roman style that I think works for the setting. How are you are drawing dark age medieval armor?

Oh great, so just when I can get my hands on the thing, that over sized Waltapus runs rampant.

It's amazing just what computers have done for desktop publishing. I remember when we had to do things by typewriter, and tables were a pain in the posterior.

Whom do we have to take hostage to get you to release a book? You've got some of the best weapons tech stuff on Glorantha, but we only get these tantalizing peeks! And where do you get all this textbook style art?

Au contraire, how can you show perfection without something inferior to compare it to? At least it's not bent.

Yeah. There is nothing wrong with that, and a lot (most?) gamers enjoy and prefer that style of play. Personally, I prefer my long battles to have more meaning to them beyond "encounter of the week". Yeah. My group were playing a lot of D&D and were kinda getting annoyed with some of the long fights. Generally speaking you tend to reach a point where the conflict is decided long before the fight actually ends. It's like fighting a war when you know the leaders are ironing out the peace treaty, or leaving in your star players at a sporting event at the end of a blowout. Yeah, but again I think it is less tools and more technique. You don't have to play out every sword swing. The same holds true for games like RuneQuest or Pendragon, where characters can surrender (or run away) as opposed to fighting to their last breath. Or even games like Call of Cthulhu where the PCs (should) learn quickly not to try and trade blows with all the Mythos nasties.

True, but that is partly due to emphasis. Pathfinder, like most D&D games revolves around combat, with everything else being a sideline. Look at Heroic Age for instance, even the Gloranthan version. Everything is geared towards the fights. It less that you cannot resolve a conflict quickly in Pathfinder, but that you were never supposed to. In HQ, non-combat encounters can be important, and social conflict can be just as important, with equally important contests. I think it's the shift in emphasis that allow allows for a single contest to resolve a fight.

Yeah, I think both approaches have merits and it depends on the circumstances and needs of the story. Extended costs can be good when you want to build up tension, stuff like can they defuse the bomb in time, can often play out better as an extended contest with some sort of timer ticking down. Likewise, somethings are better handled if they are resolved quickly, with a single contest. One of the nice things about the rules is that there is little to no difference between the two, and that the GM can decide which method to use.

LOL! I can only image what might be cobbled together in boxes somewhere. Chaosium was, at one time, a garage company, dealing in relatively small print runs, trying to create, pack and ship games to distributors and customers. They were obviously far more concerned with making sure each box had the right books, maps, dice and counters than in documenting a record for posterity. Rightly so, too. I doubt back in the 70s if anybody at Chasoium paid attention to stuff like how many copies of the RQ2 softcover were printed in green, and how many in red.

And fewer artillery barrages.