Atgxtg

Oh, okay. I just have RQ2 and RQ3 to work with. Perhaps. Most RPG price lists tend to be pretty bad overall. I used to get my playerslaughing in D&D by translating prices from gp to weight in gold, and the nightmare of logistics. Magics items were literally worth more than their weight in gold, which was fine until you realized just how commonplace magic was, and what it meant to the economy. A good magic sword could literally cost a ton on gold, and a leader outfitting his troops with even +1 weapons is going to need a heckova supply line, and the city of El Dorado to pay for it. Not that any of that helps with RQ bow prices, but at least we don't have it as bad. If you want to, just divide the prices by 10 or 100, or assume that the Gloranthan Yu tree is much rarer and harder to cultivate, and takes longer to dry than the Terran Yew tree. Perhaps Yu only grows in Snakepike Hollow!

Except all the other Legend books are there. So it must have been something about that particular book.

I couldn't find a Legend version of Ultimate Mongol Empire Guide on DrivethruRPG, just Savage Worlds and EGS. Wind on the Steppes for BRP, is the only D100 supplement on Mongols that I know of.

I got the price off of wikipedia. Yew was preferred and imported because the combination of sapwood and heartwood works as a natural composite bow.

Lets see. According to your source later 1460s (the highest price) is 2 shillings per bow. 2 shillings is 24d, or close to a month's pay. The lowesr price, 1 shilling (12d) is about two weeks pay. There is no longbow in RQ2, but there was one in RQ3, with the same price as the composite bow, so we can use that price, 150L here. That does seem high compared to the prices for swords. So I think you've proved your point. That price, 1 months wage, matches up with what I had above in pence. The problem here is that we have little to go on regarding a weeks wage in Glorantha. All we have is a note that 1L is worth 1£ ,pre-WWII . If it's 40L/week we'd be in the 1 month's pay territory. If 80L/week then 2 weeks pay. Either are nice as far as thinking in terms of an hourly (1L or 2L per hour) or daily wage ( 8L or 16L pey day) , not that they would think that way. I suspect that 40L per day is too high though.

Do you have a source for that? I've seen prices for yew bowstaves at 2£ per 100, or about 5d each , which would be about a week's wage. But I haven't seen the price for a finished longbow, which typically took up 4 years to produce, and which would probably have been reflected in the final price. I also know that the price for Medieval arms and armor were deliberately inflated to help restrict ownership to the proper classes.

4th edition has the most expensive summoning rules. Demons have a much lower cost in most other editions. I'd suggest getting a PDF of 5th edition. in 5E the costs are: Attributes and MOV: 1 magic point per die Skill % or Demonic Ability %: 1 magic point per 10% Demoic Abilities: 1 magic point per shift on the Sacrifice Table (see below). Arms, legs, hands, eyes, etc. are "freebies" unless they grant some sort of Demonic Ability. Sacrifice table MP(Die) 1 (1D2) 2 (1D4) 3 (1D6) 4 (1D8) 5 (1D10) 6(1D10+1D2) (the pattern repeats, so 10 would be 2D10, 15 would be 3D10 and so on). In 5E I think your Deamonettes would cost 75 MPs or so.

I think any change is refreshing, and good. Nothing against Glorantha c.1620, but we've been "stuck" in that same time for 40 years! It's nice to see the clock tick forward, and things happening.

That's kinda the problem with any new attack-if it works better than a standard attack with a weapon then people won't use regular weapons and regular attacks. If it doesn't work all that well, then people will stick to weapons. I think stoypa is on the right track with making throws, arm locks, disarms, and such "specials" for grapple, and it might be possible to learn a new special with training.

I might, you're usually level headed and fair. Every so often you do something that causes a bit of unrest, but when that happens you are almost always blindsided by something, and, once on the same page, are usually level headed and fair. If you were a moderator, I suspect that your sense of responsibility as a moderator would probably make your a tad more careful about your posts, too. Yeah, a forum could could do worse.

I think that stems from the fact that sometimes the GM is simply unaware of something and the variation isn't so much a creative choice but simple ignorance. In my early days of running RQ I did a lot of things that were not "right" for Glorthana due to unfamiliarity and lack of resources. None of my players were curious about what I was doing, including the ones who were more knowledgeable of Glorantha, probably because I wasn't doing much that was creative or novel, just falling back on generic FRPG or historical "defaults". What criticism I did receive was given in a gentle manner more or less as a suggestion or explanation on things that I hadn't been aware of. I think the fear that GMs have today is two fold. First there is a fear missing out on the richness of the setting, and basically cheating themselves and their players of a better gaming experience. Heroes who are members of their community, engaging in cattle raids and clan feuds are more interesting that generic wandering adventurers doing a series of similarly generic dungeon crawls. Now both of those types of games are legitimate RQ, and that shows just how much RPGs and RQ in particular has evolved. The second fear is more personal and is fear of embarrassment. No GM wants to make some horrendous mistake that really makes them look incompetent and unbelievably ignorant and is so bad that they cannot easily fix it. This a is a fear that I think all GMS have to some extent, because we've all messed up somewhere along the line and been razzed by our players, and we can just imagine how bad it might be if we were to make such a colossal blunder. Despite the fact that something that a error of that magnitude is unlikely, to do out of ignorance, it could happen. So most GMs tend to be a bit more conservative with an established setting. GMs who deliberately change things, and are up front about it have a easier time selling changes to their players, but even then there can be backlash if the changes are so radical or contrary to the setting as to ruin the players suspension of disbelief, and thus their enjoyment of the game. The richer the setting, the more information there is on a setting the greater the chance of a GM making such a error, and so the more intimidating the setting becomes, unfortunately. The same holds true for game systems too. I know a lot of D&D DMS who don't run anything else in part because they are intimidated to learn a new game system, often because they expect other game systems to have the same level of complexity and special case rules that D&D has. It is a lot easier to stick with what you know or to add smaller more manageable chucks to what you know than to jump into the deep in the of the pool and try to tread water.

If they have passions. They could actually be passionless.

I get an image of Napoleon firing grapeshot into crowds of cultists (and Deep Ones).

Sounds a lot like King of Dragon Pass, but for Trolls.

There could be a huge difference. Just because that difference isn't obvious doesn't mean it's not huge. There are poisonous plants that look like other, non-poisonous plants but there is a huge difference if you eat one. Likewise the difference between a cup full of water and one full of salt water isn't obvious, until you taste it. I think that with gods and spirits in Glorantha is that not everyone is using the same criteria or the same methods to classify supernatural entities, and there is almost certainly some local bias or restrictions. The problem for us is that we don't know what criteria anybody uses in Glorantha to distinguished between the two. Off the top of my head, I'd assume that a god would require a certain amount of POW, an exsistence in godtime, and some worshipers/followers, although just where the "breakpoints" are is anybody's guess.

I don't think Lou owns Gamescience anymore. Based on some of his videos it seems like someone else owns it and he works for them now. I don't know what the arrangement is, or how amicable, but the employee who seemed to be fed up with Lou might not have been his employee and it might have been the other way around.

Yup. Both in real life and in Tolkien's works. Tolkien even addressed that, mentioning that, in Middle Earth, orc and goblin refer to the same thing, with goblin being used in the Hobbit mostly to make them more accessible to children. Goblin was a word that children might have encountered before and have some understanding of, while orc was a more oscure word that, even if know, referred to something else.Likewise, Tolkien mentioned that Ent is an old word for Giant, not a different type of creature. With LOTR being aimed at more adult readers, Tolkien felt that he could use more of his Middle Earth languages instead of more modern, well known words. In real life it gets even more confusing, since legendary creatures are far more nebulous, not as well defined as we'd like for an RPG, vary in abilities and characteristics by region,. and could have been mixed up with something else when translated into another language or for another region (a mix of "monster syncretism" and lost in translation). You can often find the same stories told with "different" monsters. Grendel being a great poster child. Is he a Druagar, troll, giant, orge, demonic spirit in humanoid form (orc)? Well, yes, depending on which source you read and how it was translated/interpreted. Plus, historically, they are all basically the same thing. It's only gaming that makes a distinction between them, or even needs such a distinction. In a story, it probably doesn't matter if the heros have to fight five orcs or five giants. In a RPG context it does. RQ3: Vikings even addressed this, even going so far as to note alternate names for various RQ: Viking creatures. Not quite. There is the sword Orcist. Tolkien already had his Elvish languages, inclduing the word "orc". He just decided yo go with something more well known "goblin" as the Hobbit was a Children's book. Goblin is also a bit more of a "G-rated" monster, having been toned down over the years. He already had orcs worked up in his notes , that became the Silmarillion. He even notes that Man-Orc and Elf are really all the same species (that's why they can interbreed). You basically have Man, man in a "state of grace" and man that has been corrupted). Much like how Trolls in LOTR are corrupted (Gi)Ents). But Orc and goblin in Tolkien are interchangeable, at least initially. The same is probably true with his Half-Orcs and his HobGoblins. It gets more cofusing with the interbreeding and the ability of Maiar (supermnatural spirits) to take a physical form. But most of the humanoid monsters in LOTR are really just a mix of man, (gi)ent, embodied spirit (maiar) , and divine grace or corruption.

I disagree. In order for someone to become up to date with the versions of RQ, they would first have to become aware of the wiki, and already be aware that RQG has something to do with whatever version of RQ they are looking up. With this site being the official Chaosium forum, it is far more likely for an old RQ fan or someone who was bought RQG to be aware of Chasoium and wind up here. Although, even a sticky thread with a link to the wiki would do the trick. While I'm at it, some sort of FYI on RQ, and differences between editions and a little info on the major supplements (such as which one is for which RQ) would probably help. Often people look for a supplement to cover a particular genre or area, and wind up looking at or even purchasing a supplement for a different version of RQ that might not be compatible or applicable to the version of RQ that they are playing. Someone who came into the game with Mongoose's RQII could easily find an old Chaosium RQ2 product, expect it to be written for the same exact game system, and wind up horribly confused. Some sort of FYI would help, and I think a wiki, linked in a sticky thread might be the ideal solution.

We could probably benefit from a Sticky Thread that lists the various incarnations of RQ, which ones are still in print, under what names, the companies behind them, what support exists for those games, and where to find it. To someone whose hasn't looked into RQ for a long time, or who is new to the game it could be rather confusing.

LOL! Although I doubt "fetch" is quite right. Fetching a dragon is probably their best "tactic" in just about any fight.

Yeah just to clarify, because there are so many version of RQ rolling around these days, the latest edition of the game is, technically, RuneQuest Glorantha (RQG) which came out two months ago.

Wow! I love my old RPG stuff, that's why I have boxes and boxes of it -but to think that some people would actually pay thousands of dollars for some of it. Wow. I don't want to sell any of it, but there would be a certain satisfaction to emailing my mother the receipts for the stuff that I "threw good money away on" back in the 80s. I might just check and see what I got multiple copies off.

Yes, plus early RPGs borrowed heavily from them. So, ultimately, they have a lot in common with generic Fantasy and generic Sci-Fi because they were sources that such games went to. Especially Tolkien. Prior to RQ, virtually every FRPG was Middle Earth with some tweaks, subtractions, and additions. That's why so many Fantasy RPGs have orcs and haflings.

Both methods will use some math. In the first you multiply the Length*Beam*Depth yourself, and in the second you pick Length, Beam, and Depth on separate columns, and they give you a SIZ total to lookup and see what the tonnage is. I'll have another table with some pre-constructed ships, probably around three (small, medium, large) of each type. For example, a small sloop might be 50 tuns, a medium one 100 tuns, and a large one 150 tuns. The construction rules will let you make a 35 tun, 75 tun, or 120 ton sloop.

I hate to say I hope so, but I'd be somewhat relieved if there was a logical explanation behind it.