Atgxtg

Thanks, Jason.

If one of the weapons parried earlier, and was low on hit points, I could see switching to the other one, that's about it.

Wet water? How much?

Which is hard to do with a combined skill. Okay, I get it now.

Could that be handled by raising the base %

Why don't you give him the dice that are weighted to roll bad? Think of all the lives you'll save!

That was eye-opening. I just went through my dice bag, and sure enough 35 year old Gamescience dice, do still look good and have sharp edges.

Greg Stafford did a Prince Valiant RPG, too.

Yeah, but would it get a "proper" treatment? The BBC did just do a Merlin series, but, as with most such shows, they turned into a show about teenagers being teenagers. There haven;t been that many attempts. Most Arthurian movies, indeed most any movie where somebody is carrying a sword tell to fail because they aren't done very well, and the people making them don't seem to have much respect for the subject matter. I think the few films that stand out, such as Excalibur, do so because the people making them have some respect for the subject matter. I doubt it, and sadly, it's not like there are any Arthurian films out there that failed for not being "correct". Usually they are just bad, and done by people who haven;t read a single Arthur book and just go with what little they remember i.e. Genevieve has an affair with Lancelot, Morgana is the evil sister and mother of Mordred (she isn't, but no one remembers the other sisters), and that Mordred is Arthur's illiterate son who tires to take the throne. All those literary version of Arthur show, I think, that the concept doesn't have to be historically "correct" or Medieval to succeed. It just have to be done well and treated with respect.

No reason. I asked because it makes a difference in how I would set up the characters and run the game. If the players are kids then I'd give them more perks/hero points and be more forgiving than if it were a group experienced players playing kids. I run my friend differently than I GM his 6 year old daughter. She's smarter than he is though, and can take it.

So they could sell mulitple hit location dice.Yeah, that's bad for a company, more products they could sell us. 😏 Seriously, you should contact them and give them the idea. I'm going to see how much custom dice cost these days. I think they could put little sword and bow symbols and RQ3 fans would have D20s with melee and missle hit locations.

Much less. It really is rather underwhelming by itself. Depending on how it was done, I might not matter if they did have an issue. As long as text wasn't copied verbatim, and you gave it a different name, you can create a BRP (or any other RPG) clone. I think they might try to redo them, but I doubt they would reissue them. I've been told that today small game books with just the basic rules in a simply but clear layout, and not much setting and art won't sell.

An iconic adventure doesn't hurt, but I don't think it's required. At lot of this boils down to player's likes, dislikes and moods. I've had great sessions with poor adventures and vice versa. For it to work, it has to hook the players and they have to want to get into it. When an Iconic adventure works it can really boost stuff, get the player involved and help get things going at a good start. When it doesn't, well, it can kill a campaign, disillusion players, and break up a gaming group.

No there hasn't, but it wouldn't be too hard a mechanic to incorporate.. Assuming that a sorcery spends 1 MP per Strike Rank to power up a spell, and that once the MPs pumped into the spell past a certain threshold (say his POW score?) it could become impossible to just dissipate. Perhaps having the energy go off as Disrupt type effect might work.

According to Greg Stafford they wrote BRP primarily to show people who played their games how they all used to the system and if you know how to play one, you could play the others easily enough. He said that it really didn't work because their fans were already aware of that. I think the book, was a good intro read for a new player or GM, and combined with one of the "...Paths" boxed sets could serve and an intro RPG. IMO as good, as any of the newer Quickstarts out there now, if not better.

In that case go get the new BRP Quickstart and/or the new RuneQuest Quickstart. Both are free at Drivethru (and Chasoium too I believe) and will give you some ideas of the base game. The original BRP was actually culled from the RuneQuest, so technically RuneQuest was the base game.

Are the players kids, on just playing younger characters?

I forgot about Fantasy Paths, etc. I used to have those. I bought them for the tiles and was pleasant surprised when it came with BRP, an expansion that gave monster stats and rules for magic, and monster counters. I'm not. They were selling a version of the RQ3 rules as a monograph under the title BRP, and then the Big Gold Book.

It was a 16 page booklet that, among other things had a fight with a bear in it (with illustration). The Booklet was included in the RQ2 boxed set, early editions of CoC and the Worlds of Wonder Boxed Set, and, I think for a time, sold separately. With and without various covers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Role-Playing Amazon still has a copy for sale: https://www.amazon.com/Basic-role-playing-introductory-guide/dp/B0006YXPSY/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530257872&sr=1-4&keywords=basic+roleplaying+greg+stafford And at a premium price ($25!) You could also get one t you get one of the boxed sets I mentioned above, but be prepared to shell out some cash. Apparently the old Chaosium stuff is fetching top dollar on eBay. Oh, and if there was something specific you wanted to know about it, I have the book and could look something up for you.

No, because that's not the focus of Pendragon. The game is based on the knights. And the supplements for Pict and such are still for the same Arthurian setting, so there is really no adjustment to help picts, saxons and such to survive in combat. Things can be rather tough on Pict characters. One good hit and they are probably down and out. That's more like Pendragon. For the most part a knight will complete outclass rabble in this game, and be fairly immune to attacks. Of course someone can get lucky, score a crit, the knight can get knocked off his horse by the force of a blow, get overwhelms by sheer numbers, and so on. But for the most part the knight is going to have a skill advantage, a +5/-5 height advantage, 6-12 (or more) advantage in armor protection, break non-swords on ties, have a squire on hand in case he needs help, and should cut through most rabble like a tank though infantry without AT weapons. But every so often somebody with an AT weapon does show up. Longbows (5D6)and especially crossbows (1D6+10 to 1D6+16)are nasty; somebody who is really good with their weapon, or a monster, or other knights all come up the AT weapon category.

Yeah, sometimes they do that. Oh, and sometimes people wielding a two handed sword hold it like a staff.

Oh, also, since damage is a number of d6s ([STR+SIZ/6]) you get a bell curve, so armor gets more important around the 14 point mark, since it determines if you take damage or not. Same with shields. 6 points doesn't sound like much, but when the average damage is 14, a 6 point shield combined with light mail armor (8 points) is enough to turn a sword blade half the time, and keep most cuts minor.

Yes and no. Since technology advances at about six times the normal rate, such characters in the early phases on the game, at least the warrior types aren't to far behind in the armor departmen, and the non-warriors are about as well off as the British non-warriors. In the latter phases they are outclassed by the wealthier PCs but still only a couple of points behind the rank & file guys. Plus it's not like the better armor isn't available through trade or warfare. If a Saxon warrior gets lucky and drops a knight oufitted in Gothic Plate he can certainly upgrade. No because there is no need. The game is focused/biased/slanted towards the knights. So the average viking, Pict and Saxon isn't supposed to be on equal footing. Heck, he literary isn't, as he is on foot while the knight is on his destrier, getting a +5/-5 height bonus. If a particular Saxon chieftain or whatnot is supposed to be a challenge, then they just give him a better set of armor (they'd take if it they could get it), or a bunch of friends (numbers can make all the difference). And of course they don't have to fight the knights on even terms either. Picts can usually see in the dark, move stealthily, and attack from ambush, perhaps in magic tatoos r covered in woad-so things are quite a cakewalk for the knights. You're welcome. First edition is good, but the Glory awards are too high, and starting characters a bit too weak and timid. One good monster can have the players scatter like firs levels facing an AD&D dragon. Ya know, probably not. In fact is probably has some of the most changes between editions. But it just that most the changes are modular and tend to expand and fill out what was already there. The glory awards was a big change, but it is like changing the XP awards in D&D, significant, but doesn't really affect play.

Okay. I think this is mostly a case of misunderstandings anyway. I'm not always clear about what I'm thinking and don't always get my point across. I've had situations where I've came across the wrong way even when I was agreeing with someone.

In your mind. In my mind it could mean that or, more likely that somebody is having difficulty understanding how it is supposed to work. How about because there are quite a few threads posted by people, including this one, who do not seem to understand how certain rules are supposed to work? Thats why you might need clarification. Or how about because there are examples in other RPG products, including ones from Chasoium and/or ones written by the authors of RQG where the rules did conflict with each other, didn't work as intended, or were in error? So when people who are experienced with RQ see something like a limit on attack and parries combines with a cumulative parry rule that they might like to have it spelled out if said penalty applied to all parried or just ones with the weapon they used parry with. Past experience has show that sometimes what s in the RAW wasn't necesarily supposed to be. No. Not addressing something doesn't mean that a rules problem exist, only that there is an information gap between them and the customers. I don't think it is unreasonable to people who buy a product want to know how it works, or that how the company responds to this issues be of some importance. For instance, the whole "Does disrupt go off at DEX SR or DEX SR+1 for the 1 MP?" thing can be easily resolved by somebody in some official capacity saying something, or providing an example. So you say, but I wan't aware that you are an authority on RQG. As far as I know the fact that people don't understand things and have questions is precisely when clarification is required. At least for proper communication and understanding. Now Chaosium doesn't owe any of us any sort of clarification or correction., other than to provide the game to those who purchase it. It's strictly a business transaction. Broken? not necessarily. Flawed? Possibly. Since one of the design goals of RQG was backwards compatibility with RQG and significant change to core game mechanics. such as attack & parry is going to work against said backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is the crux of the matter here, since by stressing it, and rule that isn't backwards compatible becomes a fair issue. Did you mean that? Or did you mean to say "If you didn't mean the above sentence to mean what it certainly seems to say,". because the first situation is impossible. If a statement was certainly meant to say something, then it couldn't not mean it, right? Oh, and I'm not trying to be snarky here, but simply point that your sentence is contradictory, that it could be taken in multiple ways, I don't understand just what you meant by it ,and that yes, I would like some sort of clarification as to what you meant by it so I can respond appropriately. It's okay. I suspect that, as far as RQG goes, we're natural enemies. I'm curious, over inquisitive, and can be something of a catalyst, and your a big RQG fan (I think, but just my assumption) and defending it. So we're bound to butt heads a bit.