Atgxtg

Except it's not really Bronze - at least not the same metal alloy that exists on Earth. But then, if the introduction said "Glorantha is a Ga-metal and Ze-metal age world" (), it wouldn't be of much use.

And on what issues. Generally speaking it's all a trade off of playability and speed for detail and complexity. Not everybody is going to agree on just where to draw the line, or just when to either. There are some things that some people will want more detail for that others won't, but those same people won't be bothered about detail in some other area that yet some others will find to be crucial. And a lot of that depends on just what you try to do with the game. For example in most games, it doesn't really matter too much just how much a truck weighs. But, in a campaign where character or creatures could have an actual chance of doing so, such things start to matter.

Yeah, there is also a bit of this that isn't about experience or conscious choice, but feel and personal preferences. For example, personally, I find the Beretta 84, with the old woodend rounded and shaped grips really fit my hand very well, and made the pistol a dream to hold. Now the same holds true for other things besides weapons though. Pens, pencils, keyboard, computer mice, there are some that I find preferable to others, and that does often mean easier to use, and quicker to master. I'm not sure if, how, or should that be incorporated into BRP though. I do recall that RQ2 used to apply the similar weapon rule (half skill) when switching to a different weapon, even if it was the same type of weapon (i.e.from your broadsword to somebody else's broadsword), for reasons that match up with what I've said.

Well, I sort of figured out after awhile that I could generally ignore hits of less than the locations HP value in play. I'd just track arm injured, disabled, etc. If a situation arose where a NPC got "nickeled and dimed down" in a particular hit location, the players would usually notice it and speak up, in which case I'd respond, "Oh, yeah, that right. He'd the guy that got hit already in that arm/leg/etc." and upgrade the injury It worked out remarkably well, and saved me a ton of bookkeeping-especially for those "thirty per-centers" that the PCs were going to overwhelm shortly, anyway.

I don't believe it is really all that different. You still tracking the wounds but in a different way. much like how some AD&Ders used to add up damage taken rather than mark down hit points.

No even the bookkeeping is the same, because you do need to know the total damage that a given location has taken. The "NOTES ON DAMAGE RESULTS" actually distinguishes between locations that a character is functionally incapacitated if a limb takes 2x it hit points in damage from a single blow, but not if it is accumulated over multiple blows. So you would still have to track those pesky 1 point hits.

No there wasn't, but the way the RQ2 rules are worded in both the rules and the examples, it doesn't actually state that you do. Which is kinda interesting. Now, here's the thing- if you ticked off hit points per location, or tracked thresholds, the results appear to be exactly the same.

In the section RESOLUTION OF MELEE (pages 13-14 old bood, page 19 Classic Edition PDF) it states : 1. If the attacker succeeds and the defender does not, the defender takes damage in the hit location rolled on D20 as above. Plus the tick off hip points on most of the RQ2 Character, Animal, NPC, Sqaud, etc. sheets wouldn't make any sense it you didn't tick off damage to a location. So I think you are supposed to tick off hit points )down or up_ to keep track of damage to specfic locations so they can be disabled, maimed, etc. For example, if someone with 3 hit points in his arm, keeps taking 1 point hits (past armor) he will lose the use of that arm after taking three hits there, but he can't take more than 6HP of damage to that arm.

I suspect that might be a bit of pandering to the crowd, though. One of the problems I've had with running RPGs over the years is that a lot of players who have played D&D come in with certain expectations and preconceptions, which causes difficulties when running something that isn't like D&D. Professor Barker probably ran high magic/high powered adventures becuase that was what would sell.

I think you went a bit overboard. There are quite a few RPGs out there that are more deadly than RQ now. It's not 1980.

It might. It would be a pretty huge change in the magic system that's been with the game since the beginning. Part of the appeal of the Battle MAgic system was that is was very simle and playable. Changing it to some sort of dialog with a NPC spirit that the GM has to keep track of would add some complexity to it. And, frankly, I'm not sure if it would make all that much of a difference in the long run. Eventually I'd think it just boil down to the PCs telling the GM they'd like a Bladesharp now, or some such. They are judged on more than just their trueness to Middle Earth. The are factors of fun and playability to consider as well. As far as "trueness to Middle Earth" actually goes, it's not all that cut and dried. There is a lot of gray areas where we don't know exactly how things "really" work in Middle Earth where various game designers try to fill things in as best they can. For example, are there only five Istari? Is Glorfindel really the same Glorfindel who died fighting a Balrog in an earlier age? We don't know for certain. Tolkien did change his mind on some things, and didn't explain or reveal other things. But all "skill-based simulationist systems" aren't the same. RQ and GURPS play very differently. Bladesharp 4 in GURPS is far more powerful than it is in RQ. It can turn a knife or dagger into a real threat in GURPS. GURP's parry mechanics also make a big difference, as does the way GURPS handes hit points and damage. Hits that would probably leave somebody dead in RQ are often quite survivable in GURPS.

Consider the other viewpoint, though. It they changed the game radically then it wouldn't be RuneQuest anymore, and a lot of people would feel cheated. RQ IV: Slayers and MRQ are good examples. Both made some major changes to the game mechanics that didn't fit with RQ. In the case of MRQ, they made some changes to runes and cult affinities that practically blew their Glorantha stuff out of the water before it began. For example, in MRQ Storms are chaotic, so Storm Gods have an affinity with the Chaos rune. That seems fine for a generic D&D style of game, but doesn't make any sort of sense in Glorantha. Orlanth with a Chaos Rune affinity is just wrong. Becuase two different games, especially when thier approach and game mechanics are so different will never work out quite the same. Best case scenario would be that we'd end up with a RQ that was mechanically closer to HQ or vice versa. But the "lens" we look through will distort our view of the world. Take a look at the several Lord of the Rings RPGs, Star Wars RPGs, Star Trek RPGs, the various incarnations of "RuneQuest", and so on. While all the LOTR games are set in the same world (Middle Earth), they each are different and do things differently in game mechanics terms. The same with all the Star Wars, Star Trek, and RQ games. It's unavoidable since they are not all the same game. And if you used GURPS you'd get a very different game world and feel than if you used RQ. Even though you were trying to model the same game world, the GURPS mechanics would influence the final result.

Yeah, that's got a big Y-rune on it. I think by now it's common knowledge that RQ didn't exactly mesh with how Glorantha works. That sounds like what they did with that Group Patron Spirit thing they did in HQ. When you formed the group the Spirit got a few abilities, depending on the size of the group.That wouldn't not be a bad thing to add to RQ, either. Or to expand upon so that it could cover other types of spirits. But I suspect that it would be considered too radial a departure from the existing rules.

Somewhat. It's pretty much a given that after a point the Greeks no longer actually believed in their Gods and they were regarded as the stuff of a good story or allegory.

Umm, I suspect that isn't quite true. It's pretty close, though. I think it is probably more along the lines of any GM/group can probably adapt any rule system (or genre) to their style of play. Some systems might be easier or harder to adapt to a given system, but that also depends on just what things a given GM and/or set of gamers consider to be important, and what they don't. In the end, it's the GM that is running the game, and the system is just a toll that aids them in doing so). I remember years ago I was running the first Doctor Demento adventure for D&D at a convetion and one guy brought in a character written up in Traveller, rather than AD&D. Since I was familiar with Traveller, and since the adventure is pretty much a total farce, I ran the adventure using Traveller rules for him, and AD&D for everyone else. It worked, partially because I could adapt things, but mostly because the group knew not to take things too seriously and just played things for laughs. Maybe. It depends on how much you have to add on or take off. For example, If I wanted to run a campaign set in Medieval Europe, I'd probably find it easier to start with RQ3 and tweak the background, magic, and equipment a bit to suit the setting, than to start with BRP and bolt on stuff. Then again, with the BGB, I would have to throw out a lot of stuff, too, so maybe that wasn't the best example. Okay, how about this, I used to use RQ3 to run a Young Kingdoms campaign, because RQ had a lot of stuff that Stormbringer lacked.

I think the thing is that we thought that while the weapon would absorb some of the damage, the rest would continue on to hit the character. I'm pretty sure (i used to to positive, until a couple of posts ago) that is how it works in RQ3.

Yeah, that's what I said, then I looked it up. Sure enough on the first page of IV: COMBAT SKILLS (actual page varies with edition. It's page 19 in my old dog-eared copy of RQ2, but page 21 in my "Classic Edtion" PDF) it states: A weapon which parries a critical hit will take twice the damage it would take normally. If the attacking weapon is a long-hafted weapon or an impaling weapon, the parrying weapon takes no damage, as described in Chapter III. Now in Chapter III it does mention the bit about long hafted weapons, the bit about impaling weapons seems to be unique to Chapter IV. And I'll admit I never noticed that before. As for the rest, well, I haven't played any RQ2 since RQ3 came out, so I suspect I've forgotten some of it (I never remembered the bit that a successful shield parry against a critical brought armor back into play).

Ah, so what you want is for the Shaman to persuade or coerce a spirit into casting a spell for them, right? If so, that would be an interesting take, but not the way things have worked. As it last stood (RQ3) the Shaman would summon a spirit that knew a desired spell, then use spirit combat to get knowledge of how to cast the spell from it.

Ah, Allied Spirits and a Shaman's Fetch are two very differernt things. The Fetch is more useful and usually more powerful. And it allows the Shaman to do most of what you seem to want. Uh, in what way don't they? In both RQ32 and RQ3 a Shaman with a fetch can do the things you are asking. Non-Shaman can do someo of those tings in RQ3, but not as easily or as well, mostly becuase the lack the INT and POW/MP boost of the Fetch. The re branding of Battle Magic to Spirit Magic happened over 30 years ago in RQ3. I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is. he stuff that you appear to want is actually in there under the Shaman section in RQ2 and RQ3.

Actually, in RQ a Parry didn't reduce the opponents level of success, but it usually made living with that level of success easier. For example, a 12 point shield plus 5 point armor took most of the sting out of an 18 point impale.

There were time historically when it made sense to do so. Usually it very hot climates., or when prep time was limited. Not to mention the fact that they generally couldn't afford a of of armor. A good suit of heavy armor is going to cost someone several years pay. Many would probably have been willing to pay that if they had it to spend, but most did not. Thats why heavy armor usually was worn by the upper classes (who were rich) or by professional soldiers (who had it provided for them by the government or a wealthy patron). Plus a good shield was probably protected as well as armor, and was a lot more affordable. Actually trying to parry it isn't stupid (since a parry deflects the blow), but blocking it (that is the typical RQish parry) is. But, since most skilled combatants probably have a higher chance for a special parry than a dodge, especially in armor, they might be better off parrying in RQ.

Not quite. Shamans had "Fetches" in RQ2 (pages 44-45). Rune level character could have Allied Sprirts. I'd have to pull out Cults of Prax to check on Daka Fal (they always seemed overpowered to me in RQ2, basically A Rune Priest and a Shaman!) Thats not all that far off from RQ2/RQ3. Its' pretty much what and how Spirit Magic works. In theory, in RQ3 a non-Shaman could learn and use magic that could bind spirits, but its a lot harder, and the character is much more limited. I wouldn't be too concerned about the new RQ just from the quickstart. I suspect they simplified everything just to squeeze as much as they could into the quickstart so we could all try out the game. For example, if you look at the writeup for Bladesharp it doesn't even mention that it can only be cast on edged weapons, and Bludgeon isn't listed, or Speedart, Multimissile, or Fireblade for that matter.

Timelords springs to mind. In that RPG you aimed at a hit location and your actual place that you got hit got bumped 1 location per point you were off on your attack roll (D20). It was generally better to aim for dead center of mass, since if you "missed" where you were aiming at you could still hit them somewhere else depedning on how far off you were and in what direction (determned randomly by 1D8). But the caliber shouldn't be the dominant factor, as it is in BRP. The main reason why they encourage most people to go with the larger caliber they can handle is because most shooters aren't skilled enough to place the shots all that well- so they want to maximize the result when they actually manage to get a hit. Yeah, I have Morrow Project. It's a good game. And yeah, the E-Factor isn't as important as location. Unless you're talking big stuff. Maybe. I read something awhile back (when this topic was started) that suggests the differences between pistol calibers might not be as important as conventional wisdom suggests. One Police Officer tracked results over time and the results had him wondering if perhaps the low stopping power of the lighter round might be more due to their higher rate of fire. What happens is that since the lighter rounds tend to have a lower recoil and faster cycling time, it's possible to get off a second of third shot on a target that "fails to drop" after the first hit. Turned out the heavier calibers rounds slower rate of fire prevented that. But the targets tended to drop in about the same amount of time. I doubt it's entirely correct, but I strongly suspect that the differences between pistol rounds is probably not quite as significant as most people think. But at least you are aware that the .357 Magnum isn't all that much different than a 9mm Parabellum (especially a 9mm + round).

I'm not sure if you need to go that route. Just saying that the hit locations as presented in BRP doesn't really address the problem. Some sort of way to boost the damage at a skill& cost, is, I believe, a easier way to accomplish the goal, without requiring more detailed hit locations. Yeah, but that misses the point. In BRP it's really more about the weapon that the skill of the one using it. Yeah, but I don't think a straight 10% per point is quite right. I don't think it's harder to get a graze with a .357M than with a 9mmP.

Its the difference between a professional and a dabbler. In RQ2 and RQ3 the Shaman used the same game mechanics as a regular character, but had addional perks that gave him more power and flexibility. Your "Guardian Spirit" concept is pretty similar to the Shaman's Fetch. But we should all keep in mind that there is bound to be more to all this than what we got in the Quickstart. I suspect in order to make the quickstart functional, they streamlined and dropped a lot of RQ2/RQ3 type rules that are in the full game.