Atgxtg

Yeah, it's pretty solid. The mechanics haven't changed much in nearly 40 years. It mostly just been expanded upon and given minor tweaks over the years. I've got a couple of boxed sets.

That all water under the bridge now, but apparently there were some issues over at TSR. PM me an email address and I'll send you the Superworld and RQ3 SIZ tables. I can even throw in a tool that coverts mass or weight to SIZ or vice versa. I find that helpful in working out the SIZ value for exotic animals. The formulas are: kg = 2^(SIZ/8)*25 or SIZ = log(kg)/(log2)*8-log(25)/log(2)*8 lbs=2^(SIZ/8)*25 or SIZ = log(lbs)/(log2)*8-log(55)/log(2)*8 Expect slight differences due to the slight differences between converting from kilograms to pounds and for rounding off. The RQ3 SIZ table is the same as the one for Superworld, except that RQ3 compresses all the lower weights into the SIZ 1-7 range , and transitions to a linear progression of +1 SIZ = +1 metric ton at SIZ 100. But from SIZ 8-88 the values are the same for both systems, and pretty much every related game from Chaosium until recently.

It's a forest for the trees sort of situation. I jumped in this thread because it was a RQ3 thread and the OP wanted to port over the RQG stuff that he liked. Then it got turned into a debate about the relative merits of RQG vs. RQ3, and we all kind of jumped in an backed our favorite horse for the win. It's just that the OP wasn't running a race between the two. And we proba bly need someone wiser than I to step in and tell us to go debate elsewhere and leave this thread for the OPs original purpose.

That's okay. I didn't ask you too. People were just explaining why they would rather go with RQ3 over RQG, and vice versa.

And many of us RQ3 fans consider that to be a mistake, unanimous or otherwise.

Some of us. What I think I'd like is to make the skill categories the default and go from there. That way every character would have a few skills that they are good at to use most of the time, plus ahalf dozen generic skills on their sheet that they could use for everything else. Simple, easy and a lot less bookkeeping.

But they are not passions as in RQ. Basically if passion were the only reason why RQ wasn't good for Glorantha I think they just would have ported passions over to RQ rather than write a whole new RPG.

Exactly. In RQ2 chest only got hit on a 12. It actually made sense not to wear heavy armor on the chest, since it didn't get hit that often, and instead wear as much as you could over your abdomen (the most likely spot to die from). If someone absolutely had to ditch one o f the hit location tables, they should have dumped the melee one and kept the missile. It still would be a step down, but parries mitigate that somewhat.

That''s in large part becuase the game tracks every skill or nearly every skill, incluing ones that a player has no intention of ever raising. At least 90% of the character's I've seen in RQ3 never raised their mineral lore. I agree. For instance someone could have a melee score at 30% or so and then improve sword from there. If they later pick up an axe, they can use their 30%, and go up from there. That could reduce the number of skills tracked on a character sheet from a hundred down to maybe a dozen. But that is more a case of tracking all the stuff you don't know. In real life there armor things that any one person would fail at than succeed at, because no one has over 50% in every skill. For instance most people don't know much about electronics or how to fly an airplane, yet they ar eon the character sheet in CoC. I think the problem there isn't that you should have a chance of doing those things, but in that you bother to track those scores in the first place. The only time someone without piloting skill is going to try and fly an airplane is when they have no other choice, and frankly those situations could just be hanbdled as easily with a difficult luck roll. Yeah, I used to use the similar skill rule, and let the new skill start at half of the related skill. This represents stuff like someone not being able to have a high skill in Physics or Engineering without some understanding of mathematics.

I check ed out your Roman War map. A few comments: There wouldn't be a France yet. Gaul is still broken up into Franks (French) Occitainians, Aquatainians and such throughout all of the Pendragon timeline.The Roman Empire in Pendragon, and at that point in history is mostly just Italy. Most of the Iberian peninsula would be like Gaul, basically post Roman settlements. Again in t he game that is why they have their own, non-Roman cultures.

Yeah, and previews on sites like Drivethru can be nearly useless. I don't know how many times I've looked at a preview of a game only to see the cover, credits, table of contents and the OGL license. A preview should really reveal something about the actual game.

I'll disagree with you on that one. RQ3's impulse SR was a lot simpler and less cumbersome that RQ2;s method. With RQ3 you knew who got to a spot when and if player A could intercept Monster B before it got to PLayber B or not. In RQ2 the GM mostly had to wing it. RQ3's movement being a rating of actual movement instead of some abract number helped a lot in terms of how long it took to get from one place to another. Same as above, I still disagree. Can you give me an example of how some the SR system was more cumbersome in RQ3? A disaster? That's a serious amount of hyperbole. Yet were used by every other game produced by Chasoium, including games like Pendragon (yes Pendragon doubled the hit points but still used Size). I'd also disagree about it going contrary t o the genre. In the genre we never hear that someone was hard to kill becuase they are healty (a high CON), we hear how they are hard to kill because the are big and strong. No it was a better representation of how missile and melee attacks work. Missile attack s tend to hit parts of the body with the most surface area, while melee attacks tend to hit the areas that asre more easily struck such as limbs. No let's mention it. Most fights were over long before people got into negative fatigue and at -1% per point of negative , fatigue could be ignored for short fights. Okay, but that is your option and, apparently Gregs. Thart doesn't mean you are correct. Even Greg can make mistakes and change his mind. Back when I was working on the Book of Castles with Greg there were a few things that Greg believed that I disagreed with, and most of those things that I objected to, got dropped since, so Greg must have change his mind about them. Likewise according to Greg, RQ didn't reflect Gloratha all that well and HQ did a better job of it. Now I've read you say that the passion rules were the differen ce, but HQ doesn't really have Passions, and I never read anything from Greg stating that the situation had changed. But basically this is a pointless argument. You and other feel that RQ2 was a better game, I and other think RQ3 was. It's mostly subjective. We can compare a specific rule and maybe come to an objective comparison, but even most of that is subjective. One thing i will complain about though is that if the RQ thread is going to cover RQ3 as well as RQG then can't people talk about RQ3 stuff without people jumping in to turn it into a contest between the two games? The OP just wanted to houserule a RQ3 game, but everybody keeps telling him that he should run RQG instead.

It depends on personal preferences and the style of play. I've had no problem with the large skill list in most BRP games, but I've also had fun running a BRP-similar game such as the James Bond RPG, where characters only have 15 skills to choose from. It really just comes down to trades offs and preferences. If you roll all melee weapons into a single skill then a character will be good with any melee weapon. That's great for a game where the PCs are supposed to be ultra competent such a s Bond, Star Trek, or most superhero comics, but might not be desirable if you want to run a grittier game- say a Roman Gladiator campaign where weapons used and combat styles should matter. Star Trek 2d20 might be closer to the mark for you. It boils skills down to only 6 disciplines, which makes it much easier to create a star fleet officer who is good at almost everything, but at the expense of making hard for a character not to be good at something..

And that is precisely the problem. The player spend all the time to adventure and allow their points to improve their weapon skills only to have the peasants keep pace. So what 's the point of improving their skills? They would actually be better off not improving.

Yes, esnetially it is a zero sum game. Now this holds true for most RPGs, to some extent. It's just that it is more obvious in HQ, as the simple "one game mechanic to rule it all" doesn't oscurwe whats happening the way most RPGs can with carious stats and mechanics. That's fine as far as keeping up with the PCs, but doesn't necessarily make sense storywise. A good example of this is D&D. When the PCs get to high level all those low hit die threats that were wanding around a area suddenly disappear and are replaced with a more powerful higher hit die threats that weren't there before. That's pretty much what HQ1 did. The reason for not sticking to that method is to keep the game challenging as the PCs improve. The solution seems to be some sort of mix between the two. But the fact that it is just as easy to improve something that is at 10W10 a point as it is to improve something at 10 to 11 has something to do with it. I think you got your point across.

But I crticaled my Intrigue roll!

Well that was more of a shift in TSR at the time. It used to be t hat all the gaming companies were run by gamers, and they were all friendly with each other and even eager to show off their latest stuff to their fellow gamers, which usually mean "the competition". When TSR transitioned from a some gamers, to a gaming company and got all businesslike things started to change, at least for bigger compnaies. You can s ee it in the old magazines. Dragon used to contain articles and ads from all sorts of other games and companies, but eventually it morphed into al almost exceuive in house supprt mag. Same with White Wolf once Games Workshop got big. Because I believe Cthulhu is in the public domain now, so everyone can tap into it, provided they don't use someone else's game system (at least not verbatim). There is an older, better version of the SIZ table that not only gives values for more numbers, but doesn't have all the errors. I could put it on a spreadhseet.

No. Not quite. What happened was that Chaosium and TSR both asked for and got permission to use both the Cthulhu Mythos and Elric in thier games. TSR released stats for such in their Deities & Demigods books, but later pulled them.This question was actually raised in one of the old issues of Different Worlds where someone asked Chaosium why the pulled that stuff from Deities & Demigods and Gigi D'Arn responded that Chaosium didn't do it, and she had no idea why TSR did. So it was TSR's call. It's been speculated that they probably didn't want to publish stats that might draw attention to Chasoium's Strombringer and Call of Cthulhu RPGSs. Yup. Oh, and the cube square law helps too. Since the SIZ table is logarithmic this means that for every 3 points you add or subtract to SIZ you should probably add or subtract 2 points to STR and possibly CON. THat helps when making real world creatures based on other real world creature.

Yes, in terms of today's effects Elric is pretty tame. Just a pale flesh tone, white wig and pink contacts (or CGI). It's probably more a matter of casting someone think and frail enough enough to look the part (Some of the Michael Wheelan covers aside) and of course act the part. In some ways Moorcocks writing is well suited for TV as the really impressive things, that would require the most CGI tend to be used sparingly. Melniboean dragons mostly sleep and are only used a handful of times in the books. Arioch as a fly or an actor is pretty easy on the budget, and his "shoggoth" form only shows up once. Not so much. We've certainly seen stuff that pushes the envelope further on TV in recent years. It depends more of what service is broadcasting it. a BBC series on BBC has some limits, but one released on cable or a streaming service less so. If they partner up with someone such a s Netflix or Amazon to share the production costs, they could broadcast an edited "PG" version and stream a n R-rated one.

Well bewfore there was a Call of Cthulhu RPG, Sandy Petersen wrote Gateway Bestiary, a supplement for RQ2 with stats for alot of animals, dinosaurs, and monsters. It included a sampling of Cthulhu Myhos nasties as well. I don't kn ow if he had s tarted CoC yet, and took their stats from hsi notes, of it he just wanted to be able to add Mythos nasties to a RQ campaign. Either way, it certinaly gave peole the idea of adding mythos elements to a RQ game or a related one, like Stormbringer. A lot of animals and creatures are the same or similar across multiple BRP games. For the most part a Lion is still a lion. Recently, animal s tats have been reduced a little, but not all that much and the values are usually close enough to work and compatible with whatever BRP system you are using. And it is very easy to turn an animal into a monster by upping some attributes, increasing the armor, and/or adding some sort of special power or ability such as flight or fire breathing. But, it much easier not to have to rein vent the wheel. I'll also say that when it comes to stats for creatures and a animals the SIZ table is your friend, since it will give you the right ballpark to work in, and can help to stat things up in a consistent and relative manner.

Glad to help. I wrote it in LibreOffice, which sometimes gives Word slight trouble. The two formats are compatible, but not completely, probably by design. Thanks. It's not really a foreshadow meeting but a goodbye meeting. I started in 410 and an currently at 452. The PKs have meet Attila a couple of time already, but before he was given the title of Attila (it's a nickname meaning little father, and not a actual name). So they kn ow him, but they d o not know that they know him. The Pks fathers actually helped foil an assassination plot against him and are on his good side. Last year the PKs were part of General Aetius' collation that defeat Attila at Chalons, and this year Attila will invade Italy while the PKs are on a diplomatic mission to Ravenna, and the PKs will get caught up in the Seige of Aquileia. Attila should win and raid most of the Po Valley before retreating t o Cisalpine Gaul and eventually convinced to leave by Pope Leo. The PKs will be involved in some of that, meet Attila face to face once or twice, discover that he is they guy who their father's saved, possibly help to convince him to leave Italy. Attila dies over the winter and Aetius will be assassinated in 454, so this is the last appearance of both of them in my campaign, after being a major subplot in the campaign since the 420s. At this point the Romans and Huns will fade out of the picture and the Saxons, Vortimer's revolt and the career of Aurelius will become the next big things in the campaign.

I hope what I sent was at least usable. Email me if you have any questions. The whole thing was kinda rushed, as I was squeezing in in between this weeks adventure with Attila the Hun, a letter from (Saint) Patrick, and a solo handout for one of my PKs.

I wouldn't mind it. There are still a couple of things I'd like to do to it, but the further along it gets the better. I created it before SIRES and used it to generate the first set of characters in 410, and haven't had a reason to go back to it, as now the player characters are creating the family history.

Really? I've found a few errors that should go into the update. It would be good to fix those SIZ 55 Camels, they are bigger than elephants! The compound bows should probably be replaced with composite bows, too.

Email sent. I suggest you take your email adress down from the public forum just in case. You never know what spammer might stop by.