Atgxtg

Don't forget the flesh eating zombies. If Morrow Project had have them why not this?

I actually had some files with a huge amount of weapons and vehicles statted up for the James Bond RPG, which I lost multiple times, as every floppy or hard drive that I would put in on would somehow fail. I'd spend hours retyping it all from my hardcopy only to see go poof withing a month or two, including the sudden death of of a PC, laptop, and an Atari Portfolio for no apparent reason, a stolen laptop, all leading up to the grand finale, a house fire. I did discover a version of the data, formatted for the Portfolio, which while I can access, is not easy to work with and would need to be manually reformatted, and has somewhat outdated values. But is seems to be free of "the curse" as it's survived all these years without incident, and is stored on three hard drives, a CD-ROM, flash drive, and even an M-Disc, which allegedly should last until the next millennium. Still, if Google should ever really tick me off, I'll copy the files over to a more modern format and put them on a google drive and see how long it takes to crash Google!

A lot of the fun of Pendragon is in the ability to establish a family and pass things down to your son. There is nothing quite like wielding a charmed sword that has been in the family for generations, or wearing a coat of mail that was given to a character's father by King Uther himself. I'd suggest maybe keeping the family bonus and adding the "squired to" bonus rather than dropping the family bonus altogether, but Your Game May Vary. Just be careful not to remove too many of the generational rules, or you'll lose the feeling of it being the same family, and players will become hesitant to move on to playing their sons. I suggest replacing the 2d6 with a flat bonus similar to the family bonus (+5 or +10 dependent on how useful the skill is), so that all PK get equivalent bonuses. Otherwise one character could get a +2 and another a +12! And, not all skills are equal in terms of play value. Courtesy, First Aid, and Intrigue are far more valuable than Fashion, Gaming, or Hawking, that's why some skills got +10 instead of +5 on the table. You players will probably figure out which skills are more useful fairly quickly and just take them. Or, if you don't mind the variation, maybe tie the bonus to the skill of the mentor, say half or a third. That way you could implement Morien's suggestion, with players working to have their sons squired to a particular knight to get a particular bonus. If you are using the rules for player squires from Book of the Entourage, you could just give the squire a check or point in the specialty skill each year. With the typical player characters being squires for 7 years that would work out to around 1d6 per roll or a flat 7 for the automatic. A third option would be to do what they do for sons of officers in the Book Knight & Ladies, where knights get an extra skill or two due to their father's position (i.e. the son of the Marshall gets Battle, the son of a Castellan siege, and so forth). You could just read "Son of" as "Squired to". Just noting some concerns and tossing out options, there is nothing all that radical or worrisome about your rule variant..

Good move. I've lost a few things due to disk/fdrive failure over the years.

So it is a case of one source vs. the rest of the lore, and specifically vs. Mallory. Perhaps the verse romances did too. THat's the thing with so many alternate takes on things. We can find all sorts of outcomes and varaitions if we look. Fighting to a draw would be easy with Skill 40 each, just lots of ties until the players get sick of it and decide to do something else. Resolving the fight for a winner is more difficulty, but eventually fatigue would set in and skills would drop until someone wins.

In you example they do. In published game stats not. But, as I noted earlier, in the GPC there is a rule to cover this. On Page 24: Which would resolve the problem, were it not for their armor of honor, which the GM might consider magical protection, in which case we'd be back to square one, and need another solution, probably something like Morien's example above, or just waiting long enough for fatigue to lower one or more of the knights' Sword skill down to 35 when the contest will become winnable. But in actual play, as they are both NPCs I'd just treat it as a scripted event. Maybe roll some dice for the players benefit and narrate an epic joust and duel, followed by their taking a break fighting some more, and calling it a draw. Or, maybe have some dump Saxons or Bandits rush the pair and have them fight side by side. Or just institute a rule forbidding round table knights from fighting each other.

Yeah it was a nice machine. I remember using a desktop pulbling program that touted one of the first WYSIWYG layouts (it really wasn't, although it was an improvement).

They are all more manageable with Superworld boxed set over BRP too, as the Superworld rules handle four color comics better. For instance damage tends to be less lethal. One rule I would suggest for any super hero campaign is that character get free armor equal to the highest value of any armor they have (heat, kinetic, sonic, etc.) so that they can't be sucker punched by some vulnerability. Otherwise what tends to happen in that any villain who shows up using some attack that the a hero does have armor against (and there are several types so it is hard to protect against everything) is insanely vulnerable and either leads to a PK being taken out way to easily, or the GM not using some powers because he can take out one or more heroes, potentially even even a TPK, if the attack is something that nobody can defend against.

I agree. For instance based on what I've seen, while SIZ might be rolled the same way as in RQ3, the relationship between SIZ and mass has been greatly changed. But, ultimately it doesn't matter what anyone here like or dislikes, about RQ32, RQ3 or RQG, it matter what you and your gaming group like. Id you prefer RQ3 (or RQG for those who rather play that) then run the system you want to run and everyone else can run what they want.

Oh. I thought that other than Galahad he never lost a joust or duel. I think Gareth gave him a run for his libra once, but that was about it? From what I've read: Christian knights or knights being converted/replaced with Christian versions tended to overshadow or eclipse earlier figures, hence why Cei goes from a major hero to caricature and almost a rite of passage for any up and coming knight destined for a seat at the Round Table. Lancelot, as the symbol of Courtly Love (Chick Flick) was superior to everyone else because Courtly Love trumped everything else (Romantic Ideal) Galahad eclipsed him as a Devout and Holy Knight as God trumps everything else, including Courtly Love (Religious Ideal). Do you have a different take on that? I think it is the unbeatable. All the major characters need plot armor, Arthur more than Lancelot, but they don't have a 39 skill rating. Lance has 39s across the board for all combat skills.

I'd advise backing them up onto another device. One problem with all magnetic storage is that is degrades over time unless accessed. So if the disk sit on a shelf unused they will eventually lose data. There are even some programs that you can get that deliberately refresh files on your hard drive to prevent this form happening, which are increasinly useful in this era of huge hard drives.

Old formats can be rather difficult to get stuff out of. It's now like now where we have mostly standardized formats and competing products can generally read each other's files. Old files are often outdated rules-wise, and data tends to get lost of corrupted over time. It's usually not worth the trouble. I was just lucky that I saved those files to a IMB formatted floppy years ago and then backed those up on an external hard drive. No, but I used to visit a couple of BBS that ran it. ASCII graphics and Space Empire Elite. Back then internet service was charged by the hour, so, outside of a BBS that one knew, all internet activity was get on line download it, get offline, then look at it. I still download my email in part because of habits acquired when being on-line cost $29.99/hour.

I know what that is like. I've got a lot of old gaming files that were written on an Atari ST and saved in Ami Pro format, as well as stuff that was written for an Atari ST for some database program that I believe was exclusively for that device. Fortunately, most of the documents can be accessed with a text editor, but removing the formatting characters manually is a pain.

I don't have problem with that. We used to cut & paste (literally in those days) RQ2 Cult Write-up for our RQ3 games.

What about Steve Perrin? Also, the people who are running or playing in a particular group are the ones who have to be happy with the game system. There are a lot of games out there and we all have our preferences, but I'm fairly confident that nobody tries or or wants to run a system that they don't like. Maybe it might happen at a convention or something where a GM is needed an someone does it for the sake of the Con but in actual gaming groups people play games that they like. So what Greg, Steve, myself, or anyone else prefers isn't as important as what a particular GM or group of players prefer. It's not like you're going to come over an run my group next session, or vice versa. So if someone says that they prefer RQ3 over RQG, as the OP did, they should be allowed to do so. And if someone asks why and they say why, then others such just accept it. Or, as Greg would have put it: Your Game May Vary.

I know the Wild Healer of the Rockwood Mountains Is a Broo Chalana Arroy healer, but I never read anything that states gender or that there was more than one such being. What book or article does the group of female healers come from, it looks interesting. Do they all go by the title of Wild Healer of the Rockwood Mountains, or is is passed down, or is that just one Broo and the rest known by other names? Solitary good Broo are interesting, but a community of good Broo is a revelation. It hints that maybe Broo might somehow be healed of their association with disease and chaos.

Yeah, I apologize for the thread-jacking.

Alright, I'm okay with either option. Sorry for the last two posts I was typing before I saw your message.

Not according to the X-Card rules. The GM has no choice, it actually states that in writing. Liar's too. If they agree to abide by it then they should, or at least explain why they will stop doing so before going into reverse. Yes, if a player does that. But you don't need X-Card rules for that. In my current camapign I have one player (out of four) who is a woman. Since Pendragon is a very male-centeric game we did indeed discuss the complications of gender in the game. I actually offered to and was willing to run something else, but she was the one who really anted to try Pendragon. So I started my 6th or 7th Pendragon campaign. But I worked to make clear what the ground rules were, that there w ere no females knight yet, as it was too early for any elightned thinknig that might come along with Arthur, and that: She should play a Knight to experience the dynastic aspects of the game and passing things down to the heirs, and A female warrior of some type was perfectly okay, and could be accommodate for in several ways In the future things change and a female knight could be possible. We worked it out, situation resolved. She has a Knight and is now playing his half-fae son, and a Saxon Shield maiden at King Budec's court. We didn't need any special cards or rules, w e just discussed it like two human being. Yes, exactly. I would never deliberately run something that I though would serious upset anybody. But plenty of the things that happen in a game can and will bother and upset people. They are supposed to, just not to a significant degree. Yes. But the problem with the X-Card is that it give the player the belief that they have the right to dictate the GM actions. Instead of two functrion adults working somethin gout you have one adult dictating that another cannot do something with no way to try and sort things out. Yup. And even those who aren't have moments of stubbornness and meanness, get angry or just screw up. I'm sure too. The rule is well intentioned, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and X-Cards. It's giving one person the power to censor someone else for no reason other than they don't like, are made unconformable or are bothered by something. And that actually makes it harder to work with someone to get around problem. Look I figure most groups don;t have situations where a player is so uncomfortable with something that they can't game through it that they need a special rule for it. And for those that do have that many situations, just keeping track of all the taboo subjects is going to become difficult to manage. And the consequence for slipping up just once is the threat of expulsion. All I'm, saying is that the card's are a bad tool, and that either there are better ways to handle these situations, or if the situation is extreme then those players probably shouldn't be there, and that they bear some responsibility for what sort of situations they put themselves into.

Yes I did and I still do. That is actually part of the problem here. Just because someone says or posts something that you disagree with or just don't like doesn't mean you get to X-Card it away in real life or on a forum. Lots of people disagree on this forum and elsewhere about lots of things, well, practically everything, but they don't get to censor someone just because they don't like it. I'm not. You people are claiming how there needs to be this rule to let people dictate what the GM should do, and how a GM has to cater to every people's special needs and that the person with the condition is somehow not is any way accountable for their actions and choices. I'm not mistaking situations. I'm pointing what they actually say and mean: I used triggered the same way it was used on the X-Cards description. Then you got upset. I quoted the actual X-Card rules for use, actual examples listed in those instructions, and then reasons why they are bad rules and can cause lots of trouble, far more than whatever problem they were supposed to solve No one of you who disagree with me have posted one example of where the X-Card was the right solution for the problem. You all seem to go out of you way to above players of any sort of personal responsibility or accountability for their actions, or for suffering the consequences of those actions, which BTW is vital to role-playing.Whose fault was it that somebody missed thier meds? Whose fault is it if the sat down to a game about something that they knew would make them uncomfortable? If a tavern brawl is too much for them how are the going to handle a typical RPG adventure, where far nastier fights can and do happen? You keep shifting all the responsibility to the GM to accommodate these player's special needs" yet so far the only instance of someone who actually had something so severe that it actually needed to be accounted for was a instance where a player got violent. If a player is subject to getting violent over something in an RPG, then they pose a risk to the safety of others and that risk outweighs their desire to play, and they shouldn't be there. But you seem to think that the GM should put them self and other player at risk to accommodate that player. That isn't just wrong, it's criminal negligence. Most people can handle most of these troublesome situations everywhere else in life, in the context of entertainment, such as in a film or on TV, and tdo not force the world to censor itself to avoid bothering them. What should gamers have to? Virtually every situation where the X-Card seems to be have any actual positive effect is one that the player should have just told the GM that something bothered them or that they had problem with something. The card just makes the situation more difficult to deal with. For instance if someone down the road forgets something that caused someone to play an X-Card some time in the past and mentions it, they can be asked to leave. The things that are being brought up as taboos subject are thing that can actually be mentioned on the hallmark Channel and Oxygen. So apparently it's acceptable in that contest, what makes it so much worse arounnd the gaming table? Yes, there are specific special situations and conditions that might require special handling but they are few and far between and still a judgement call for the GM as if if they want to accommodate them, for a player or not. A player shouldn't be dictating what a GM ca or cannot do.

Yes it is because it doesn't matter what the GM thinks the X-Card dictates his action. Besides if the GM thinks for 1 second they will realize that the solution to this problem is to say no, and get kicked out and let Randy continue to decide what the group does. And, why is it you didn't reply to the "that's not how the X-Card works post?"

And a X-Card won't make a different on their meds. Your the one who told me not to use it. I doesn't come up much in the groups I've game with. It might get an oblique reference, as it the Vandals sack the city, rape & Pillage, that sort of thing. It someone can watch a film like the Kirk Douglas version of Spartacus, or Excalibur they should be able to take anything that comes up in my games, although that does vary a bit with the genre. If that's a problem the n the player should inform me unfront, and this is probably the wrong game for them. I play quite a few historical and semi-historical games and rape and other atrocities happened and are part of the setting. I'm not going to retcon that out of the setting and pretend it didn't happen just because it bother some people. The Vikings are not going to just post annoying tweet on twitter. If a player can't handle that, then they are playing the wrong game. Now keep in mind that the last time something like that happened to a PC or a character than they knew was so long ago that I don't even remember. I vaguely recall a prisoner of a Cyclops character that someone was playing in AD&D in , around 1983, but I was playing not running.. Just like if somebody has a problem with the name Arthur, Guinivere, Merlin, Lancelot or any of the other famous and universally known characters from Arthurian Lore they should not sit down to play a game called King Arthur Pendragon. Yes, I can usnderstand that they maybe exceptional cricmstances and a GM might want to adapt something to suit the players. I've run games for people who were in wheechairs and needed help getting to and from the gaming site, people who were blind, who ofteen had to be allowed to go back when they didn't understand the tactical positioning and did something based on a false idea of where someone was, an d with chidlren, whom I had to run with a G rating. They all had thier challenges,m, but it was my decision to run for them, and I choose to adapt, I was not forced to adapt. Odd. That's never come up, and I've gamed with a guy who had an eyes gouged out. Again you play a very different style of gaming that I do.

From a Marazi Amazon. You can get anything from Amazon.

Yes, I agree. Yes, Randy should have brought it up, but maybe he didn't know much about D&D or he didn't think it would be an issue or maybe he got distracted before he could do so. The thing is the GM gets ambushed by the X-Card in play, and can't do a thing about it. Now we all haven't. I've gamed for many years and have never had this happen. Not once. We seem to game with groups that have very different play styles. If someone has problems enough that they can be triggered (the medical definition) and missed their meds,, and a drunken tavern scene makes then nauseous , they probably shouldn't be at the gaming table. At the least they should be looking for their meds. At the very least, the GM and other player should get a choice as if if they are willing to put up with the risks associated with gaming with this person.

No read the page. It's not ask the GM, it's tell the GM. The GM has no choice. That's what the X-Card rule state. Look at the link. If the rules said ask, I wouldn't be shooting them down. But then you don't need a special X-Card to ask the GM something.