Atgxtg

Except it wasn't and adventure it was a campaign, and the decision to do that should be up to the GM, not Randy.

That's the X-Card. That's the GM as God, which BTW, very few GM act like. Me too. That's what I think. One of the problem with the X-Card is the GM can't ask the player to talk to them about something once the card has been played, so you can't work around it in any way. Now, I know some people might think that my example above was of someone abusing the X-Card tool, but it could very easily be used to derail a campaign for a very legitimate reason. Consider the following X-Card explain taken from the website: Now if this were a new D&D campaign and the DM had bought some Drow Adventures, Source books, Ultimate Guides, miniatures, all in preparation for a massive campaign against the Drow in an Underdark setting, that DM has to stop his game, an d come up with a whole new campaign. No choice, no discussion, no reimbursement for the money he spent of the time he invested. All because Randy played and X-Card, and for some reason or another never mentioned the spider thing. So nobody gets to play and have fun because X-Cards gave Randy veto power. Wouldn't have been a better solution for the DM to tell Randy, "Gee Randy, It's a Drow campaign, sorry. Maybe you should skip this and I'll call you when we move onto the Bugbears."

Opps. Good catch. That does make a big difference.

Sorry LOZ but I already got one,and Python joke aside I actually do. What I like most about mine is that, unlike most bags and cases, it is shaped the perfect size to fit a standard RPG book. So you can get a lot packed into a small space. The minis compartment is a nice touch, too.

Yes have you? So any player may at any time hold the game hostage for any reason, and nobody can say or do anything about it, and if they do not submit to the all mighty X-Card they could be asked to leave. That is how the X-cards work. At least with a GM-is God model that g33K mentioned a player can appeal a ruling or tell the GM where to stick it before leaving. And yes that means that somebody who has a bad relationship with someone named Lance, could play the X-card card in a Pendragon Campaign and force the GM to retcon Lancelot out of the campaign on the spot. No choice. Oh, and BTW, are you going to get on their case about their use of the word triggered? That is a their phrasing, not mine. Don't blame me for using the tool sold wording the way they did.

Me too. The absences are more conscious that the inclusions. Switch from increments of 5% to 1% seems to be the most obvious one, I don't know what thety roll for INT and SIZ. While I wouldn't call RQ2 a bad piece of meat, I do think RQ3 did address some of it's shortcomings, and unfortunately, most of those fixes didn't make it RQG.

Didn't you use any of the RQ2 Cults? Fun crowd to have at a party. Most of it was recycled. Stats updated from RQ2 to RQ3, and a few things were added, a couple of the scenarios might have been enhanced a little, some new art, and a few things removed, but Borderlands & Beyond is basically RQ2 Borderland, plus RQ2 Plunder and RQ2 Runemasters, just check the credits So it didn't really help with they "they put out more Glorantha Stuff for RQ3 than for RQ2" argument. It's also from 2005 and by Moon Design, so that was long after Avalon Hill. That's not so good. It means that one side in a contest can critical and get a special and the other cannot. Of course. I didn't really like Legendary ability. Very overkill. IMO they were trying to make RQ into their own D&D. I've heard that Matt Sprang told Steve Perrin that he didn't know how to right an RPG. That pretty bad. Steve has probably written as many RPGs as anyone. Yup. That's coll too. The only misgiving I have about that is merely those about player expectations. RQG and 13th Age Glorantha are two very different games that share a setting. They focus on different things and play out very differently. A player familiar with one could be in for quite a surprise if they try the other thinking that it's the same worls so it should be similar. And Nomad Gods was rolled into Borderlands & Beyond in RQ3. In RQ2 there was probably enough to go see with Pavis and the Big Rubble nearby. The thing I loved about Borderland was how much you got in the box, especially compared to a AD&D module at the time. The Borderland Boxed set went for less than an AD&D "series' of modules yet gave you 7 adventures, a setting, tons of PCS stats, and lots of plot hooks for additional adventures. I could easily see a GM running for 13 years off of it alone. IMO it is one of the greatest campaign even published. It's not the Great Pendragon Campaign, but nothing else is either. It is more useful to a begging Gm than the GPC though. In fact the regret that I never got to do much with Borderlands is one of the things that still makes me want to run some RQ. Should Borderland get ported over to RQG (it got an HQ treatment) I'd be sorely tempted not to give it a peek.

Yes, and those regulations prove my point, not yours. Talk about a false equivalency. None of those regulation have them change characters manes or alter the story because of what of what upsets some member of the audience. Instead, those rules and regulations restrict who is allowed to view the program. They don't pull R rated horror films,. they just don't show them to 8 year olds. Or to be more accurate 8 year olds do get to go into the room where they are being shown. No one stops the movie and re shoots it because the guy in t he third row got upset because the main character is named Catherine. Especially if the film was Catherine the great. Generally society puts the burden of responsibility on the individual or their legal guardians regarding what they watch. The don't fill up the cinema and then decide what to show based upon the audience. I don't believe that RPGs should be catering and coddle to people any more than the rest of life and entertainment. I don't like Hip-Hop music, I don't try to censor it, or stop people from playing it or listening to it, I just don't listen to it. Its Your Game May Vary applied to real life. What you folk are pushing for the the opposite. Your Game May Not Vary because one player says so. If they don't like it they can run a game. Bull. RPGs are just as unidirectional as TV/Film/Literature. There are games for nearly everything. And a particular TV show, film,. or book is just as one directional as a realtime gaming session, and often more immersive. How many jump scares do you see happen while plying a horror RPG? Compare that to a typical horror film. If someone is finding an RPG so intense and immersive that they have trouble separating it from reality then they shouldn't be playing RPGs. You can argue it but you';d be wrong. While gaming is a cooperative effort the GM does the lions elephant's share of the writing plotting and preparation needed to make the game work. Yes there are some troupe style games where people alternate GMing and there are even some free form style RPGs where there isn't so much a story but a loose framework that the players turn into a story (hopefully. Like a impromptu jazz jam session when it works it can be fantastic, but when it doesn't it's terrible,. Unfortunately with multiple players usually pulling in multiple direction s the latter is more common). In the vast majority of RPGs, though the GM is doing the heavy lifting, and has final say on what happens. That approach has also been the case for most if not all Chaosium RPGs. Frankly, it has to be this way. It can't just be a democracy or allow players to do or get whatever they want. Otherwise GMs would never be able to set up any sort of campaign, since players would push for things that didn't fit the setting. You want proof. Campaign can last if a player leaves, but no campaign lasts in the GM does, unless you are running a troupe style game where its a s hared setting with multiple GMs. I if were to s top running my Pendragon campaign and someone else took over it wouldn't be the same campaign, even if it is the same characters, setting and year. Or , as my players put it, "it would suck." According to my players, I'm the only one around who can run a good Pendragon campaign. I think there are a couple of others in the area, but my player disagree. A GM is under to compulsion to cater to the whims of a player just because they don't like something. Yes a GM should should take a player desires and situation into account, out of compassion, courtesy, and as his responsibility to try and entertain the players. As should everybody else at the table. My group is doing something along those lines right now, putting out game on hold due to one player losing a family member and being, understandably, in no mood to play. But that does not mean that GM should be strait jacketed by a player who is so sensitive that he needs to rename the NPCs. A Gm doesn't have to run, and should not be forced into running something that they do not want to. Or run a game for a player they do not want to. And vice versa. If a player really doesn't like something, they can leave. In my games, as with most of the games I've played in, players can question, debate and plead and even argue about things they do not like about a game but in the end it's the GMs call., and sometimes the GM says "Tough, deal with it". I have one player in my Pendragon group who doesn't understand Feudal or Arthurian culture and often disagrees with how I do stuff (He brings is a lot of modern values of democratic process and everyone being equal, which doesn't fit t he setting. He once famously bristled at being ordered around by a young Lot, asking him "who died and made you boos?". A puzzled Lot replied his father, the King. Later on while the group were deciding what to do and Lot sort of took charge again, he told him "but all men are equal", prompting Lot to break out into laughter and being quote impressed with this young knight who was busy cracking jokes right before a battle). Now at times I've tried to explain things or work them out but at other times I said, it he does like how I;'m running the game he can run it and I'll play. And yes, as GM, at times, I've had to tell a player to leave. It was unpleasant, but necessary. What do the players do in those situations. Not much. Usually they give ton s of agreement and support prior to the actual event, and then either hide their faces in the rule books, trying to look oblivious, or put of the best act of being surprised and shocked that they will ever do around a gaming table. Rarely one player actually pipes up, despite everyone complaining about the other play for months. It's a dirtty jon but somebody has to do it, and that somebody has to be the GM. Let me ask you, how often do these X-card situations come up in your games? How many times have you altered stuff, edited things, dropped plots and changed story lines due to somebody using their ability to veto something? Does it happen often? And can you give examples of the sort of things you changed? I'd really like to see how you are applying this as opposed to theory. Also wjhat games are you playing where stuff that bothers people so much that they need a veto power is required?

Yeah same for Rune Lord. I think that might be the big disconnect here. Most people, coming from other games, assume the standard "D&D Party" situation where a band of heroes adventure together and things like regilion and homeland are mostly used for background flavor and access to particular magic or feats. In RQ a characters cult was more important t hat what party he adventured with. The 90% time thing meant that most adventures such characters went on were for their cult, not something they did on a sabbatical. If you try to run RQ with the D&D philosophy, the cults and their requirements would look very wield and restrictive to play as oppose to shaping and defining it. This is also why cult decisions among players was more important in RQ than in most other games. The players have to select characters that can get along with each other, unlike D&D where the "he's a party member" philosophy tended to trump everything else.

LOL! Yup. Everybody has their own preferences.

Not with t he rounding. At least not until recently That's becuase they really aren't BRP games. Depire the PR that BRP was the core system that the others were based on, RQ was the core system that BRP was extracted from. BRP was orginaly RQ lite. A very streamlined introdcution to the system. Call it the first Quickstart if you like. Chasoium used to push the idea that all their games were essential the same system. At least until the AH deal when RQ3 came out and CoC and Strombringer ended up going down a different path. Okay. Again, My main point here isn't to debate someone's preferences but to defend someone's prefereces. Yeah. Whatever floats thier boat. I've heard that some poeple out t here actually like to play D&D!

Is the resistance table only used for Spells now? If not that sounds terrible, since one side could critical and the other can not. Yup.That is why when somebone says that they would rather use RQ3 and take what they consdier to b e the good bits from REG I can understand it. I jumped in on this thread because some people didn't understand it. To me most of what I liked about RQ was gutted from the current edition which I find to be too long and lacks focus. How any hundred of pages are the two core books now? And how much of that was stuff that used to fit into a 120 page book? Yeah, but in your option MRQ wasn't that bad. So I think it's fair to say t hat we have very different criteria as to w hat make a game good. That's okay, it just means we need to be a bit careful about what the other recommends. I don't, but then I never used then in RQ. I have used them in some other games, and like them more in some games than in others.

Elder Secrets was good but ki nda pointless without the same level of info on the main cultures. In RQ3 if you wanted to play a Troll you were covered, if you wanted to play anything else, you were better sticking with RQ2. Sun Country was excellent, b ut Shadow on the Borderlands was mostrly a rehash of the RQ2 Borderland Boxed Set. For what Cults? There r eally wasn't much to add to the core RQ2 cults.

Do you mean CoC7? The rule has always been round to the nearest in all Chasoium RPGs. Much easier to remember as it was the same for everything. Or not use opposed rolls in RQ. The game was not designed for them. Comparing special success chances on the resistance table would work fast, too. It's not a fix, but a change, and a bad one. If rolling normally then 96+ is still a failure. If adding success level, then the Active party can get multiple degrees of success but the Resistant party cannot. Okay for spirit combat, but sucks for everything else the resistance table was used for, b ut wait they now do that with opposed rolls...that can take forever. Tell me again how RQG is better? Yeah I can see how anew player would graviate to the latest version. I don;t expect a new D&D player do go looking for the White Box. I was just wondering about your not playing RQ3 becuase it was "dead", I run alot of dead games. Pendragon was dead for decades, but it got better. Yes and no. I bought MRQ but hardly considered it an upgrade. I was quite clear about that on the Mongoose forums, so much so that I had a few people really peeved, usually those who loved the game buy hadn't tried to play it as intended by Mongoose, which wasn't not how it was written. Still I never got banned unlike the guy who runs this site. Well pays for it. The MRQ rules were so mesed up that they kept rewriting them in errata to fix what they messed up in the previous errata. They didn't seem to understand that RQ game mechanics were interconnected in ways that D&D aren't. For instance their solution to the greatly reduced effect on weapons brought on from changing the damage system by add a Resilience skill and dumping general Hit points was to up the weapon damage, which then made armor kinda useless. I didn't buy MRQ2, although it was definitely an improvement over MRQ. Plus the fact that since RQ was a dead game for so long people were used to and happy wit h the rules they had. I'm very picky about rules. they are really what determines how the game plays out. Them and what the GM does. The setting does't really matter if rules don't emulate it well. For instance look at something like D&D. Now you could use it to run a old west campaign, there are D&D books out there that do that. But if you run a high noon style show down and the hero and villian s qaure off and draw the pistols, shoot each other a half dozen times, and then stop to reload...does that feel like a Western, or like D&D. You can do things in RQ, with it's assortment that you really can't do that well in say 13th Age, which pretty much reduces skills into a flat bonus. I'd be more to blame for that that you. I just wanted to defend the OPs choice when people wonder how someone could possibly prefer RQ3 over RQG. I can think of quite a few reasons. As far as fans of RQG go, enjoy and have fun. They bought the game, why can't they enjoy it?

There is a triad that claims that Arthur had three wives named Guinevere, and that's not counting Gwenhwyfach Yeah but that get complicated because depending on the version Vivanne and Nimue are two different characters and sometimes Vivianne is vamping Merlin to learn his magics, and sometimes Merlin is a sexual predator. I never have either, although she apparently was orginally named Blasine and married Netres of Garlot, which I thinjk means she got Morgan's husband (Uriens) not Maugause's (Lot). I think it has more to do with her role as a Celtic Dearie or Deity. I think her mercuial nature her sometimes good/sometime evil actions have something to do with the fae bit too. Oh and probably because she was a pagan magician and a woman, who took lovers outside of marriage - not winning her any points with the Medieval Clergy. BTW, this touches o n why I'm not so sure Pendragon should run things quite as medieval as the KAP5 supplements have made it. The Medieval Church isn't as tolerant or as weak as the church in the fifth and sixth centuries. I doubt all those Pagan knights would be tolerated, let alone those lustful pagan women. She doesn't seem to be definitively evil until the Vulgate. The WelshTriads mostly note that there was an enmity between the two sisters. Something that seemed to have been transferred to Morgan when Gwenhwyfach was dropped. All we really know is that she slapped Gwynhafar and that somehow started the battle of Camlann. Yes, although I'm not so sure about the more vengeful part. Guinevere does seem all that forgiving. Whiff is right. Morded wasn't always Arthur's son.In some of the triads he was Lot's son, so Guinvere wouldn't be as closely related.The wife of his mother's half brother. Then there is the story of him beating her.

Yes and in a negative way. Once of the reasons why Pendragon works the way is does is Lancelot. He's unbeatable in the stories and is in the game as well. If you switch to the actual die roll or use the HQ method, he becomes beatable. You;d have to seriously up his skills to keep him that way. Yes that holds true for Morien's method too, but not so much as with the HQ method or the actual total method.

It would kinda work (although no hero points, and criticals would be a) but I think Moriens idea of reducing the skills until the lower one is a 20 is an more elegant solution, as it doesn't requires as much of a change. Ow. Since crits are supposed to be 20, they shouldn't have been a high roller.

I can't speak for Morien, but I'm not so smart. I just ran alot of Pendragon and some other medival style games and know alittle about what lies underneath. We all have at some point. No one who didn't live during the middle ages intuitively knows about them. Most of us tend to view thing s through our modern view of the world and how things should work, and that doesn't always match up with how things worked or how people thought hey did back then. Glad to help. I might be able to recommend some things that help to explain the Middle Ages or the Fedual system better. It's not that complicated (in theory, there tended to be exceptions and special cases) just different. They had a social hierarchy and it was supported by the belief that it was the way God wanted it to be. Things like everybody getting a vote and stuff that we consider fair today weren't around back then. A lot of stuff was a certain way because that was how they knew to make things work. Just like with women having a secondary role. It wasn't all Male Chauvinism. That was certainly a big part of it, especially as (allegedly) God said so, and HE couldn't be wrong. But it was also due to the economic and biological realities and necessities of the times. Not everyone could be a knight. Now in a RPG there are ways to get around some of this, and A GM might wish to do so, perhaps accommodating a player, but a GM should be careful with anything too radical because the butterfly effect, and the various ramifications of changing this or that. All that stuff can be worked out, but a lot of it could surprise a GM who wasn't prepared for it. BTW, I haven't watched all of your twitch streams but are you trying to fit in a female knight or did you just want to change stuff for another reason? I f we know why you want to do something it might be easier to help with a solution.

Possibly. I only have the Quickstart and it has the same tables, but I've heard some poeple post that they round the values differently. The rule for BRP games was always that everything rounded to the nearest, with one exception. I've heard that isn't the case in RQG. They either round up or down, or maybe both. But it was one of those things that wasn't broken and didn't need to be fixed, and just hurt that backwards compatibility that the game was supposed to have as a priority. No one (yet) has every said that RQ3 biggest flaw was the way it rounded off numbers. Sure, although I think you touched upon most of it. First off Pendragon d20 mechanic handles opposed rolls better, which happened a lot when Knights were pulled in different directions by different passions. From what I've read in RQG opposed rolls can really bog down into a series of rolls. Secondly the bonuses and penalties are bigger, but they also fit the genre. Things like shock, melancholy,. and madness, make the passions something more than just rolling for a bonus. Which is why I wouldn't want Passions in RQ in the first place. I only got the Quickstart, but they replaced every after the first 95 with a dash, so it looks like you don't get a roll, yet the rules state: RQG Quickstart page 6 " As usual, a roll of 01–05 always succeeds,and a roll of 96–00 always fails." So that would mean no change. Although old RQ had a rule that if your POW was 10 points higher than an opponent you could ignore them in Spirit Combat. N ow there was a couple of spot on the RQ3 table were the attacker got a "01" or a "99" but the automatic success and failure rules would have overode that anyway. Okay not problem with your take although there were things about split attack and parry that were nice , such as making it harder for larger people to parry, and the sacrifice for magic wasn't as bad as it looked. POW was not really a fixed score in RQ and would go up frequently. So frequently that POW got taken out of most of the category modifiers so that they didn't need to be recalculated every other week. ??? . So if they discontinued RQG tomorrow you'd drop it like a rock? It's not just nostalgia but also game mechanics. For instance RQ3 switched from having hit points based mostly on CON with SIZ apply a slight modifier, to the average of SIZ and CON, which has been the basic formula for every BRP game since. IMO that's better. It doesn't matter how healthy someone is as far as being able to decipate them with a sword or kill them by stabbing them in the heart. SIZ does. Likewise RQ3 capped the category modifier for secondary stats so big creatures no longer got huge attack skill bonuses just because they were strong. RQ3 have areal movement system as opposed to the abstract one from RQ2, BRP BGB, and RQG. I don't like RQG weapon breakge rules. Great. But the thread was about somebody who preferred sticking with RQ3 and using it as the base system, which is just as valid an option. I doubt I'll every play RQG, every time I go into the Rule clarification thread and see something that got changed that used to work fine, without any reason for the change, I shake my head and stick with what works. . I'm not ll that fond of the Runes as skills or the general power up that starting character get across the board. I'm not wowed by the Passion and background system, both work better in Pendragon. Art is nice, but not essential, and good game mechanics and clear concise rules trump good art. To me RQ3 is the better game.

Yeah. LOL! I'm going out on a limb here as I don't own RQG, but I think that's more like in Pendragon, where you only get so much training time and improvement between adventures. So it's not like RQ3 where someone can train for six weeks and get 300 hours worth of training and go from 25% to 55%, mastering a weapon over the course of a year.

I don't think so. Pavis, Big Rubble, Trollpak, Griffin Mountain, Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror, Borderlands, Snakepipe Hollow, Apple Lane, plus some more stuff I don't recall off the top of my head. Also the style and usefulness of the material was different. Cults of Prax gave you a lot more info for running a campaign set in Dragon Pass that Glods of Glorantha did for running a campaign anywhere. CoP covered a small region and gave it a lot of detail that was RQ2 strength. GoG gave you a little info and game mechanics to cover alot more places, but lacked the detail to make any of those places as fleshed out as Dragon Pass was in RQ2. The Glorantha boxed set didn't improve the situation much. It was a interesting read but it wasn't enough to run a campaign anywhere in Gklorantha with the sme level of detail and depth that you could run a Dragon Pass/Prax/Pavis campaign in RQ2. Not even close. Why they never re-released cults of Prax for RQ3 is still mystery to me. We used to pull it out so people could read up on their cult, and then use RQ3 rules. So the other cutls in GoG were like basic profression in old Traveller. There but why take them with you got the expanded version? But which wasn't all that useful. Take for example what IMO consider to be the best of the lot Elder Secrets. Nice, except that knowing Elder Secrets but not knowing stuff that should have been common knowledge is a problem for anyone who is trying to game in that setting. We knew more about the Aldyrmi that we did about the Praxians or the Lunars. IMO the best RQ3 stuff was probably the non-Gloranthan stuff, such as Vikings. Probably because it was the RQ3 playtest campaign.

Yes, but opposed rolls and a big thing now in most RPGs, and rightly so. It probably is a better way to resolve conflict. It's just that RQ came out long before that wasn't desired for them. Hence the resistance table. If Steve Perrin, Roy Tourney and friends had though of opposed rolls the system would have been different.

No argument there. It can be very subjective.

Yeah, that was pretty much what I saw. Mnn, that kin da varied from book to book. Trollpak had decnet art. The stable bound, paper covered books didn't help, especially with the pricing. AH tended to prices things a bit more than the competion, and the product quality looked cheap. Where everyone else was improving the production quality, RQ lowered the production quality and raised the prices. Not quite fair. We are talking about differernt companies. So it's not so much that somebody finally got a clue and fixed stuff, but that the people with a clue were in charge. I think most HeroWards fans moved onto HeroQuest, and, supposedly, HeroQuest still handles Glorantha better than RuneQuest. Or so that was the claim. Yes HeroWars supplements did do a good job of detailing the setting, especially compared to some companies. Despite any misgiving or felling I might have about the decisions made for RQG, I'll give the folks behind it credit for knowing Glorantha and tailoring the system towards it. It's not like with early MRQ where I wondered if these people knew anything about RuneQuest or Glorantha (Orlanth has the Chaos rune !!!???), it more a case of their zigging when I wished they had zagged. Compared to Avalon Hill almost anybody does. Not that the order of products for RQG has been bad, just that AH set the bar pretty low, and Mongoose shifting to another Age didn't raise it any. I think RQ3 was better if you wanted to use it for something other than Glorantha. For Glorantha RQ2 still ruled, except, maybe, once HeroWars/HeroQuest came out.

LOL! Slight misunderstanding. I said that was what other had said. Personally I liked the separation between the rules and the setting. If it had been up to me, not that I was involved with Chasoium in any way, I would have preferred a core set of rules and setting books that adapted the rules to each setting so that RQ could have been used for soemthing other than Glorantha. For me what I liked the least about RQ3 was that we stopped getting RQ2 style material that made the game really stand out from other FRPGs. No more long form cult write ups. No more boxed set style settings with mutiple adventures (for Glorantha, anyway). Most of what we did get were rehashes of RQ2 stuff with updated rules, non Chaosium stuff that I don't want to even look up to see that I got the name right (Eldorad) and, by the time we started to get stuff similar to the old RQ2 supplements (i.e. Sun Country) the lead designer got caught with a minor and RQ3 suffered from guilt by association, as back then RPGs were still be called "tools of the devil" by certain religious people and parts of the media. BTW, I'm not saying that I think it is wrong for people to prefer any or all the RQG rules over any of the earlier editions, just that there are reason why some of us still prefer RQ3 to any version of RQ that came after it. To me the only version of RQ that gives RQ3 a serious run for it's money is RQ2. I think RQ3 had better game mechanics, overall, but RQ2 had a few things I still miss and occasion consider using for RQ3 (Twelves Strike Ranks). Oh, and since you brought up Sorcery, yeah RQ3 Sorcery was problematic. It worked, but it worked poorly. Not that it would have been used in Dragon Pass Glorantha campaign back then.