styopa

Look at the true 'Strongest' competitions...like those Icelandic guys lugging rocks in circles. None of them look like bodybuilders, more like massive potatoes.

For us it was a sort of light bulb moment when we realized we could merge the two. In RQ3 at least, skill training was pretty reasonable, but characteristic training had a 'winging it' feel with a totally different approach/calculation. One day I realized ...what if we just take the stat, multiply by 5, and THEN TREAT IT JUST LIKE TRAINING A SKILL? (and then of course you actually a stat point increase when your 'training' crosses the next multiple of 5) Voila! It's not the Grand Unified Theory, but it works great, is internally consistent and IMO feels right.

Fair point, I was talking about the bulk of increase, but you're absolutely correct. We've toyed with HR that skill over 100 requires a special to EVEN get a check, and skill over 150 requires a crit. It makes those breakpoints much more significant, but then when adapting adventures, you have to keep in mind that those % iles above 100 should be deprecated....if the adventure says the boss has a 140% attack, that should really be scaled down to about 120 at most. I could probably work out the function (something like everything over 100 divide by 5, and over 150 divide by 20) but winging it is honestly likely good enough. Players don't honestly care whether the enemy has precisely 120% or 122%.

Of course one of the fundamental mathematical beauties of the RQ canon has always been the diminishing returns of the learning by experience system. The smoothing function is really beautiful. The ultimate difference between the skill gain speed for 4 checks a season and 1 check a season is probably less than you think. The former is certainly not 4x the latter. I used to have a sheet that would calculate the number of skill gain rolls needed to go from skill X to skill Y with a certain bonus mod, but can't put my hand on it right now.

She's clearly hunting him down for public indecency, ie no pants. So many ducks think that's just something everyone will just "be cool" with. Not to mention the spear's not carrying the load. When you carry a load like that, much of the weight is largely on the back/shoulder. I still really like that picture. She's the epitome of a real warrior woman to me - strong, scuffed, sweaty and looking a little worn, and yet obviously feminine.

Ie scary, monstrous creatures were....too scary and monstrous? 7000kg giant has only 2x the body hp of a 70kg adventurer? That's the same sort of logic that gave D&D the DDG book with gods with hp. I mean, why should they be frankly impossible to kill, they're only gods....? When in IRL, fights between larger creatures like bull elephants or sperm whales and giant squid generally go on LONGER (and are more often immediately inconclusive) than fights between smaller creatures like shews or ferrets which are over pretty quickly. I'll save you all the the replies: "It doesn't have to make logical sense because there are dragons and magic, duh" LOL, RQ's equivalent to "A wizard did it"

And here I was thinking that saying "men are usually bigger and stronger than women" was oddly, just a fact. Are objective facts still allowed in 2019? Who knew that it was illustrative of my entire psyche? LOL Some people would wonder why the attempt to dehumanize (frankly: demonize) someone with whom you simply disagree.

If you think about it, an avian-boned small creature SHOULD BE FRAGILE AND EASILY HARMED. Fundamentally realistic. But then look at the (angry) responses to my previous suggestion that things that are smaller and weaker IRL should be smaller and weaker in game. Crazy, I know. But nope, abandon the unassailable reality of human dimorphism because "somehow" that deprecates women? I'm shorter than Kareem Abdul Jabbar...I don't feel deprecated. I think games should simulate reality as well as reasonably possible, not bend mechanics to fit...ideology I guess? Barring magic, smaller things should be weaker and easier to kill than big things. CERTAINLY magic in Glorantha can overcome disadvantages in size and strength, but to hand-wave-away reality because it doesn't fit what we wish it to...?

Granted, I'm coming at this from the position of DM'ing now for eek, 40 years, my immediate impression of new DMs is that they are far too slavishly dedicated to the written material. Whether it's the precise layout of a map, to the placement/appearance of monsters, to the pacing of encounters, to treasure they find - I freely 'wing it' when I feel it would be more fun for the group. This doesn't mean coddling them, it doesn't mean trying to kill them or save them from stupid choices (although I've been known to throw some shit in published adventures where I suspect someone might have read it and not be totally forthright about it...). No, the dice have to be the arbiter of outcomes, or players will feel they're simply dancing on the DMs strings - IMO that's no fun. It also deprecates their choices; if there really isn't risk, there can't be bravery. Make that NPC a woman, get rid of that encounter because it doesn't make any sense based on how you set the adventure in your world, add some dogs because that 'smart BBEG' wouldn't be so stupid as to leave the place unguarded while she's away. Throw in a piece of treasure that will really "work" for the player who last session got pummelled because he played in-character (if they find it). The point is fun for your group. Full stop.

Until someone shoots you with an arrow, then that extra 35% parry with your sword doesn't help you at all.

What? I'd agree her spear staff is a little slender but I don't get at all what you're talking about "too much". 1) the shaft is not on her shoulder, it's on the plate/strap which would spread the load a little. 2) what's on that shaft is helmet, pot, blanket, small waterskin, and a bag of sundries. Maybe what, 8-10kg TOPS? She's not wearing it on her back because her shield's there. I admit I'm surprised she doesn't have a pack but lacking one, you make do. I have to say more than once I've done the same thing with a stick to carry more things than I have hands for into/out of a campsite. The weight rests mostly on the back of your shoulder, not the shaft anyway. 3) point up/point down...that's niggling pretty hard. Generally you carry a weapon point up and away from the people you're dealing with. Sounds like you're trying really hard to be hypercritical, and none of your complaints make much sense anyway. Not sure why you'd be that way, but you be you.

I think conceptually the "archetype" skills work great for NPCs because they are quick to generate and "good enough" but they founder on edge cases (and the adjudication of each of those ends up being so niggly it's easier just to leave them separate). Does a 1H sword skill always come with "and with a shield" for free? There are obviously ample martial 1h sword traditions that had nothing to do with shield use. Could you have given a shield to, say, a samurai or a 14th century French rapierman and really expected they would automatically" be proficient with it? Obviously not. Is someone trained as a Tercio-era sword-and-bucklerman going to function the same if you hand them a massive scutum? Would a Roman legionary be fine with a buckler? For NPCs this doesn't matter at all. They're good with whatever they need to be good at, and likely they are equipped with that. Characters generally want some freedom of choice. I as a player, and the group I dm, find the choice of weapon use and (sometimes) idiosyncratic combinations interesting tactical choices.

Looks like he's got a proto-Vingan behind him too.

Ultimately: 1) we're all more or less speculating. Some of us have some experience in martial arts, some in SCA (or it's more savage descendants Armored Combat League, etc) but let's face it: I'm pretty confident to say that there is nobody in this forum who has routinely relied on medieval melee weapons for their daily trade of war. (IIRC Sven alluded grimly to having been in pretty dark melee situations in military service so he's probably the closest but again...probably not a ROUTINE thing). 2) the goal in this system (other systems, and houserules etc may have different goals) is to be reasonably realistic AND PLAYABLE. Vague words like 'reasonably' and 'playable' are indeed subjective and open to individual interpretation. 3) personally, I LIKE the separate attack/parry skills (but not completely unlinked), but one thing I've never harshed on RQG for is the overall simplification of a single combat skill for a weapon. Makes sense to me, and is 'close enough' to my (speculation) of the real circumstances that I'm ok with it. Personally, I think it works well enough. Certainly still craptons better than D&D.

I've always rejected the seasonal thing as a needlessly intrusive from the designside. Why compel campaigns to frame their gameplay like that? I know the 'imagined" world for RQG is meant to be much more "textured" than murderhobos stamping around running dungeons for loot, but I think there's a vast gulf of playable space between "you only get to do one thing a season, ergo maybe 40-80 adventures in the span of an entire character's life" and the daily murderhobo thing. Then again it may not much matter: My players currently have been on the same adventure for IRL 6 months of bi-weekly play, btw.

Personally, I'd say that a QUICKER way to get people into the 'vibe' would be to simply watch Hercules or Xena. They're streaming pretty much everywhere and while kitschy they're decent shows and hew to the bronze age motif at least as closely as RQG does. Fair point, neither were my metier. Thanks! It is, and it's taken far too literally by some. It's only useful as a rough tag, and it identifies that RQG is playing in a more 'mythic' setting (and environment, mostly), ostensibly less tech advanced than that of your cliche D&D faux-Medievalist European campaign. That's all. More than that any IMO you're veering into YGMV. ^this.

As euphemisms, those are terrifying. I've heard 'Flint Slingers' are agony, but I think everyone's been threatened to some degree by the Bronze Fists of Orlanth.

Pretty sure anyone in Orlanthi culture that violates a geas is forever after known as "Breaking Wind".

The danger of Eurmal isn't that he plays tricks on people. It's that his curiosity is without boundaries. Sometimes a guy just wants to see what happens if someone dumps a pot of ale on Ernalda's head with Orlanth sitting right there. Whatever happens, the results certainly will be interesting.

Ah, but sometimes that's the fun. Not everyone wants to walk softly and avoid making waves all the time. As a male, it doesn't bother me in the slightest to say women have higher average intelligence, and higher minimum. Or give 'em a flat +1, I'd be fine with that too. I purposely avoided that +1 because I didn't want to suggest that at the top end either gender is smarter than the other. Good thing this isn't an errata thread asking for a correction or ruling then. Just offering an alternative chargen rule for people to toy with. Yeah, put that way I'd agree on second thought. Then again, IMO moving the hobby away from nothing but tidal waves of blood and slaughter isn't necessarily a bad thing. I appreciate the generally thoughtful tone of the responses. Really, I do. After reading them I guess my final comments in no particular order would be: - I recognize it is an incendiary topic, but honestly can't figure out why. If I say Billy is taller than Mary, nobody would reasonably construe that as an insult to Mary in any way. If I have a class of college students (ie done growing), and say that on average the males are both bigger and stronger than the females in that group, again, I don't think most people would flame-on about that. Yet broadening the assertion - with equal statistical reliability - to humanity...that's somehow denigratory to women? I admit, I do NOT comprehend that difference. Perhaps if I were a woman and had that +1 INT I'd get it? - I think it is worth remarking that the reactions here (predictably, I have to admit) suggest that losing a few points of STR and SIZ seem to weigh more significantly than gaining a benefit in CON, INT (the most important stat in the game, IMO), POW, and DEX (to a net +0.5 in stats). Is it really that everyone's campaigns just are nothing but constant fighting? Or? (Again, I'd mentioned that I personally would give female characters probably a further extra +1 POW at chargen but still with normal maximums for the reason stated.) - I think the "well there's nothing that says gloranthan humans are like earth humans" answer is a bit of handwaving. There's nothing in the RULES that say gloranthan humans have 10 fingers and toes, or only 2 eyes, or lack a gizzard for grinding seed either, but I think we all assume the human norm anyway. - I entirely agree with the point brought up a couple of ways that players are extraordinary, that (some people would feel) such variations aren't fun, and besides don't players pretty much play the characters they want to anyway? Agree on all points. But then I'd semi-seriously ask: if those are all true, why even pretend to offer dice-variable stats? - I frankly liked Xena more than Hercules. I have nothing against super women, ever. Never had.

You say "hoary old propositions" I just say "facts". Tomato, tohmahtoe. LOL, exactly what I meant. I suggest a system that MATHEMATICALLY advantages women (on average my suggestion deducts 4.5 points (-2.5 in STR, -2 in SIZ), but adds 5 (+2 CON, +2 INT, +1 DEX, better POW result, and MUCH higher minimums in both CON and INT) and it's immediately regarded as somehow an attack on women. Hilarious if it wasn't so kneejerk. Is it that the men here don't like the idea of women having an overall stat advantage? In my experience, most women didn't play and wouldn't play in that era for A HOST of reasons from "having better things to do" to "personal hygiene of the players". "A woman character not being as strong as a man" was hilariously pretty far down the list. Eradicate the hobby as we know it? That's a little...overstated? Someone please tell Selkana that her fascinating adventures - which DON'T revolve around dungeon crawling and waving sharpened steel at each other - are impossible, then. (https://www.chaosium.com/blogselkanas-saga-11-mad-bad-and-dangerous-to-know/) Completely agree. So what does it matter then if we say "Men have an average CON of 11, women have 13" if people generally pick (or lean toward) the stats they want to play? And more interestingly, why do people get so very upset by someone noting that women are less physically strong than men? A.) of course she still can. We all play exceptional people all the time. B.) on the former, perhaps you missed that I suggested that women get much BETTER INT stats than men? And physically, I have no doubt that there are strong women, but it's indisputable that for a random population of men and women, men are on average around 40% stronger. (of course there are a huge variety of ways how you measure strength) Yeah, I personally like them too. And I've never measured a woman's value by whether she could bench press 250lbs or no. I think women play a central role in RQ, it's one of the more fascinating, genre-trope-breaking elements of Glorantha. My question is why we need to pretend that they're exactly like men? Last time I checked, they aren't? I appreciate your thinking about it. TBH, I don't know why we're slavishly attached to the 3-18 paradigm anyway. It was just aping D&D in the first place (likely to make conversion easier?) and we're just aping that 40 year old mistake. CoC7th I believe went to % for stats which makes a crapton more objective sense for all the same reasons a d100 combat system makes more sense. We generically represent (as objectively as possible) the stats for horses, dogs, snakes, and sharks. Why not for humans? What is it about humans that their representation in the game HAS to be filtered through political correctness (that is not just in question, but FACTUALLY CONTRARY to reality)? We don't say "my Fido was an *extraordinary* dog, therefore I refuse to use normal dog stats for any dog in my game". That would be silly. Would it be more palatable to suggest these stats for NPCs only? Except to me, one of the BEST features of RQG is the same rules apply to PCs and NPCs. Before I 'submit' on this comment to go to the page 2 replies... What I see? So far, it's 100% *MEN* commenting on these stats. I'd love to see women's opinions on the idea that female characters (NPCs, if that's more palatable) generally have less STR, slightly less SIZ, better CON, better INT, higher DEX, and better POW to the net of +0.5 stats for females over males. Most of the women in my life have proven time and again that STR and SIZ aren't the most important stats in the world, and Selkana has abundantly proved that rich, entertaining RQ campaigns don't have to be about murderhobos killing everyone they see.

I think you're getting into the weeds. I threw the IQ in there as a cheap immediate number, but it isn't by any means the entirety of the position. For example, I wouldn't for a moment suggest that either gender is inherently more intelligent than the other. However, I think there are a few memes that are reasonably supported by my amateur perusal of the evidence: - there tend to be both more genius and mentally challenged men, than there are for women. (yes, I know that 2d6+6 ends up giving a flatter distribution for females; but solutions that gave BOTH identical top- and bottom values but flatter distributions for one were frankly overly complex) - the (much) higher bottom end INT for females was an acknowledgment that females seem to be less afflicted with mental retardation than males generally, and the difference becomes more marked as one looks steps through more-profound conditions (although some of the cursory data I looked at had differing demographics, males were invariably worse). - ENTIRELY anecdotal; most men I know admit the woman they're with is smarter than them. Even when she's not listening. And neither am I writing some sort of dissertation on gender differences in intelligence.

And the patrols? I mean, those are expensive and we could be using those funds for more important things. Renewing those enchantments isn't cheap either. PS your name checks out, of course.

Bwahaha that's what everyone thinks, don't they?

While reading the various threads/comments about limb hp, strike ranks, and realism questions I wonder why - with the effort to make RQ as reasonably realistic as one can be in a game setting with dragons and magic - we all sort of skip over with no comment the obvious unrealism of RQs lack of sexual dimorphism? Why not represent women's stats distinctly from men? I realize that even raising this issue will likely trigger some people. Shrug. Nevertheless, I pose it as a serious question: it's a quantifiable, proven fact that men are typically stronger than women of the same size. They are also, typically, larger than women. These two stats cumulate to a 40% strength advantage for the average man over the average woman. Further, I'd argue that the next clearest difference would probably be in CON - women live longer than men, and if you remove the deaths due to childbirth it's even more striking. Clearly human females have on average a higher CON than human males. I'd likewise believe it persuasively arguable that women have at least slightly better DEX. My experience with most married couples would be they have higher INT as well. Finally, I'd even argue a reasonable cause so suggest higher POW, depending on how you define it. I mean, they can (with a little help) CREATE LIFE. So my net suggestions would be: STR: men 3d6, women 2d6+1 (this puts both the average and the max at about the statistical 40% difference) CON: men 3d6, women 2d6+6 (women live longer, have better immune systems, probably higher pain resistance) SIZ: men 2d6+6, women 2d6+4 (both are normally distributed, but women avg 62kg, men 78kg ie about 2 SIZ points) INT: men 3d6, women 2d6+6 (IQ tests tend to put women around 99.5-101.5 vs men 100 in the developed world. In my PRACTICAL experience, this understates the difference in real-world use.) POW: both 3d6...personally, I'd suggest women's POW be considered 2-4 higher for MP recovery rate but that's obviously entirely subjective DEX: men 3d6, women 3d6+1 CHA: (same) Yes, this is going to create a likely-significant advantage to human males in combat vs females....but that's not unrealistic. Other races would likely be different; female mistress/dark/trollkin trolls would perhaps be better in every stat than the respective males? Why not represent the differences between men and women reasonably within the game, or is any suggestion of dimorphism going to invariably be interpreted as some sort of denigration somehow?