RosenMcStern

Isn't a dagger parrying a broadsword just an unfeasible? Or would people confine it to parrying just the long weapons (SIZ 3.0+)? Also you've got v. short weapons such as sickles and cesti which can parry, not just daggers.

Main gauches and sais are daggers, and they were designed to parry swords. It can be done. Though I would give a penalty to a mere knife parrying a sword.

Maybe something like "All parries with weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult". Alternatively, "All parries against SIZ 3.0+ weapon attacks by weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult"?

Dagger parrying another dagger is not difficult. Fist parrying kick is not difficult. Hoplite shield parrying maul is not difficult.

Someone was recently trying to parry a charging mutated giant boar with a dagger - the entire concept was just too ridiculous to even contemplate!

Another possible spot rule would be "Only shields can parry charges."

BTW: my house rule for this parrying problem is even much simpler than a half page (BRP like). I give situational parry modifiers of -20% or -40% and this works perfect.

Simple and appropriate. This is what I do in MRQ. In BRP I would rather go with a Difficult parry (halve skill) to be more consistent with the rest of the rules. But that is just a minor detail.

Maybe this could become an optional rule in BRP 1.1.

More spells are coming, but these will be Glorantha-specific. We are currently discussing "how to cast Divine Magic" and other themes so some details could change in future versions.

I have put online a first draft of the magic conversion rules from MRQ to BRP, aimed at Glorantha in particular but usable in almost every setting. They allow using the spells in MRQ and the MRQ Companion in Glorantha Third Age and, above all, with BRP.

Alephtar Games

Not to play devil's advocate (even though I am),

Does he pay you well? I suppose the salary is in POW points rather than money. With all that souls he gets... >:->

but is the alternative, then, that no one should ever endorse an OP game or supplement? Even if, in their honest opinion, it is superior to currently available product - or if there is no currently available equivalent product?

The point here was about what to advise to new players who wished to try a game they had never tried before. Pointing out in what a previous edition was superior does no damage.

If all BRP COC stuff were out of print, and only the d20 stuff were in print, I guess I'd have to keep silent.

I was talking about games, not senseless waste of vegetable life.

I must agree with frogspawner here. My group has been playing RQ2 for 8 years or so. Only the GM is an 'original' player of RQ2 from back when it was in print. Myself and all the other players bought our RQ2 book on eBay. And that was still cheaper than buying a new fantasy rolegame (how much does D&D 3E cost???)

Once you've bought the RQ2 book, you can buy the Moon Design reprints. And you have years of gaming. Frankly, this is all you need for quality gaming. And not too expensive.

It is not a matter of how expensive or hard it is to find a copy. Just imagine a world in which all gamers interested in d20 go to the shop and buy that shiny new cra --- er, games, and all gamers interested in d100 go to ebay and compete for the last few existing copies of RQ1/2/3 (which would raise the price well above the two pounds per copy located by Frogspawner).

In ecological terms, which of the two species is more likely to survive and thrive?

Parrying has nothing to do with the closing rules in this case. It is weapon momentum, not length, that makes a parry difficult. A thrust with a long spear is not stronger than a thrust with a katana, both are two-handed weapons (except that a katana is rarely used to thrust). And you can parry a Katana with a sai.

A halberd or maul is another story. You simply cannot block a 4-5 feet long swinging weapon with anything but a large shield, you must deflect it with a well placed sidesweep or better feint against your opponent the moment he strikes and make him miss. When we discussed this on the other forum, all members with actual combat experience stated it _is_ possible if you are skilled enough. One of the forumers reported having actually done it (although you will not find many actual reports - if you miss the parry you will be hurt, no matter how stuffed the weapons are).

So the point is - yes, possible but it takes a master or a very lucky shot. I would give it a -40 in MRQ and halve the skill in BRP.

Yuck! And I was thinking to have made a mistake by not revealing the Truth about Ezzelino DaRomano. :shocked:

How close is MRQ Divine Magic to RQI/II/III?

Some spells are broken (Spirit Block and 5-6 sorcery spells) and the average explanation is more ambiguous than RQ2/3, since the Mongoose writers tend to favour brilliant writing over "dry but effective" game jargon. But the average Mongoose spell is nice and usable. There are more mistakes in both Cult of Glorantha books (written by a Glorantha veteran, Jeff K, and ravaged by the editor) and the Spellbook (not Gloranthan, but useful), but if you check the spells for possible inconsistencies before allowing them you will be able to use 95% of them, and they are nice - really nice.

The Divine Magic system is interesting, but the concept of Dedicated POW is too restrictive. Most old schoolers simply do not use it. It works fine in low magic settings like Stupor Mundi, though: my last battle in the playtest saw beginning player characters casting a lot of Divine Magic.

How's about I hope that I wasn't actually being offensive but apologise anyway in case I was.

I put a smiley to assure you that you were not.

Good news sounds like some of the work has been done already

Bad news what if I disagree with the decisions made already?

Some polls are still open. The ones I have already closed were so clearly decided that they could not be influenced by your vote alone. In general, I will give options for almost everything, hoping that everyone likes at least one of the options. So join, vote and contribute!

Surely not too complicated? Attacking weapon momentum = Damage;

Definitely not true. Thrusting weapons have little momentum but deal a lot of damage. For many weapons, the damage done is due to sharpness rather than raw kinetik energy.

Parrier strength = Size of parry weapon used (meh...);

Huh? What if a STR 18 character uses a dagger?

They're all accounted for in the AP rule already - so it must be perfect!

No they aren't. Not that other rules do it rigth, but certainly this does not. Didn't you notice that it is one of the very few things that Jason did not take from RQ3?

Divine Magic exists also in the in-print version of RuneQuest, so you are not referencing an OOP game. Plus you are always free to take my opinions and use them to wrap up your garbage if you feel like it

If you are interested in the porting of RQ magic to BRP (and not only), this discussion group could greatly benefit from your contribution. The spell list is taken directly from MRQ but is compatible with BRP.

d100glorantha : Glorantha (Third Age) with D100

d100glorantha : Glorantha (Third Age) with D100

Please join only if you want to contribute, not just to read. All materials discussed there will be made public later on.

Ah, but as there's been so much debate/flaming, other people must hold the opposite view... that using APs for parries is a good mechanic. (Also less arbitrary and grainy than having exceptions for specific weapon size contests, IMHO).

_I_ was the one who was defending the AP system, and was convinced by the other forumers. Although the dagger vs. poleaxe question is still not perfectly addressed by any system. The "perfect" rule should take into account the attacking weapon momentum and the strength of the parrier, plus the contest of skills. It would be a formula far more complicate than anyone but the fanatics could possibly want to use in a game.

I think the passage about shields was just a leftover or referred to slung shields (although it could apply also to the way I currently houserule MRQ). We have debated (read: flamed) this point a lot on the MRQ forum, and the point is that using armor points for parries as in RQ3 is unrealistic (a steel sword is not better at parrying than a normal one), except for the fact that parrying huge blows with small weapons should be more difficult (but not impossible, except in case of area attacks).

I am happy with the BRP rules as they are, simple and realistic. The only option that need be added is to make parries vs. weapons two orders of magnitude bigger Difficult, i.e. do not parry a halberd with a dagger unless you are 200% proficient with it. But this is best left to the GM.

A new fan of RQ (the rules), needs BRP, suggestions on which optional rules to use, and an explanation of Spirit, Divine, and Sorcery Magic. Result: Complete compatibility at minimum expense.

First spell compatibility list is almost ready. I hope I'll make it publicly available on this weekend.

Stupor Mundi was designed for Mongoose RuneQuest, so it needs some tweaks to use with BRP, but it is not difficult to do. The differences are mainly in magic, but since you are in the d100glorantha discussion group you already have access to my list of spells that makes the MRQCore/MRQCompanion spells compatible with BRP.

Compatibility with CoC:DarkAges is just a matter of adding SAN. One of the adventures in fact involves dealing with Cultists of the Devil and a couple of monsters that could require a SAN roll.

If you want to look at a sample, the adventure "Hounds of Adranos" is free and available in the download section of this site.

I wish someone had told the OP to buy BRP and use these optional rules (SR, Fatigue, Hit Locations, etc), then offered an outline of how RQ magic differs from BRP.

Actually I did, but it must have got lost between one flamewar with Frogspawner and another. But I think he can understand this without our help.

Pointing new players to rare OP books is just silly

Someone does agree with me, then

I have some tape here, and it is already decorating the backbone of d100 books that I really love like RuneQuest Deluxe (the Chaosium/AH edition, not Mongoose), Genertela or Call of Cthulhu. And I am one of the proud owners of a physical copy of Blood Over Gold, one of the best, and most f***ed up by incompetent printers, books in the RPG industry. So bring it in, with or without glue!

Not bad, except for the fact that there is no difference between resilience of different locations. But the other concepts are simple and viable.

But NO D12. Period. I always have Dragonewts, Wind Children and all means of non-standard-location-table PCs in my games, so it is either D20 or D100. Never think humanoid when BRP or RQ is concerned, Trif.

I have already done one. But in Italian. Are non-English articles allowed here, Trif?

And yes, I am too lazy to translate it.

The problem is "damage" in human systems isn't additiive that way (again with the exception of bleeding out).

Pain and blood loss are additive - and what else do you think "damage" is, in general? However, a disabled limb means a broken bone or the like, so it takes more than "1 point when the limb was already at -3" to do it. All the suggestions here are realistic, but require more bookkeeping.

I am not so convinced about unrealism of total hit points. A 2-point wound hurts and makes you bleed. Six such wounds can take you down (though they might not be able to kill you). Point is, 1 pt. damage is not a "bruise", it is damage!

In any case, another option would be to just not subtract from HP if you do not pass the threshold. This could be a good houserule to add general HP to MRQ: no HP tallied until location is below zero. Note that one is still up and fighting with locations below zero in MRQ (especially trollkin that ambush adventurers in caves in Western Ralios - but you will not get this one since Rurik is on vacation ).

Your formula is a little bit disturbing. I prefer the following definition: -5% per lacking point STR or DEX.

Your definition is not a formula, so it cannot be substituted to mine. Mathematics is not ambiguous: you cannot make things simpler by rephrasing them. Like it or not, halving is simpler.

Halving and doubling is maybe a easy calculation for some GMs but its not a clever rule design.

Then play MRQ. It has no halving, only -20/-40/-60.

The problem (and this applies to total hit points too) is that damage, barring blood loss, doesn't really accumulate that way; if I get hit in the arm twice, it isn't necessarily meaningfully worse off than getting hit in once.

True. A solutins to this was suggested during MRQ playtest as the "threshold" rule, but rejected. A pity. The point was that damage that did not pass the location threshold was neglectable and did not influence you. It is more realistic than accumulating damage in HLs, but it does not work without total HPs, i.e. in MRQ. It could be used as an option in BRP, though: either the damage is enough to disable the location in one pass, or it is marked off total HPs only. Big realism, less bookkeeping.

Whoohoo! And the original (well, one of the originals) map of Glorantha, with continents where there should be archipelagos, and the Land of the Altinae marked on it! A real piece of history. Lucky man. I am no collector, but if I were I would love this.