RosenMcStern

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.

_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.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

Hey, this is turning to a programming forum. Which is cool, because the only discussions that are more "religious" than those between gamers are those between programmers. Let the flames begin! Absolutely. That's why goto is not present in, say, Java or C#, but break and continue are. I was not talking about using goto to exit a compound statement, a practice blessed even by Niklaus Wirth in "Intro to Structured Programming." I was talking about using goto instead of control-flow instruction. You know, that good old practice in BASIC or the like of making end condition loops by putting an IF GOTO instruction at the end of the block. My point stands. Find me one who is fool enough to insert a goto to a previous statement, and not to the end of a cycle. I'll find you perfectly working code written with gotos going everywhere instead of if and loop statements, something you would never do nowadays but that was commonly accepted some years ago. In fact, I am currently doing the porting of a bunch of this c*** from spaghetti code style to structured, at present. And even COBOL programmers say this is c*** since structured COBOL was invented. It is not only "old", it is "wrong". Of course not everything that is old is also wrong. I would never compare RQ2 with spaghetti code. D&D, on the other hand.....

Ah, the Big Rants move to their own thread, at last. Now just wait till Frogspawner finds this one.... I never stated these points were flawed, just superseded by a better version of the same rules. I should have used the term "outdated", not "wrong", but everyone complained about using the concept of "old as bad". Interesting question for Jason. Did they consider it and find it wrong or did they just omit the option? I find it wrong, but that's just my opinion. In fact I meant option B. But it was rather lengthy to explain and just stated "3d6 for SIZ is bad" instead of "If you look at the table and consider that a linear progression of SIZ values starting at blah blah blah....". This has absolutely nothing, and I say nothing, to do with what I said. Both C++ and Pascal are structured languages and there is still a lot of good software written in Pascal (Delphi), and there will be some for the decades to come. My point was that there are programming techniques (widely used in the past) that have been criticized so definitely that they are now considered wrong, not just old. The goto instruction is one of them. I can find you plenty of people who would still use Pascal over C if they had the option (at least one - me). Now go find me someone nowadays who would rather use Basica with line numbers instead of structured, object-oriented Visual Basic. That is, gotos in computer programming are old because they are wrong, not wrong because they are old. And please note that the software that handles both your and mine bank account is proably still 20-year-old COBOL written with liberal usage of hundreds of goto statements, so we have evidence that you can use a crappy programming construct and make workable software - as well as use crappy rules and make an enjoyable campaign. But it is still crap (conditional jumps, not COBOL). And now I get to make a SAN roll for endorsing COBOL and Visual Basic. I have never suggested "Do not play". I have just suggested "Do not tell the newcomers to play old, unavailable versions". Which is different. See below. Which I never stated. I just suggested that some points like the SIZ matter have been corrected over the years, which is another good reason to play the in-print version.

It was just a joke. "The Beetle" himself got the mood of my comment and posted the trailer above. A pity I cannot access YouTube, I am a big fan of beetles. Still, it is true that this forum is now much more active than the official MRQ forum, and debates about that system take place here rather than there. If Matthew Sprange did not notice this, I suggest you tell him. I noticed that the Powers at Mongoose Pub. usually learn from their mistakes instead of negating them, so this could provide some valuable info. Assuming this was their fault, which is yet to be proved. I agree that some arguments should be moderated, but I prefer reading unpleasant comments to seeing people silenced. The worst point in the flame wa- er, the debates that went on on the MRQ forum was when Trif was banned for criticism. This really pissed me off. Really. Abuse and insult should not be tolerated, but complaint is fine, however annoying it might be - if you do not agree, just hit the "Ignore" button. Luckily Matt & co. realized it was a mistake and the bans and thread deletion stopped. It has to be said that they correct their mistakes when they spot one. :focus: So, Hound of Tindalos, if you are still tuned, now you know that RQ2 was incredibly fantastic and you should really try it out if you feel like collecting old games. The same goes for RQ3. But if you do not like dust on your manuals, Mongoose RuneQuest and Second Age Glorantha is worth a try, too. Both will need some tweak to adapt to BRP. And I would recommend keeping the setting and converting the rules to BRP in both cases. Is it all?

How true! I am still convinced that dropping general Hit Points was a bad move, and my opinion about physical runes is, ahem, very well known. But this is just my personal opinion, and whether it is shared by the majority or not it does not matter. I will continue to support RuneQuest (and as I said elsewhere, with RuneQuest I mean the in-print version, no matter how much I loved the old ones) like I did so far. Even though I am more happy with BRP, rules-wise. But, as I said above, this site is also "The Revenge of the Beetle", so expect some unmoderated criticism against your company here, Loz. Have faith. Playtesting of Episode 2 is in progress. And in fact there is a follow-up in the download section of this site.

Applause for your review. Not as loud as the one that Jason and Sam truly deserve, but applause!

And just to go totally off-topic: It no longer is. And I am not referring to our disputes, which stay away from personal insult, but to other "debates" that have degenerated lately. A pity, I like feuds, but not personal attacks. Finally, did anyone notice that the MRQ forum is now way, way less active than this forum, despite the fact that there are always new products coming out for the RQ line? Hmm, this is interesting If this was a movie, its name would be Revenge of the Beetle! >:->

Actually I said the same, but with less offense for people who just did their job, in one way or another. And with less boldface. I would say it was their biggest rule design fumble instead. They fixed something that was not broken. The poll that Rurik run on this site shows that three BRP players out of four do not mind marking off hit points twice. I never said your should buy their stuff. I am just saying you should not encourage new players to buy used stuff instead (which does not include BRP). The point is not where you put your money, it is whether you throw mud at people who were just anxious to publish some d100 stuff as a sound alternative to the d20 c*** they usually sell. Windows Vista (not to mention its predecessors) provides undisputable evidence of the fact that you are wrong (and note that this shows how the market works, not how it should work.

New is usually better, but not necessarily. 80% of MRQ is newer-but-not-better than old BRP versions. Thankfully some details are actual improvements. You missed my point. As long as the old-schoolers sleep with their dusty old books like teddy bears (ahem, I have a whole collection of RQ3 and CoC books on my nightstand ) and encourage newbies to buy them, publishers will be a bit afraid to invest in D100/RQ/non-D&D. Companies make games because they think they'll sell, and if they see fans of classic games always saying "I'll stick to the old version, nothing can be better." where do you think they'll put with their money? And you will not see better versions if the money stays away - sad but true.

I think this sums it all up. When will we old-schoolers learn that suggesting people to get oop versions of games we like instead of the supported ones is actually a nail in the coffin for our beloved game systems? And, needless to say, a point scored for That Other Game.

Cool! Send in your RQ3 Rune Lord with Protection 4 against my RQ3 Humakti with Bladesharp 12 and Parry 12, and let's have his arms insignificantly lopped off.

Ehm, in fact I wanted to suggest MRQ but it is terribly unpopular on this forum. And not very compatible with BRP. Thanks God, gaming is one of the few areas that has not got a specialized police force (yet). As for what is outdated and what is out of fashion, well, I'll explain my idea: Take the game concept of Armor Class; it is outdated, as each and nearly all game systems other than That Game keeps it at bay for fear of appearing stupid. No sensible game designer would use it nowadays if starting from scratch. But it is certainly not out of fashion, as 90% of gamers play a game that uses it. Got the idea? Rolling 3d6 for SIZ or using a d100 like it was a d20 are wrong rules [there are still some in BRP, sadly], not "no longer fashionable" rules. If you grok computer programming, it is like the goto statement. It is not "old-fashioned" programming that was popular in the '70s and will become popular again, it is a bad programming technique no one would use any more once the languages have introduced structured programming (barring some fanatics who like to code hyerogliphs).