Jump to content

21stCenturyMoose

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About 21stCenturyMoose

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    RQ3 player/GM from the 1980s
  • Current games
    RQ2/RQ3
  • Blurb
    RQ3 player/GM from the 1980s

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A major change since 10-odd years ago is that the Mongoose 2nd Age material has been de-canonised. That doesn't mean that everything in it is wrong (and a lot of it actually isn't), but it does mean that current and future Chaosium material takes priority over it in the event of contradictions.
  2. I never actually said it was rules-lawyering in a game. It's about rules-lawyering the license, and it comes across as setting up hypothetical edge cases to test the license and try to discover where it's boundaries break down. Which is not a very productive use of anyone's time. Not trying to be rude, but if you need to come across as Comic Book Guy in order to prove your point, then you probably don't have a valid point to begin with.
  3. Ducks are Hobbits, surely? Merry did help kill the Witch-King, after all. So they're a gleefully twisted exercise in taking a Hobbit, putting chips on both shoulders, and a colossal persecution complex to boot. Derail over.
  4. The intent of the ruling is quite obvious: it's "don't use this to create anything that competes with a Chaosium product". To be honest, if you're going to rules-lawyer over specific words and phrases while ignoring this intent, you'll probably not achieve anything much more than tying yourself in knots. Without presuming to speak for Jeff & Co, I would suggest that if you're broadly acting in good faith and not trying to sneak a competing product under the door, you probably have very little to worry about.
  5. I believe that's what "use... as the basis" in the post you quoted was intended to mean.
  6. An idea this awesome surely needs a "yes, but..." answer, so the question really needs to be "what should the 'but' be?", I reckon!
  7. My system was to keep re-rolling until you got something you were happy with. This comes up regularly enough, and something that's often overlooked is that in RQ initial characteristics are really not that important. A few play sessions and with disease spirits, POW gain, training, etc you're going to be totally different. So yeah, roll or pick, it's actually not as big a deal as in other systems.
  8. The taxonomic names are obviously just a humorous nod to RQ3, seems perfectly OK to do.
  9. The big one that I've seen people have difficulty with elsewhere is starting characteristics. I get the sense this comes from familiarity with other games where starting characteristics are more important, and where the values you start with are - barring magic or other special events - pretty much what you're stuck with forever. With the exception of SIZ and INT that's very much not the case in RQ, and those values can and will change over even quite a small number of sessions. So the message is: don't be too attached to, or disappointed in, your starting characteristics because in a month or two they'll likely be completely different.
  10. This is one area where my Glorantha is happy to vary. My Morokanth are meat-eaters, they eat herdmen and other herd beasts, and the other tribes will quite happily eat herdmen too, because that's in the survival covenant and herdmen are not men, they're beasts.
  11. I view Ducks as being the Gloranthan response to Hobbits. They're short, they live in isolation from the "big people", they have their own distinct part of the world, and they hunt screaming undead in the Upland Marsh. Well, maybe not that last part, but otherwise, "Ducks = Hobbits" seems a good enough place to start. Daffy was always the coolest anyway.
  12. Splitting off the "Agility" category; separating Magic Points from POW; 2d6+6 for INT and SIZ. It's definitely not a case of "RQ3 bad".
  13. In RQ I don't see this being as big a deal as in other games, to be honest. It should be obvious from even a cursory glance over the rules that characteristics are designed to have values that will change, the change can and will be in both directions, and that design is very deliberate. Training, disease, the POW economy, etc: starting characteristics are not something to be so hung up on.
  14. Just to re-emphasize. It's also worth noting that the four Gloranthan races are explicitly described as "Glorantha’s four major human racial types" (my emphasis). Presumably, and in a similar manner to the Tribes of Prax, there are also many more minor types.
×
×
  • Create New...