Alex

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

I don't believe there is any particular "celebration" (unless a PC wishes to mark the date).

Yeah, I think "Dumbarton rules" apply -- if you want to throw a party and get the drinks in, etc, to mark your own birth, knock yourself out!  Might be seen as a little hubristic, but hey, free food, how bad?

I don't see surprise parties being wildly popular in a world with Eurmali and Humakti...  And it's kinda a bit too much in clan-based Bronze-Age(ish) society.  You could be getting feasted three times a day!

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

You may end up where you were going as often as half the time!

Eurmali All -- i.e. about 15%?

34 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Hm well, this photo goes back to the days when they employed a couple of RQ greats, Rudy Kraft and Paul Jaquays (and one would hope have been a little more open minded).

Hopefully Bob B. #1 didn't hold quite such appalling views as Jr (and JrJr?).  Or at least he had the wit to keep any such a little more to himself, if he did.

22 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Bless Animals is interesting here - it guarantees offspring and 90% chance of female. Presumably this last bit is an advantage in most cases where it will be used, but if you’re raising warhorses, it could potentially be a negative - you want those stallions, after all.

Not a disaster, as I assume there's a "dropoff rate" at each stage.  Not all foals will survive to three (for the sake of argument) years, not all of them will be suitable riding animals, not all of those will be combat-trainable to any degree, or make suitable cavalry horses, or be Black-Horse-Troop wannabe trollkin-eating heavy-cav warhorse steroird-monsters.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if there were variations on that particular magic.  Especially where there's Dunbar's Number of candidate magical specialists within a feasible geographical area.  And being more pro-male seems very on-brand for Fire Tribe creatures, and their associates!

2 hours ago, glassneedles said:

Judges Guild got kicked off DrivethruRPG last year because of the actions of Bob Bledsaw the second and third (the son and grandson of the founder who died in 2008 and from what I could see did not seem to share their beliefs). I won't go into details but a quick google should help out. It is a shame as I would quite like to pick up their Runequest duck books but really don't want to give them money at all and they seem pretty pricey on ebay.

My word but that's some super-horrific stuff.  And the RPG industry has seen its share, so you'd think we'd be numbed to the shock by now...  but no.

Very sad.

40 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Nitpicking much?

Let’s stop this and not ruin a perfectly good thread

Huh.  Your preferred level of detail will vary, clearly.  I felt I was speaking directly to the topic.

18 hours ago, Erol of Backford said:

Other than dodging arrows or other missile weapons is there a parry or block of sorts, cutting them in the air with a sword, as an example?

Incidentally, if you ever see anyone trying to actually do this, the method is invariably, "first dodge your arrow".  To very loosely paraphrase Mrs Beeton.  Partly as you'd look quite the idiot on your youtube channel with several large wounds from the first several "takes" you didn't plan on mentioning it, and partly as you need room to make the "cut".  Actually the posers trying to do this generally seem to perform their "dodge" by the technique of getting the archer to fire at a target, and standing out of line with it.  Unless you're in the Matrix, observing the flight of the arrow, doing a big sidestep to get out the way, and then making a perfect cut at it in mid-flight is a whole lot of action to pack into a short time interval.

17 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Yes. that is why there is are codified and quite static Laws of Hospitality. We as players and GMs may not know them all or very well but the inhabitants of Sartar know them and their variations quite well and some will stand or die on such Laws.

I think it's a good deal less codified at clan level, which is less Legal Procedural Drama, and more Extended Family Soap Opera.  If you want to complain about the chief turning up uninvited and acting like a boor (to take the extreme case), who do you complain to?  Though to steal another Dunham line, "a wise chief would not," at least when it comes to narking off too many people...  or the wrong ones.

14 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Actually, too good pasture may turn your horses (well, ponies) into barrels only capable of rolling, at least that's what the local zoo director had to say about his pony pasture. You may want slightly less fattening pasture unless your horses are going to the butcher.

I'm just going with the "pickier and less relentless eaters than cows" factoid.  That may still be be not that picky, or that...  unrelentless.  If your hossy approximates a spherical equid in a vacuum, you've fumbled that Animal Rearing roll, indeed.

59 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Note that horse pasture is only producing grass and need not be the most fertile land, but a years worth of horse droppings will go a long way towards fertilizing the field.

Right, it's not your best arable land that's needed, but from what I gather you want better pasture than you'd use for cattle -- much less for sheep -- or else a much lower "packing density" of head per acre.

23 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

There is the rub, you do not own property. The clan or really the cults (earth only?) own it. The rights of hospitality you have are just that... not the rights of a landowner

Probably wends its way back to an Earth cult in all cases -- or at least "All" cases -- if not a whole series of them.  But the immediate granter is likely generally your clan itself, either in the office of the chief, or of the clan earth priestess/Inner Ring member.  Simplest likely case, the tribal, City or kingdom Earth template considers itself to have Ernalda the Queen's sovereignty over their portion of the land, they grant clan-sized parcels out it out, generally in line with long-established tradition and practice until there's some great ruction that requires changes to such, then the officers of the clan grant rights to it in turn to steadholders.  Make that more complex to taste with additional intermediates on either end if there's Story or just Lore Fun (it's a mostly harmless vice!) in it for you.

So if your chief (or the like) turns up in person, your position to keep him out is...  weak.  Very weak.  As a steadholder your rights extend not just to your Big House but to the surrounding farmland, etc.  But they're the rights to use those.  It's not like you have to issue and respond to the Greeting to your cousins when they cross from their stead's pasturelands to yours -- that'd be ridonculous.  OTOH, I don't think you can just wander into someone else's home and start snacking on cheese and carrots out of their food store with no by-your-leave either.  "Mrrmmm, nice.  What about some fresh bread to go with, huh-huh?  Any danger of some stew?!"  Conversely, if you kin need to be fed, and you refuse, it'd be great shame on your -- or the sign of great inter-bloodline pettiness, at the least.  So it's not a Soviet Collectivised Farm, but it's not suburban picket fences either.

32 minutes ago, soltakss said:

The only difference there is "Can they enforce the rules?", so a clan Chieftain might be able to force Adventurers to leave their weapons at the door, but Bob the Steadman might not be able to make them do that.

I dunno quite how the boundaries between "general clan property" and "property granted to a steadholder" work, both physically and in terms of particular rights.  But on the face of it, if Bob forbids entrance to his dwelling to armed individuals (from his own clan or not), and they forced their way inside anyway, that seems like a gross breach of hospitality.  OTOH in terms of social, economic and political leverage, no doubt this is the case in general terms.

1 minute ago, soltakss said:

However, Eurmal being Eurmal, you had better have a way of forcing him to keep to the right track, or he will mislead you and lead you into danger.

"Ooooooooh, you wanted to be able to get out of Hell, too?  Sorry, that must be some other subcult.  I only know how to get in!  No, I'm not sure what I do for an encore, either."

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

I hope this renewed interest indicates that the Prince of Sartar webcomic will continue.

I'd assume that's highly contingent on Jeff's and Kalin's availability, which apparently -- and understandably, given the slew of RQG product in the pipeline -- is currently low.

2 hours ago, Ali the Helering said:

Nope, not dumb at all.  

I apologise unreservedly to the thread! 😄

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Even when the strike ranks are right and Rhy'leh rises from the ocean the lone warrior gets a parry, there are still two undefended attacks to worry about. 

Not in RQG there's not.  I think the three-on-one thing is actually likely to happen; people are suckers for what was once (in rather dubious taste) called the "fuzzy-wuzzy fallacy" scenarios.  Just pick what skill and other kit levels taking on three trollkin, three rubble runners, etc, etc making gameable sense.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It would have to be on the same SR but after the lone warrior attacked, which would mean that he had a higher DEX, and ignored the risk.

You say "ignored" the risk, but exactly what are they supposed to do to avoid it?  Even after the first "test round" when it's established this is the pattern of SRs, come to that, where there seems to be especially little they can do other than to find out the hard way.  "Nope, no Parry for you!  I might generously allow you to change your SoI to 'Dodge', though."

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't think it is really fudging it. I think that is what was intended. The reason for the "not on the same SR" rule seems to be that the weapon is busy parrying at that strike rank and isn't free for attacking, or vice versa. Not that the weapon can't attack during that round. I think the attack just get's delayed. it's not an intentional delay, but one that is forced by circumstances. After all, you don't declare what Strike Rank you attack on, you just attack on the first strike rank that you are allowed to. So if the lone warrior declared a parry during the declaration phase, he'd have two things happening on the same SR and doing one would mess up the other. Since he would know exactly what was happening that round, he probably be able to prioritize. 

I think it is indeed fudging, because you have a completely muddled race condition if the 2H-wielder needs to "swap" attack order with an opponent that'd rather they attack first, and have to sacrifice their parry from doing so.  In order to simulate...  some sort of Great Axe parry-riposte situation?  I'm really not sold on the concept.  Albeit in about three minds as to how and whether to "fix". 

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the situation only looks so bad because of the three vs. one situation. In RQ2 or RQ3 that's a bad spot to be in and I expect the lone guy to go down even if he gets the parry. Neither game was big on the idea of a long warrior taking on multiple opponents. Even lone warriors with 285% skill. What the 285% warrior is supposed to do is have a retinue to keep opponents busy while he takes single foes apart one at a time. 

It's a lot easier in RQG, of course, as I observed with my 155% skill aside (parry at 155%, then parry at 125%, then at 95%).  But I suspect we might be getting a tad deeper into the specifics than I'd intended.  My point was simply that the "can't parry due to SR 'timing', despite SRs not being 'times'" thing could apply to not just one but any number of parries.  Reverse-engineering to whatever several-on-one scenario you deem likely or gameable.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

In a one on one situation it's not so bad, because the single opponent is in the same boat. Unless they have a shield or secondary weapon. But then the first warrior probably would have a decent dodge skill to fall back on for just such a situation.

In a one-on-one sitch you might have other asymmetries that make it more of an issue:  the other has a shield parry, or can soak damage in a way that makes them getting a no-parry hit in worth it, etc.  But I should stop trying to illustrate the point, as then we get bogged down in a particular offhand example for pages and pages. 🙂

I'll grant you the point about Dodge;  the 2H-wielder isn't in an all-or-nothing situation, they're in their all-or-their-backup-option one.  Unless they're in a real corner case, and can't do that either, for some reason.  Foot Glued to the floor, or something.  It just seems rather...  undue if it comes down to the breakpoints of SR calculation, or some sort of ludicrous zugzwang setup where it's not in either's interests to actually attack, for no especially logical reason.

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

It's a little more complicated than that though, as there are related systems that work a little differently. Elric! for instance, where you can get by with just one skill, or Mythras where I think you learn  fighting styles instead of individual weapon skills, or Pendragon which uses an opposed roll, with shields soaking damage on a partial success.  And even with the systems you listed it's more complicated. For instance RQ2 had a Defense skill that got subtracted from the opponent's attack skill. Plus most character who used a 2H weapon probably knew a 1H weapon too just in case one of thier arms got injured. 

All merrily stipulated;  I was just trying to make the case analysis explicit down to the level of, when you need two skills (hence need to train both, if you're sinking money into that area), and when you potentially only need one (and hence can focus on just that one).

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

As for the same SR glitch, it was something that was in the errata not the core rules. It was probably going to be explained better later, but, well, it didn't happen. 

For clarity, the errata for which version?

4 minutes ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

According to Jeff, there are indeed places in Glorantha where this is the general belief.

I think the whole "generations" thing in the theogony is pretty moveable.  Look at Vinga:  Gen 1, Gen 2, or Gen [anything up to whatever Rastagar was, give or take]?  What different does it make magically and mythically?  None.  The "historical" truth might be all of those, or none of those...  doesn't especially matter.

2 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

It's honestly not that surprising when you consider how often Orlanth and Umath get equated.

Right.  And Humakt is in the mix, too -- apparently in Greg's earliest writings, they were essentially the same -- or inconsistently jumbled up -- and David Dunham had a take (for his East Wilds "Orlanthi" -- or Humathi, I should perhaps say!) that IIRC kinda-sorta goes in the same direction.

If we were folklorists, ethnographers, anthropologists and allied trades looking at such material in the RW, we'd likely be seeing this in terms of these being relics of cultural fusion and supplantation, in the way we see in the Greek theogony, and the layers and reconciliations we see in Hinduism.

Personally I think this is great and deep stuff so is Off-Topic for this post, but the forum being the forum, I'm confident someone will be around shortly to say yup, it real dumb. 🙂

1 hour ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

And still doesn't invalidate, say, sword skill -- since in RQ2 ALL weapons had separately tracked attack and parry "skills".

Right, and so did shields, hence my confusion at this comment:-

11 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Which is also true of RQ2 and RQ3 as well. No change there. If you are using a shield, at all, you had a Shield skill to apply to that use.

If you were using a shield at all, and suddenly decided to extemporise attacking with it, without separate experience or training, you were doing so at [Base Chance] + [Category Modifier], not at your existing Shield Parry.  In fact, it wasn't even the same category modifier!

1 hour ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Regardless of whether one is using a shield for parry and a sword for attack, or using just a sword for both attack and parry, it comes down to tracking experience in two skills. An experience check for a sword attack does nothing for sword parry.

So the change is:-

• RQ2/3/G, fighting with weapon (attacking) and shield (parrying), two skills needed;
• RQ2/3/G, fighting with weapon (attacking) and secondary weapon (parrying), two skills needed;
• RQ2/3, fighting with 2H weapon (attacking and parrying), two skills needed;
• RQG, fighting with 2H weapon (attacking and parrying), one skill needed;
• RQ[edition], fighting with 1H weapon (attacking and parrying) and 1H handkerchief/hand behind back in an ostentatious fencing-balance pose/other stylistic choice, as with 2H weapon.

With the caveat I was just discussing with @Atgxtg, which is the "same SR" glitch, and of course the "oops, out of HPs in the one candle I'm burning at both ends", so make that one-and-half skills needed, weapon and dodge.

15 hours ago, Erol of Backford said:

Other than dodging arrows or other missile weapons is there a parry or block of sorts, cutting them in the air with a sword, as an example? Has this ever been a skill?

I'd bet a small amount of cash that there's a yadome no jutsu ki skill in Land of Ninja, but I'm too lazy to go try to find my copy, and it's very cold in the spare room... 🙂  Other than that, I'm not aware of any version of RQ that's allowed parrying of missile weapons, but you could always try a separate post on the RuneQuest subforum to see if any of those mavens know different...

15 hours ago, Erol of Backford said:

A Vingan with a 2H sword feels at a great disadvantage to the other PC's with say hoplite shields when it comes to protection. (My antagonist NPC's like to use missile fire at heavily armored PC's before closing to soften them up of course.) Just curious on parring missile fire as a skill? If not I'll have to advise them to stand behind the Agimori...

Your player's Vingan should probably be doing one or more of...

• Heroquesting for arrow-cutting magic of the sort described;
• Developing magical or tactical means to be closing on said antagonists sooner and quicker, rather than playing at their pace while they assist her in channeling her inner porcupine-hsunchen aspect in this manner; or,
• Train the living daylights out of her Dodge.

The final option seems like the most cost-effective, but YMMV!

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, I thought you meant a secondary weapon and a shield.

If you feel that's not a valid option, you need to HeroForm Orlanth harder! 😄

58 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Can't really happen in RQ. Statement of intent comes before the round. So either they would all have to declare it before hand and have the soeed to do it, or it becomes a reaction and loses 3 SR.

I take your point on trying to do this 'tactically'.  I'll file that rationale away in case this ever actually comes up in play. 🙂  I don't think I'm yet thrilled about it occurring incidentally, either.

58 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Of course even without the cheesy attack on the same strike rank stunt, three against one is a pretty bleak situation in RQ3.

Sure, but I was throwing that in to emphasise just how "swingy" a decision that is.  If my three terrible-skilled-but-low-SR opponents attack either on an earlier SR, or a later one, then I get to (under the various old regime rules) split my 285% weapon skill optimally between them.  (In RQG I'll be relatively fine with just 155%, given a fair wind!)  If they strike in the same SR as I just killed the fourth one in, but after I did, then I don't get any chance to parry.  Is this years of expert SCA and HEMA knowledge going into brilliant simulation, or is it pure game-mechanical attack?  But the number of attackers is fairly incidental to the essence of the scenario I was describing.

I suppose another way to fudge it  a little is to give the player the option:  attack on their "correct" SR, and get no parry that SR, or to attack a SR later, as with the scheduled-to-parry-first case.

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Oooh, longform cult write ups. That might even get me to break down and buy a RPG product. Is there something like Cults of Prax for RPG?

Nochet! 😄  But "soon"!  For some definition of soon...

But that's essentially the plan, 100 cults, all longforms, plus a hugely expanded Prospedia.  Almost everything in GoG, and "many, many more", as they say on the ads.  There is (or was) a list of all the deities to be included, but can't find it right now, and the forum's seriously playing up on me right now.

29 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the thing is the swordman should be able to  parry but his attack gets delayed 1SR. I think that was the original intention of the rule and makes the most sense. 

I was thinking more of the flipped case, where you've attacked already in that SR, at which point three different guys go "ah-hah!  no parry this SR!" and hit you exactly then.

Could always also borrow the (RQG) multiple parries rule, and allow it at that (or some other) penalty,

23 hours ago, icebrand said:

Cults are much better too, gods of gloranthan is a joke compared to Cult compendium (Or even cults of prax). Yeah yeah, they have 60 gods, but each has like 10 lines of text.

Not a system difference, and RQ3 did get some "long form" cults published is a number of places.  And RQG is in the process of winning that particular battle with 400+ ox-stunning pages...