weasel fierce

Fantastic, so it sounds like we're doing fine. Lindsey is next "turn" so that'll be a load of glory potentially, provided they make it out on the other side

That's how I read it yeah. 
 

Yeah, that had come up for us in discussion, though the consensus at the time was that building up to receive the passive glory was part of the meta strategy, so they wanted to keep it.

Nobody has died yet but it's come close a couple of times and all dice are rolled in the open, so no hiding when it comes.

Another one: 
FOr the Uther period, how much Glory "ought" the characters be receiving? Obviously, it will vary depending on things. We've finished 489 and both groups have crossed 2000 but aren't really close to 3000. 

The more I think about it, the more the "-5 per extra opponent" is sitting well with me. 
It does help avoid the entire "Which bonuses apply after the split" question which while solvable can occasionally be a bear because nobody likes to keep track of that stuff.

Very excited to try it out next week.

Wait so is it in fact "Symric" and not "Kymric" ?

Appreciate the thoughts and insights Trippy. 

54 minutes ago, Call Me Deacon Blues said:

For the record, I give out checks like candy. I have a slightly higher powered game than some, but it seems fine. I give checks on all crits, most fumbles, impressive successes, succeeding on a skill that doesn't come up a lot, like, say, Religion, etc. 

Appreciate it. Since many advancement checks fail anyways, it doesn't seem to do all that much harm. 

59 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

there is an irony to be found in trying to interpret an inherently sexist piece of literature through the lens of modern values.

I mean, it's no different than the medieval writers adding more Christianity into the original Arthurian tales 🙂 

You could use Attribute x 5 in that case. 

Strike ranks do work fine, though Ive noticed some players have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact it's both an initiative and an action point system combined. 

Increasingly, I just narrate out initiative based on what makes reasonable sense. Archers shoot before the guy who is running who is faster than... 

My preferred take on an Init mechanic is Harn where its a skill that is trained like anything else. Initiative being based strictly on physical characters and not experience is silly beans, if you are trying for a more realistic experience in my opinion.

You could just use a declaration step and the skill % of your action is also your initiative, though that omits the mental aspects of it.

From a recent session: "Okay but he's not MY pope" got the table in stitches. 

3 minutes ago, Leingod said:

Vengeful could also make a good "flawed" virtue for Pagans.

Would certainly fit the idea of family feuds, while also being something that can be defended as virtuous by the characters in question.

I like the idea of Indulgent a lot more. 

Alternatively you can play up the chaste aspect and adopt and legitimize someone. Plenty of orphans running around war-torn England after all. 

I wonder what the people worried about the liberal conspiracy will do when they find out there's pagans in the game too. 

Much obliged folks. I'll go look at Estate and Entourage books. I just grabbed the Paladin PDF and was honestly considering using the survival roll in that book instead anyways.

I suppose given that England is a pretty rough place in much of the GPC, the "left-over" males will go fight dudes the way left-over males tend to do historically. 

2 hours ago, Videopete said:

As far as LGBTQ, historically you married someone not out of love but to continue the line.  Who you loved was something else.  The other was a responsibility.  Knock it out the way, then pursue the fun. 

History is certainly replete with "He's married to lady so-and-so that he never spends time with, preferring the company of his life-long friend mister so-and-so" 😇

The new rules look really tempting overall, definitely going to implement some of them. 
Would anything break if passions just capped at 19 or 20? That seems like it'd avoid a fair amount of issues.

Been running a lot of Pendragon lately but I wanted to check with folks and see how everyone does things:

* Experience checks -

The rulebook suggests that skill experience checks should be fairly rare, but is a bit vague in what it considers to be an appropriate rate.

With one group currently, I award a check if you crit a skill, then give each player 2-3 checks based on significant events they did. For traits I award checks very liberally (any that succeeded, plus I tend to keep track of things said and done and award a few extra checks based on that).

With another group, I started out just doing the Runequest approach (skills get a check on any success) and.. it doesn't actually feel like it's made that big of a difference. Many skill checks don't turn into an improvement in any event, so progression isn't really increased that much.

What guidelines do you use in your games?

* Solo's.

So far, I always give each character a solo in winter, but reading the winter phase again, it seems like that may be too much?

What is your habit here?

* Non-knightly character creation?

Is there a book for this or an earlier edition which has some suggestions if I wanted to create a villager, monk or similar type of character or should I just assign whatever? Mostly thinking for secondary type characters or well known NPCs.

* Squire character creation?

If we wanted to promote a squire into a full character, is there an option in a book to specifically create a squire character?  

Thanks in advance folks.

26 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 

I think RQ3 was better if you wanted to use it for something other than Glorantha. For Glorantha RQ2 still ruled, except, maybe, once HeroWars/HeroQuest came out.

Crucible of the hero wars, Elder secrets of glorantha and Gods of glorantha is a lot more material for Glorantha than we ever got for 2. 

I'll agree the cult write ups in Gods was pretty lame, but on the upside, we also got material that 2 never even dreamed of.

And if the answer is "well, we didn't use that options", that's fair but there's only two methods for generating starting skills in the book.

If you specifically chose the one that makes it harder for a player to become an acolyte and then complain it's too hard to be an acolyte...that ain't nothing any rulebook can save you from

But even without it, training goes fast enough and is cheap. Chaosium is saying now that Runequest should be one adventure per season, right?

So 50 hours of training every week for a year and you'd be there in no time!

One might suggest that most GM's would do better in getting rid of as many opposed rolls as possible, rather than trying to add more of them.

Letting the player roll, only for their success to be taken away by the GM rolling and saying "Sorry, the bad guy did better, so that good roll was wasted" is not overly fun.

99% of situations where you think an opposed roll is needed, just have the player roll and move on. If the opponent is much better than them, make it a -20 or so.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Really? Old Rune Magic system was “sacrifice for Rune Magic, absolutely don’t use it, hope that this is the character who makes it to Rune Levels (where if you do, it’s an massive power-up instead)”.

So under the assumption that “works” includes “is reasonable to at all use for a decent percentage of the PCs”, it absolutely didn’t work. Given the amount of fatalities in RQ and the low-powered start, I don’t expect that the majority of Rune Cult PCs ever cast a Rune spell. 

(I cast a total of one point of Rune spells over three characters in RQ3.)

This probably explains much of the popularity of Humakt and Yelmalio - at least your starting PC got something from his cult!

"Rune levels" is nothing, honestly. 

To be a full-blown priest, all you need is 4 skills at 50, plus 50 points of ritual magic. 

You don't even need to commit to priesthood. Acolytes get re-usable rune magic as well. 

If you use the freeform character creation, you can easily start off at that rank and even if you don't, if the campaign is such a meat grinder that getting four skills to 50 is literally impossible, the problem is not the system but the GM.

Like, everyone understands that the priest rules in 2 and 3 are different right? 

So how 'bout them ducks?