Bill the barbarian

Not my creation, so I truly can’t say. I do recall the perpetrators had an audience and it was not pooh-poohed out of hand... I am hoping someone who was active on the web (pages or digests, @soltakssp'raps) can recall the idea and fill in the details. But I think it would have to be in another thread as we seem to be drifting off topic. Hmm, maybe not, this is tangential to an advertising package offered as a hide improvement project... i.e. a caravanserai...

Cheers

52 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

What would an advertising pack be?  There are no mass media on Glorantha.  Advertising might be paying an entertainer to sing poems about the place...

Mostly correct.  There was a group of folk, (Nick Brooke and crew p’raps... anyone?) who postulated a newsletter found in Caravanserai and inns thought the provinces.  This was a while back so I am afraid I can not recall more (back in the nineties or the naughties). 

Of course, I would imagine it had a Eat at Geo’s ad or two.

Yes, I can not justify changing this, myself... Using the old hit/parry is one of my few home rules

17 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Having such questions here allows for discussion... In the Q&A, that's verboten.

Ergo, I said do both...

I mean we got lucky having him find us here... or he is really that good!

🙂

ETA

thanks again @Mechashef for the excellent question!

22 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

These are great questions, I am curious to see the answers! Leaving them here allows the hive mind to get involved which is going to be fun. But I strongly recommend a cut and a paste into RQ Q&A as well for the view from the top.

11 hours ago, Scotty said:

This is a great question, as this has not been specifically answered in the Q&A, I have replied here:

See, I told you to post this in Q&A (was still entertaining to have it here). Scotty tracked you down anyway! You rock, good sir!

4 hours ago, Bren said:

For the people who dislike the randomness of box ticking and random rolls to improve skills and want a more directed character development, do you use the training rules and do PCs get much training?

I would say all my players took advantage of the four occupation checks, one training check and one POW check allowed by rules every chance they got as well as the ticks one got for the one adventure per season also allowed in the rules. 

4 hours ago, Bren said:

In general, handing out rewards based on a popularity contest isn't a very good method of allocating rewards. In RPGs it often rewards broad roleplaying over subtle displays and can intensify the benefits for outgoing players over the shy. Now the stakes for rewards in an RPG are low, so it's not a big deal if people want to vote on who gets more XP or all the shiny benefits. It's just not a method I've seen work particularly well in practice.

It being one tick out of a possible seasonal 20 or so (this number will vary based on how the season went)... I have no qualms about it being a little over the top. And the players I had actually got it, well seemed to anyway. Boaty McBoatface can be irritating but, personally, I think a little player agency is a good thing. One check with a possible 6% should not lead to anarchy in the streets. So on this point I fear we will differ. Thinking on how it has worked in times past, I do intend to carry this forward.

Cheers

These are great questions, I am curious to see the answers! Leaving them here allows the hive mind to get involved which is going to be fun. But I strongly recommend a cut and a paste into RQ Q&A as well for the view from the top.

15 hours ago, svensson said:

[OK, I'm one of the vast minority of Gloranth-heads that don't like the ducks. But then, I don't like hobbits either.]

Much as I truly wish that so... alas, I think vast might be overstated, though I am not sure about minority. I think you have more than a few friends on that front. Sometimes I feel a little lonely manning this deserted Duck Friendship Booth and pounding on this drum. 

...but should you feel warm and fuzzy toward our feathered friends may I suggest

16 minutes ago, scott-martin said:

There seems to have been an undercurrent of tapir art in Bay Area fandom by the time Greg got to town, as revealed in the early SCA flyer for the 1968 Spring Tournament. Of course it could have gone in an aardvark (earth "pig") direction instead, in which case Joerg has beaten me to the punch and Gene Day's Canadian connections suddenly become extremely interesting around 1977-8. 

Very cool poster and your research-fu is incredible, thanks!

ETA

Do you know if this was this actually SCA or SCA related?

On 1/27/2022 at 11:44 AM, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not a fan of rewarding "good roleplaying" because it's so subjective, and some people just aren't very good at it and I feel bad punishing them for being dullards. Feels like "punching down" and elitism.

 

I am okay with it in very limited doses. I love when the table votes on a great move and will get them to do so at the end of a season’s tick chasing (roleplaying being a good part of the vote) and am willing to give a tick to the player who has entertained his or her fellow players inn a memorable way. The move does not have to be a successful one just one that grabbed the table’s imagination, made them cheer or simply is something they will remember. 

On 1/28/2022 at 6:23 PM, Bren said:

I've been to a few open games (Cons, organized play events, and the like) where the person who some folks at the table thought was roleplaying the bestest was the person I felt detracted the mostest from the table by hamming it up maximally while hogging all the attention.

Hopefully handing the vote to the table overcomes this. 

15 hours ago, Stephen L said:

If I were a good enough GM to have any black belt techniques, the one I would aspire to would be quite the opposite: how do I encourage the players to guide the play, and not how do I guide it.  That, for me, is best for encouraging player involvement. 

 

Yep!

15 hours ago, Stephen L said:

That’s how I get the players involved, because we are all deciding together how the story unfolds, and how we interpret the dice, and the GM is only the conduit by which the players interact with an unknown scenario.

 

Very cool!

13 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

It's way too random for my taste, weird things happen when you rely only on the dice and that takes agency away from the player. Each character has a story and as a GM and a player,

I get it, trollkins takes down a rune lord... thrice!

13 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

I much prefer the DragonQuest system which is equally skill based but can be used by the player to drive the character's story much more easily and solves some of the other problems.

 

This has come up a couple of times in my comments. Almost got to play it once. I guess, I might never get that chance again. 

12 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Captain Hook's crocodile... (or was it an alligator?)

Well, at the risk of having someone accuse me of cheap humour, It was a crock... err croc!

1 hour ago, svensson said:

I'm seeing some apostate initiate crying 'I want my mummy!!' as Dustin Hoffman's Capt. Hook did in the wonderful version of Peter Pan with him, Julia Roberts, and Robin Williams ['Hook' 1991].

Great movie... the cell phone duel was rather funny!

13 hours ago, Storm Khan said:

I considered a Lune. It’s movement of 6, though, makes it in ineffective chaser. This could become a foot race instead of a confrontation, a race my antagonist will likely loose. 

Quote

"Who are those guys" 

Butch and/or Sundance... several times!

Does not have to be fast when it does not need to eat or sleep. Dogged determination spread over a season or two could be interesting!

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

It memory serves, back in the day Queen Leika's sword-name was "Leika Ballista" because she carried an arbalest (3d6+1 Damage) and became super-proficient with it. 

1 hour ago, Soccercalle said:

She still has the ballista in her write up. With a 125% skill. If she had more than 120 in 1621 it seems odd if she only has 125% in 1625. (Especially as all skill levels are higher in RQG).

Well, yes and no...

On 1/25/2022 at 12:45 PM, Soccercalle said:

Ok. One can say that Leika is more of a leader than a fighter. But if you look at "Nameless" at age 34 the Broadsword level is "only" 120. She is described as champion of the Colymar already in "Sartar Kingdom of Heroes" that is happening in 2019. How can - maybe the best fighter in the Colymar - only have 20 more points than a new character. After having been champion for at least six years. 

Once upon a time, the idea was to have the characters start green, this days they start quite powerful I( I, with a soupçon of irony) call them super heroes! As you note, they are pretty damn close, aren’t they? Otherwise everything Bren and Godlearner mention is true.  

32 minutes ago, Bren said:

A character who is a below average rider, but is spending a lot of time riding would get a check or maybe even just add a few points to their skill.

This has been in a few iterations of the rules that I know of... RQ 2 and 3 and RQG
 

14 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

*IF* you wanted to reward good roleplay in skills, you could allow a (insert number of) +X to a skill improvement roll, or allow an automatic pass on the check.

But... I have been in games with quite different players, and when you get that combination of quite vocal and quite shy, then the GM really needs to handle that vocal player, and encourage the quiet one. 

Agreed, rather that reward the outgoing extrovert, I say punish the GM that does not allow the introvert to shine!

On 1/18/2022 at 1:58 PM, HreshtIronBorne said:

Also, this enables the sort of Deadpool/Batman style Super Hero Power of having pockets containing anything and everything a situation could call for

Are those bowling balls in your pockets or are you just happy to see me?

On 1/24/2022 at 2:34 PM, Runeblogger said:

There is another scenario very much set in "Gringle's time" and that is... Gringle's Pawnshop! Just 4$! 😀

And you get the old Rainbow Mounds as well!

On 1/19/2022 at 3:25 PM, svensson said:

1. In previous editions, players would bank their ransoms with their temples. In RQG the implication is their families or cult will pay their ransom without having to bank it beforehand. Do I read that right?

 

Yes, with a successful Loyalty Family or Loyalty Cult roll

On 1/19/2022 at 3:25 PM, svensson said:

3. What about the gear of the prisoner? Is that kept by the victor in addition to the cash ransom, or is the prisoner released with his arms and armor?

Hmm, hive mind? 

16 hours ago, svensson said:

So I think, as a personal house rule, that I'll allow players to ransom back all their gear for half-again or double the ransom value. For example, a thane who is a senior initiate has bronze gear, some of which may have a matrix on it, and is ransomed [person and gear] for 150% of the listed ransom for his social class. A Rune Lord whose gear has enchanted iron in it, would be ransomed for 200% of a noble's listing. Or more if a lot of this gear is iron.

 

This sounds good.

On 1/20/2022 at 3:07 AM, David Scott said:

So the adventurer if they've the resources or a person or community that they have loyalty with (and their roll succeeds).

 

Beat by David Scott!
 

5 hours ago, Darius West said:

I think this is perfectly fair for basic weapons and armor, but let's be utterly candid... Magic items are not going to be returned, and that is what really matters.  I think it fair to say that if most players are offered a choice between 800L in ransom (let the captive live) and an 11pt magic crystal (kill the captive),

Sad, but possibly true...Still one might have to try to get Dad’s sword back.

7 hours ago, Soccercalle said:

Are there any other scenarios that are easier to play in the 1619–1624?

I believe the HQ scenarios are set in your stated time period.

6 hours ago, Aprewett said:

Hi Bill, I get the impression you read my post as opposed. Just in case wire’s are crossed. It was the same roll. Ref rolls the players perception, the same as player. Could be used for any roll where some element of doubt is possible. If the player failed and the refs secret roll failed, the ref can give false info. Ref failed but player succeeded, some version of the truth. Etc. The player only has half the idea if it is good or bad info.

So, do you mean there is just one roll for both parties? If so, no I did not understand it that way. And also, if so, yes that is less rolling and as you said earlier it gives you an idea of what you are up against
Cheers... 

9 minutes ago, Aprewett said:

On the observation roll mechanism, I always liked the MegaTraveller way. Both roll, ref and player. There is a comparison system to both rolls. But for example if the player rolled a success, they have a vague idea they might be getting good info.

It is a great idea, probably why RQ has been using it for a while. Even in the days where opposed rolls were not as used as today one would oppose a perception roll with a stealth roll or another perception roll as dictated by circumstance.
 

good to see traveller living up to its rep as a great game though.

1 hour ago, DreadDomain said:

• If you significantly fail an ability in an important situation, you get to try to improve it (experience check)
•  

I have been using this since the days of RQ3 and am not sure if it is a HR or actually in the books. But yeah, for a first fumble I always had the player tic tha box. Hell, I often allowed in circumstances you mention here. Now, I have looked for it in RQG but have yet to find it. Have you page or chapter for this.

3 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

Alternatively: The GM makes all the Perception Checks for the players. 

To me, this is the correct answer and what I have done for years... 

3 hours ago, svensson said:

The general problem with Perception checks in any game is that if it's done too rarely, it alerts the player to an issue. If it's done too often it get boring.

The referee has to strike a balance for his group as to when to make that Listen /Search /Spot /Perception /whatever roll and provide enough information that it's useful to players but that asking for the roll doesn't set off alarm bells that has the players doing the stereotypical AD&D secret door search every 10 feet.

In a RQ sense, a player should only know that a successful Perception roll was really important is when the ref tells them to put a check on the skill box.

...and this is the reason!

2 hours ago, svensson said:

You know, I've done it that way too at times. I've had some players who dislike refs 'taking rolls from them' [as one described it],

I have always rolled items the players should not know about, for the reason you mention in the post quoted 2 up. So I make the perception rolls, the players make communication, agility manipulation and magic, stealth I divide. I roll for hide (the players may miss their feet sticking out from the tapestry) or they roll the sneak (they will know only that they have failed not the the bad guy heard). Knowledge is a mixed bag.... and even then, where I can I will let the player roll, for the reason swenson states above

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

So as long as total failure doesn't wreck the plot completely, you are safe to call for these rolls.

Sounds good

13 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

I therefore try to ensure that *all* rolls are made, by players.  If it's an important roll for the story plot, I will always try to think if what happens if they fail, and have an alternative plot line.  It might only be a small diversion, before getting back to the main line.  Or I might have two scenario's planned, and a roll determines which one we go with.

 

Where I can without ruining surprise, sure... otherwise, as I have said... IMHO.

13 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

Ultimately, the more the players are deciding what happens, the less work it is for me as a GM.  And just asking them what they think might happen can work.

I do use this where I can. Especially the second sentence..