SDLeary

Announced Other Places ... June 29th.

SDLeary

1 hour ago, NickMiddleton said:

I’d guess it’s supposed to be +10 / -10… and house ruling it as such would do little harm imo. Weirdly, seems to be an artefact from the BGB.

That was my thought; makes much more sense based on the progression. I hadn't noticed that it was a BGB artifact, and dumped it in the Corrections thread when the v2 file came out.

Oh well, a new house rule! 

SDLeary

Would anyone have an idea as to why the progression for additional years of age is the way it is?

Quote

Step Three: Age

The default age for characters is 17+1D6 years old. Your gamemaster may choose to alter this based on the requirements of the game setting. If you wish to begin play with a character younger or older, choose an age that seems appropriate and meets your gamemaster’s approval.

• For every full 10 years added to the rolled starting age, based on the level of the campaign, modify professional skill points by +0 (Normal), +20 (Heroic), +30 (Epic), or +40 (Superhuman) (see Step Seven).
• Any fraction of years below 10 does not qualify for this skill bonus. Based on level of campaign, for every year below the minimum age (18) described above, subtract 0 (Normal), 20 (Heroic), 30 (Epic), or 40 skill points (Superhuman) from your character’s professional skill points.

For additional starting age, it seems a bit odd that characters in Normal campaigns gain nothing for a 10 year interval. 

The progression for those with fewer years than starting also seems a bit odd. Again we see characters in a Normal campaign with no change, in this case what is a substantial malus for other campaign types. I suppose this could be justified by the fact that the other campaign types get larger skill point pools to offset?

None of this is game breaking or unchangeable, just a bit odd.

SDLeary

12 hours ago, Raleel said:

Yes, you are correct, and the answer to your why is just because I assume 🙂 you will note the spirit damage doesn’t have that same step. 

Hadn’t noticed at that! I’ll have to take a gander when I get home. 🙂

SDLeary

So, I believe I know the answer to this, but at the bottom of the table, where it states to "Continue Progression", I assume they are talking about the multiple d10s plus another die so that progression is a flat +2. Is this the case, or is there a table (or formula) that I've missed somewhere. 

And if the progression is supposed to be a flat +2 maximum per row, why we have the little flat-ish step between 51-60 and 61-70?

SDLeary

1 hour ago, mfbrandi said:

I will grant you there were some shocking things in later AH items.

Yes... after Glorantha (Box 8 ) for the most part.

SDLeary

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

Given that neither Greg nor I had anything to do with the Mongoose material - when we finally saw it, we were both shocked and horrified at how bad the art was in MRQ2 - I wouldn't consider the Mongoose material as indicative of anything about how we view Glorantha.

30 minutes ago, Martin said:

I vividly recall at Continnum after hearing that Mongoose were going to do Glorantha material of being a doomster (and saying so  to  anyone who asked me) on them ever making anything Glorantha related...in the end i was proven right.

And yet, mRQ and mRQ2 IS part of Runequest history, as much as many would like to excise it. mRQ rules were atrocious, but seriously cleaned up by Loz and Pete for mRQ2 into something playable. Even though I didn't agree with all the rules systems, the further refined RQ6 would have been a fine engine to game on in Glorantha. And I'm sorry that The Change™ occurred before they could get out AiG, so that we could see their take more fully.

Mongoose's treatment of the Second Age may not have been what Gloranthan purists wanted, but Third Age was off limits, and Greg said they could use Second Age. Now, Mongoose's treatment is much more along the lines of Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance in tone, but oddly enough this was able to draw players of those other properties into Glorantha for the first time.

As far as art is concerned It wasn't all that bad for games of that day. Certainly not up to Chaosium's currently high standards, but certainly much higher than the low point (*cough* AH before the First Renaissance *cough*).

SDLeary

4 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

If anyone's interested in seeing Michael Allison throw a javelin in competition form, here he is just a month ago:

!i!

[And he wins the Men's Pole Vault, too! --> 2:18 ]

The guy in yellow cheated! He ran away! 🙃

SDLeary

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

I prefer to have the same base value for all skills under the same category,but it's only a detail.

Another option is to use STAT+STAT in a category header as the base only for trained skills.

• Skills have bases as listed, those numbers are the chance of success if the skill being used is untrained, category value is NOT added
• In order to be considered trained, the character has to spend the appropriate amount of time training in order to get their check; two weeks game time for learning a new skill perhaps (perhaps more for languages, or language not related to the pupils language)?
• Once they have completed the amount of time, and successfully rolled their check, the skill immediately becomes the STAT+STAT value of that category; representing the quick learning combined with innate skill.
• Skills that have points allocated at creation are considered trained

This last one would be one that would have to be watched, so players are not putting a single point into all skills just to claim they have been trained. Of course this issue would vary widely depending upon the dynamics of individual game groups.

SDLeary

Against shield and armor, for accuracy.

SDLeary

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

 I thought you meant that id you used the shoerter skill list that skills would be more broadly defined and if you used the longer list then skills would be more narrowly defined. A few RPGs have done something like the latter, or even introduced new skills that cover ground that used to be covered under an existing skill, and it is usually a bit of a pain.  

 

Common / Expert or Common / Advanced... as in Legend or Mythras, and now Rivers of London.

SDLeary

7 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

RQ3 Monster Coliseum had chariot rules.

Yes, it did. They were not in the core rules though.

I think Darius point though is that Glorantha of the time, and Sartar/Tarsh in particular, was not represented as having any sort of major use of chariot, either as a simple mode of transportation or as a component in mobile artillery.

SDLeary

8 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

On the contrary, the earlier iterations of BRP games (thinking RQI-VI) were highly structured in this regard. The balancing of parts was integral to them and, I believe, the reason why they were so robust and long lived.

This is somewhat counter to what Steve, Greg, and Sandy ever mentioned. To my recollection, about the only one where any kind of balance was actually considered was Superworld (and that was in the powers).

SDLeary

7 hours ago, deleriad said:

Probably very difficult. Lots of issues but fundamentally RQG works as a "POW economy" where you sacrifice POW and regain it in order to gain benefits while RQ6/Mythras works with your POW as a limit and threshold; you don't sacrifice and rebuild POW, you use it a bit like a storage tank. RQG (like RQ2/3) also has an economy of magic items that you can use to enhance your abilities while Mythras (largely) doesn't.

Full disclosure, I was one of the co-authors who wrote the long articles on animism in RQ6 (as was). I love the system but it did feel a bit like grappling with quantum mechanics at times. Obviously in a house campaign you just do whatever floats your boathouse but I would find trying to add it to the RQG mechanical structure more problems than it is worth. 

Question. Did you also work at all on the AiG document? And if so do you know if Animism was changed/modified for a better fit Before Things Changed?

SDLeary

12 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

Sometimes i mix up the BRP rules in my head... Mythras combat and RQG combat and spirit magic are the most common.

No no no... those are just, um, undisclosed house rules! 😉

SDLeary

Just received my book yesterday, and it's fabulous! Thank you for the matte (mostly) paper! Little reflection, nice pale color that still contrasts well with the text; nice clean layout... all goes to make this one of the most readable tomes that I've seen in a while, and its still pretty! Good use of color, especially in the spells section, makes charts easy to follow.

More like this please!

SDLeary

IIRC, you would have to import the skills, but I don't see why it couldn't. In world, it might not stack up well to RQ:G native Spirit Magic, or the other magics.

SDLeary

2 hours ago, Gwyndolin said:

I have a decent amount of experience with Coc 6 and 7e but I want the player characters to be a bit more survivable than that.

In addition to El Octogono's and Ravenheart's suggestions above, you might want to explore the Heroic Hit-Points option, at least until the group becomes more familiar with how things run.

SDLeary

3 hours ago, Erol of Backford said:

Since we are so programed to think of dwarves as real world Irish or Scottish...

Blame GW! 

SDLeary

18 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Clay Mostali (Dwarves) are definitely organic, being made with a healthy dollop of the Man Rune.

Only the True Mostali are inorganic.

Too many additives, they failed the certifications!

SDLeary

5 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Although the Mostali may synthesize their food [and may not] they would need organic materials to make it from, and no recycling process is 100% efficient.  Therefore from time to time the Mostali will trade for food or at least recognizable organics. 

 

But... they aren't organic, why would they need more than their Soilent products... I hear Green is their favorite!

SDLeary

1 minute ago, devinlc said:

As I understand it, the corrections thread is specifically for typos, not for questions about actual systems. That's why I posted it here. Happy to move it if the powers that be desire that.

Yes, that's why I asked. 🙂

They are all in the middle of the editing task, sometimes they will miss things in the forums outside of the pinned topics if you don't tag someone.

SDLeary

@Jason D, This could be a simple typo (missing a multiple, ex. x6?), or more. Would you advise this be moved to the Corrections thread. Also, shouldn't the whole rule be labeled as (Optional), or is this now Core?

SDLeary

Roll 3d6 for "Street" level adventures, and 2d6+6 for something more heroic, for all characteristics. If rolling at all that is.

SDLeary

1 hour ago, Morien said:

Might not be exactly what you were looking for, but hopefully helpful:

https://greathall.chaosium.com/Pendragon Forum Archive/index.php/t-2839.html

And yes, I know you are one of the original commentators on that thread, but in case you didn't bookmark it or something. 🙂 And it is another Forum ago.

That is probably what I was remembering when I conducted my look-see in the downloads section! Thanks much!

The actual search began though based upon a thread I had saved from RPGNet in 2012, and the thread itself was about a year and a half older. Same thread talks about some of the early attempts at a Japanese game.

SDLeary