Furry Fella

That's about what it works out to yes. There was a bit of rule of thumb looking at the comparative rolls to. Small shields are still a problem as they are significantly different in use and employment. It is actually the construction materials and techniques that mater more than size - but that's a separate topic and analysis.

Yes but a surprising number of us are in the analytical professions and have strong backgrounds in history. Now as I am an analyst & have been a financial analyst (& we can be even more geeky than accountants) the correct term should be Impairment - accelerated degradation over and above normal consumption due to standard use 😀 But I'm much more likely to move in such a direction than the current Hit Points for Weapons and shields etc. That has proved cumbersome and onerous during play. This is an area where I guess it will be back to the future and ignoring attrition of weapons and equipment. Only "spectacular" leading to busted kit in combat. I will almost certainly impose some sort of check and effort cost to keep gear up o scratch component to represent wear and tear. Surprise surprise that is a circumstance that I'm thinking about how to put into my ramble on the "test year" 😂. Though not a Rune Level there was a dispute over an inheritance and Tithing 😎

Back to topic. A Master Bowyer producing a master work bow of the best materials of his best work in approx 1315 in England cost 3 nobles (a coin weighing 9 grams of gold) so 27 grams of gold RQG has a standard composite bow by an ordinary crafter costing 150L or 7.5W or 30 grams of gold. The Master bow was affordable for a professional military archer ( note NOT an officer). An RQG Minorish Noble or basic Rune Master expects support of 5 Hides of RQ land with a "normal" base return of about 240L (80 for the hide he oversees and 40 each for those with tenants) less family living. So a year's surplus income for a petty noble won't buy a standard composite bow The concepts are right the numbers are just wrong.

As the title says that has now been completed so some thoughts and initial conclusions. - Please note this will be in several sections and edits. It's peak work time for me so opportunities for this are limited. 1. The concepts and most of the structure - Brilliant. Even better than my rose tinted historic view of why I so enjoyed RQ 30 years ago. 2. The mechanisms mostly strongly positive. a) The quality of success is something I've long believed in and as a group we tried (mostly successfully) some years ago. Unfortunately reading it and playing it returned me to just why we never wrote it as more than a structured principle. Too wordy, convoluted and overly complex or in need of multiple extra drafts to refine and make less cumbersome (as in " My apologies for the length of this letter for I have not the time to write a shorter one" Bismark to Von Molkte) b) Love the remake and importance of Runes - problem I have is how easily missed bit the vital bit on page 51 is. A value of 80% or more in any Rune indicates that your adventurer is strongly tied to the Rune. The Rune may affect your own control over your adventurer; their actions may be determined by the Rune and contrary to your wishes. Agree with the concept and think I will look to phase it in over a range though. Missing this is too easy. Especially as the Guide Story "Vasana's Saga over plays this on page 228 as her death rune was taken as 75% and not altered. Some parts of this are still giving me problems. For example a Dka Fal Shaman as overtly civilised because of their Man Rune. The Beast / Man Rune dichotomy looks good but is one that the results quirks jar. c) Like the change to Spirit Combat particularly. This and the changes to the magic and enchantments affecting spirit combat and interactions actually address (well so far - grin) ALL the concerns and reservations I had from RQ2 d) The first of the things that caused 2 to be mostly. The die roll minus for experience and training etc - simply put Just No. Basically loathed the whole mechanism in RQ3 and this is barely better. That an experience increase roll or other hoop must be jumped through to get a Zero result - Lead Balloon territory totally. I'm not all that happy with the simple low linear die role especially given the drastic reduction in "availability". However the time passage is for a separate installment of this ramble. Thus a break in installment 1

Quantity of material is not a preindustrial cost driver except for rare materials or materials in great quantities. Time of the worker(s) is the real driver - having to earn enough to live and support a family. As an aside it is why it is a pair of trousers - the way they were made saved a very great deal of sowing as it only required inside leg seams and a groin seam - often not that as you pants laced together. It "wasted" cloth but that could be used for other things and as cloth is machine produced (Looms are machines) for all but fancy fabrics this was still way cheaper.

Stakes and Pits yes. Cliffs not where your Hippos are they just don't move that far from river access. The fire - problem is Hippos are very likely to charge especially if the fire users are between them and the water. a Big Boat may work Ahaw are surprisingly big, but to harpoon through that hide would need to be right beside and the Hippo may attack rather the produce a Nile (as opposed to Nantucket) sleigh ride - SHUDDER. Period is too early for a Ballista or Skorpion. There are some really not nice old videos of spear hunting Hippos and even Elephants in Africa - technique appears first isolate then mass mob from all sides. Attrition and confusion until it is worm out.

Given the overall weight and thickness of Hippo Hide - more dangerous. Hippos are frighteningly fast too. "Modern" (i.e. post general firearms introduction) won't risk Hippos without several guns - generally military grade rifles of full caliber. Hippos kill more people than any other (non-insect or non-human) animal in Africa. Much Safer to get ones Croc early in the day while it's warming up OR even better in the cold months of the year - seen some incredible footage of experts swimming among them in / just after the winter rains. Equally seen a "Green" Hippo hide fired at as a target the lack of effect was staggering. Clearly Hippos were hunted we have finds made of their hides and have them recorded as trade goods (expensive ones) - but the how to do it without suicidal risks ???

Yet the recovery rate for arrows is far far higher than any games I've seen factoring this in. A quality sheaf of arrows - especially war arrows would be very expensive. English war arrows are finished unlike the bulk points of say the Assyrians (recovered like other bits from fortresses and siege events) show cast arrow points that were tanged and show almost no sign of working or finishing. Equally hunting commonly uses very few arrows - the forest court records for several centuries in England repeatedly mention very few arrows - often 3 to 6 maximum.

You have to relate the Income and the standard of living in the charater professions. Plus there is absolutely no way a practiced crafter's gross margin (sales of goods ;less expenses to make them) nets only 2L a week go look at the prices and costs associated with living. Secondly these are disposable incomes for Characters so they are away 40% of the time - there being no penalty to income generation roles for absences of 3 weeks per season. This stuff is in the between adventures stuff. Equally a "Hide" of land generating max gross margin income of only 80L for something that takes several weeks to plow - please! Your own quote shoots your position down. take that 80L as net disposable income and the problem is solved. Equally you are assuming that much is not made and or achieved at lower cost. I'm a mix cropping and pastoral farmer with wood lots or rights to same. I want need leather or curoboilli similar armour for fyrd duty well I can supply the cured hide. I can supply the timber and hides for shield. Quilted Linothorax is actually producible at my steading - it was for the entire darkages and medieval period - as it is simply multiple layers of cloth stuffed tightly with wool generally ( but substances will do) and stitched to hold all in place very good BBC Doco had experimental archaeologists doing it in reasonable time to a high standard in days with only general instruction. As a farmer I'm a decent jackleg carpenter or wood worker so that's my spear shaft etc.

The problem is you are comparing cost to the characters net disposable income AFTER All living and family expenses NOT to a wage. Take you wage and deduct food, housing, clothing, tools, family etc and see where it gets you. As an example by the 14th century a man-at-arms armour cost several years disposable income for the holder of a single manor, often more than the total cash receipts taken by even a quite well of minor knight. That is why raising troops by indenture was so much used and why loot was so blood important - almost all your pay even for a knight was absorbed by paying your commander for your kit and caboodle plus feeding you.

The current archaeology suggests very strongly that "Saxon or Germanic if you prefer "take over" in the north was probably very largely peaceful and in places entirely one of being or choosing to be co-opted as there is very very little change in the recovered DNA and basically no evidence of sustained conflict. This is the North and west - what would be come the center of Northumbria. Much is being argued of the whole "invasion" story and about population replacement etc. There is something significant to this just I doubt very very strongly the views of those such as Francis Pryor who want to claim there was no war or conquest. To me the inescapable problem is the Anglo Saxon Chronicle - the Saxons say they had to fight big time. There is also far too much contemporary historical / literary material for 5th to 6th centuries for the revisionists to be doing other than throwing the baby out to.

I recommend the following as it gives a wide range of data for several centuries on bows - the issue is clearly quality and custom fit really cost otherwise really rather cheap (if perhaps nasty) Archery in Medieval England: Who Were the Bowmen of Crecy? By Richard Wadge There are three Major costs in any Quality non-composite bow. The careful selection and long seasoning as a skilled and controlled process is the first - representing a very significant sunk capital cost. The second is the cost of the skill that takes years to develop and to retain - this is a premium product and its application cannot generally be accelerated. The third element is the time of the customer as such bows are definitely fitted and customised most carefully. Composite bows and quality powerful "self" bows (for a longbow is "merely" a large specialist self bow with some careful customised selection and finishing that helps mimic strengths of composite construction) both have long slow stages in them but at opposite ends of the process. Careful selection, working, seasoning and production of a quality bow stave is a process (historically) of years with a high "failure" (that is less than desired outcomes) rate. Modern bows and bow wood etc can truncate a lot of this with technological cheats treating the wood to achieve what time was needed for. For Composite bows this is the careful and considered "drying" (because the agents can't actually be let fully dry), successive applications of the various components and then the vital protective finishing. Again customising requires much time of the customer as the bowyer. The vital question for Gloranthan is what effect will magic have PLUS does Glorantha use "Hot Box" techniques for shaping and drying and finishing / sealing? When and whom used what parts of these arts is real blood on the floor territory for competing "schools". What IS clear is that some parts of these techniques are evidenced very very early on in the construction of bows found and examined. All significant cultures using massed archery demonstrate a degree of massive production of "standardish" items to or within general limits - an economic necessity for both those making the bows and for those organising the users. That England employed massed archery Without anything like the same use of bulk standard is both an edge at its peak and a major likely factor in decline. In the "barbarian belt societies" such as the Orlanthi represent bulk production should be non-standard. The issue would be the degree of customisation - custom bows Should use the archers full abilities (if affordable) and certainly more of than not. The point frequently missed though is that it is the ammunition that places the absolute limits on bow striking power. With a tanged arrow fitted to a shaft and not very expensively finished (the bindings needed use both much skilled time and non-trivial cost materials) past a limit adding to the power reduces effectiveness on protected targets - the shaft splits on impact and much energy and momentum is lost. The European answer was the socketed arrow head - now that is a skilled pieve of work and expensive. The critical point for Europe and handgonnes was the cost of ammunition - as this rapidly dropped firearms became so much more usable and attractive.

Thank you very much indeed. Can I now be seriously cheeky and ask if you would be prepared to do a modified one (probably significantly so in places? Just there is much missing in places and much that is not needed and likely never will be

In RQ2 many spells did not require a focus when cast on oneself. Clearly the issue is one of not correctly editing a cut and past from RQ2. Frankly I'm debating largely retaining RQ2 spirit / battle magic it was generally better written - guess that's the case with a second edition updated by those who where playing it week in week out. There are some grand ideas in RQG but much muddiness to. In places the expanded text has not produced clarity only complexity and the well versed existing balancing / matching of quality of roll already being played is much simpler and more elegant with vastly less words. Remember All Spirit and Rune Magic has a visual component - use this in play. Note that for many detect spells the descriptions were clear that only the caster say anything. There I just ruled that it was sufficient a flicker to give the caster an awareness of where, who. The thin to recall is that in a large public place there is likely to be a muted light show much of the time. Now getting players to think about this glow when doing covert things😋

There have been quite a few experiments looking at the issue of mount velocity to missile fire. The debate and experiments usually have major flaws from poor simulation of the mass techniques needed for engagement. Almost all close range mounted fire is delivered with a passing motion so simple mechanical variants that simulate head to head are very questionable. Mounted skirmisher fire was almost always at close range to compensate for crossing speed, and the variable and erratic geometry of motion from being mounted. Unfortunately we have very limited idea as to how fast these engagements occurred. We can generally be certain that they were likely to be significantly slower than our first instincts might mislead us to. In an era when 1 day is your basic unit of time fast has a hole different meaning. The best and most reasonable experiments I've found suggest 25% to 35% BUT attempts to fully replicate the necessary manoeuvres fit with later descriptions of combat with archaic peoples that power is traded for "accuracy" as at only 10 to 20 yards base power is plenty. Anyone ever tried spotlighting rabbits or hares at night from the back of a vehicle? While the target is much bigger the issues of jolting and relative motion are probably worse.