Zit

I was one of those. I enjoyed the way it was played. The players contribute to the world development, and there is a lot of spirits encounters

Can you play in French ?

I prefer to translate for the same reasons as above I I'm doing it as often as I can. However, I see 3 main difficulties: 1- the first name you see or play with impregnates your mind. It is somehow difficult to change an old habit 2- some names are loosing their their "punch" through translation because of the language structure. Germanic languages like English can easily build words by puttig them together. I guess this helps translating an English name into German. But for romanic languages you often have to find two or more separate words, which makes of a short straight forward english name a long and heavy translated one - and it is even worst with a verb. Elder Wilds = Anciennes Terres Sauvages , Wilmkirk (which looks more like Dutch than English) = Église de Guillaume. But I have no problem with Jonville. 3- some translated names sounds simply horrible or too weird, or are simply untranslatable, like Trollkin (??), Apprenant des Dieux (Godlearner), or Dragon-triton (Dragonewt). In this case, it could be better to reinvent it, or to use the gloranthan name (Enlo instead of Trollkin).

And what about bears with a pumkin head ?

I guess every supplement wil have its own, adapted from this one.

do you like me to publish it on d100.fr or do you prefer to wait until the definitive version is done ?

I'm currently re-writing rules for shamanism for another d100 publication, and this also the way I'm seeing things. Old RQ shamanic rules were oriented towards combat only, where shamanism actualy includes different ways to interact with spirits, the most usual being negociating and exchanging with them. Just like with mundane beings.

This is not surprising, considering centuries, when not millenia of mesopotamian cultural importance and influence. The biblical flood myth is a copy of the the Mesopotamian one. It is the same story, they just changed the characters, the gods and the motivation. Belgath, if you have read Gilgamesh, you know what I mean. I've seen somewhere (was it mentionned on Google + ?) a work trying to establish family trees for the various myths using a statistical method, comparing comon themes and relating them to the diverse human migrations. It was interesting. There is also another theory explaning that many myths are similar because they all come from our comon subconscient. It is probably bit of all of this, but there are also many unique myths, legends and stories.

this was meant for the sheep entry.

I noticed it in WotS as well. Stay by melee (or write mêlée, but not meleé.

What if if roll 1 with a 1M ? Another way would be to simply ignore 20s and directly jump from 19 to 1M.

That is exactly my question. But can you the same way decrease stasis to move faster ?

I'm wondering if the BRP essentials are not going to be what they have been at the very begining : a basic, setting-neutral version of Runequest.

Assassin's Creed in Pavis, or a Gloranthan MMORPG.

Did anybody ever run the Craddle scenario as a battle à la warhamster or whatever else ?

I've run small battles (I already explained somewhere how). Each side has a coherence on a 1-20 scale and I made a "coherence contest" just like Spirit Combat with POWs. The first at 0 lost. Players' actions removed points to the other side (e.g. disabling a leader, taking a position). For more stress, the ennemies started with a higher coherence, making the party's actions crucial. Now I may use the Revolution D100 conflict system. Keep the Coherence, but allocate each general a proficiency on a 0-100 scale, possibly takong some situational modifiers into account, and make an oppposed skill roll to decrease the opponent's Coherence. PCs actions can either provide the general with 30% Bonuses or for crucial actions even replace the opposed skill roll.

it does not say explicitly that he defends or parries with the same weapon (for instance if he attack magically ...). If it was the case, with 2 weapons, he would be able to attack twice and parry twice. But, p28 : Any Adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for 2 attacks, 2 parries, or 1 attack and 1 parry. (so one weapon for an attack only and one for a parry only) I don't find anymore where the "attack or parry" is written, it may be in the original Basic Role Playing instead of RQ2, but I don't have it at hand right now. However, there may have been some changes between RQ1 and 2, since in the exemples, Rurik parries and attacks in the same round indeed. 100%+ as EVERYTHING to do with splitting attacks. P. 24 : "A character may split his attacks or parries if and only if each attack/parry is 50% or higher. Thus a character can only split attacks or parries if he has reached 100% ability...". Each attack shall not have less than 50%. 2x50=100, hence the required 100% threshold.

you certainly have to !

(To all : I propose not to start a new general discussion about SR but to stick to the OP) There is a recent thread about that. On RQ2, you can do one single thing with one weapon in a round and within a melee : either parry or attack, with the following exceptions: - You have 100%+ in a melee weapon - you are using a missile weapon outside of the melee with the S/MR attribute (bow, sling) So a 60% swordman attacking at SR 5 is done for this round with the sword.

The OP (and its topic) is about rq2. Many weapons = a lot to train = you are good at nothing. This is a choice left to the players but which makes not so much sense . You can always find a case where the rule does not apply well. Keep it simple when possible and adapt it if it seems to be a nonsense. But make sure the players agree. However you won't have to in more than 99% of the cases. I don't even remember having needed this. Preparing a weapon is not just holding it but holding it properly with the right stancea and in the right position to be able to use it efficiently.

5 sr between shots in rq2, nor 3. 3 was in rq3, but with 10 sr a round instead of 12 for rq2.

I don't have the rules at hand but it would be: 1a 1H. However cannot be used with a medium or large shield only (or was it the sling ? Check it out) 1b 5sr for the shield, 5sr for the sword, 5 sr for the thrown weapon, DEX sr to throw it (and not +3). You need then 2 rounds. Don't forget that the rule cannot solve everything. Don't hesitate to adapt it if it makes more sense. For example drop a weapon =no sr, or doing 2 things simultaneously.

Or a socca. But I'm sure that nobody else than me on this forum knows what I'm here talking about.

Since seasons are related to Elements and weeks to Powers, why are days to related to Conditions ? I'm afraid these 7 day week are an intrusion of the RW into Glorantha.

And Weis is a native hamlet under the Duke's jurisdiction and gave its name to the whole district, right ? This is how I unerstand this as well.