Zit

I'm been running a BRP Wind on the Steppes blog-campaign for a while. I'm not sure how and when we'll finish it, but it is still running. I'll probably switch to the new Revolution D100 rules when they are ready.

You could have opponents throwing great swords, halberds or great axes at your player's PC, why not a mob specialized in this kind of tactics, he may then reconsider his position after the combat. Skill rating is supposed to be valid for normal conditions -that's in the rules. In the case of such big weapons, normal condition means enough place to rotate -like for hammer throwing-, losing a couple of seconds (+SR), possibly hacking your friends into pieces in the process and falling down or at least needing a few second to recover your balance (DEX roll ?). Otherwise you'll ave no chance to throw the great sword beyond your own foot.

Speaking about modularity, did you think about combat rules between the basic one and the advanced one ? For exemple, using the basic combat with Action Ranks + advanced damage + toughness, but without the hit locations or the Life Points ? It seems it could work. Did you test it ?

Actually, the "Personality" skill category looks like the "Communication" skill category in RQ and BRP.

what about "challenge " ? It is less martial than conflict and it is all about trying to beat an opposing force, even an impersonal one.

Whatever the system, if you want to be realy successful in [chose a non-English speaking country], I'm convinced you have to translate it. DSA was the first RPG in German, it certainly explains its success.

will there be any way to play it over Internet (pbem or whatever ). I'm not talking about a computer version, but about mechanics allowing at least to play per mail. I think board games designers should think about all these poor players spread all other the world without enough partners. And it would increase the sales, since every player would need a copy of the game ?

BTW, are the ranges given in the equipment chapter effective ranges or maximal ranges ?

that's it. Instead of "iron" or "bronze", let's say "ancient". Anyway, there is no bronze but dead gods bones

unless the Troll has >100% with the maul, he is anyway limited to one single hit per MR. 1SR is not 1 second: it is a rank, not a time, or it would have been called a Strike Time . 12 or 10, it is not so important. It only depends on how much granularity is requested. You get more with 12. Jeff, do you intend to keep the SR mechanics for the coming Runequest?

Bienvenu parmi nous. I think home rules for RQ3 are easily portable to RQ2, if not compeltely compatible, as well as BRP's. RQ3 had a system taking into account the characters' culture (like, barbarian, primitive, etc.). I don't know about specific home rules for RQ2 but you may have a look at Simon's page http://www.soltakss.com/indexsoltakss.html, or Peter's Maranci's home page there http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm There are also lots of ressources in the download section of this site. Of course, most of these RQ ressources are for RQ3, but there is a RQ2 community on Google + where you may ask for info https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/116823744054861005477 Bonne chance.

Of course the BRP mechanics used in WotS could be used almost as they are and the stats block easily converted, but if I want to make it a true Revolution D100 supplement, I shall use the principles of this set of rules (I'm especialy thinking of shamanism). The Devil lays in details, as the German say. This requires more work as it seemed at first. I'd have been glad to avoid this reworking and to go ahead with the BRP, but on the other hand, this is an interesting work.

Are there somewhere maps as they could have been drawn by the locals, not by the game designers ? Maps showing the world as they think it is, not as it really is, like our real World in the middle ages or ancient times ? Would be interesting. Or can we consider that the gloranthan maps are accurate thanks to magical means I ?

Let's make this thread a special "questions about the rules". I have one: The basic role playing booklet delivered together with RQ2 in the boxed set said that 2h spears were a exception to the rule that you can only parry OR attack with a weapon in a single round. 2H spears allowed both. I haven't found any mention of this in RQ2, although I always considered the BRP booklet as a kind of basic RQ rules. I don't see any reason why the rule shall not be valid for both rules. Any advice on this ?

My understanding : Q1 yes, a successful parry of a successful attack Q2 damage is fully absorbed by the parrying weapon Q3 I always played the other way : if you critic, you don't impale.

If I understood well the situation, since Alephtar Games lost the BRP-license, they are not allowed to sell their BRP supplements anymore. Chaosium had some hard and pdf copies of Wind on the Steppes but I neither know if they have some left nor if they would sell them. I did not get answers to my questions, so you may directly ask them. However, since it is a pitty that this supplement has been removed from all catalogues shortly after its release, I'm envisaging a reedition with another set of D100 rules.

You're right, rq6 has location hit points. But there are no general HP. When using hit locations, at some time, you have to know the resistance of each of then. Revolution D100 (at least the draft) is using toughness as well. Damage is compared to toughness and the wound can be minor, major or lethal, some associated effects comparable to SDLeary's suggestions. There was also a thread (I think it was on this forum) where it was question of damage vs. location hp (or toughness, whatever you call it) resistance roll to determinate the wound.

rq6 ? Revolution D100 ?

I knew the login Iskallor was not unknown to me ! I started the game with you as Kaonu but was unfortunately unable to follow, because of real life time constraints, which I regret. But I'll enjoy reading the adventures of my former clan mates. There was indeed a lot of interaction between players, this was fun.

As great as Pavis/BR may be, it has for me a slightly artificial taste of "trying to put a condensate of Glorantha into a small box". It is a kind of too much on a too small place. I prefer Prax and the river. Balazar provides for me higher consistency and credibility than Pavis.

There is nothing to forgive here . We're all getting old, and I hope RD100 can bring fresh blood to the players community. Anyway, are "mathematically-precise percentile chances" stricly realistic ? So-called "realistic" rules do actually not simulate reality, but the idea the designers have of reality instead.

your player's POV would be actually very interesting.

Just keeping the basic traits, without gazillions of skills or additional Stunts, a few exemples: training in Bargain trains in Playing the Luth (or whatever instrument) as well. Or training in any craft will increase First Aid. Same with Healing-region-litteracy (you may argue with Latin...), etc. These are quite unrelated Traits. Note that a RQ6 combat style is much less than than "Close Combat" which can include several combat styles. And RQ6 skills are more numerous. Don't take my comment as a critic or an argument: I don't bother increasing several traits at once, even if from a pure simulationist point of view it may be disturbing. I undestand that rules design involves choices and sacrificing some aspects for playability. I think Traits and Stunts are a very flexible system. I'm just giving you here a chance to explain your logic to those it may bother.

Paolo, I have a couple of questions, due to a lack of testing from my side. I'm guessing the answers, but I'd like to ask the designer: - how does the Traits system avoid the D&D syndrom with each profession allowing a list of traits, like classes and specififc skills in D&D, leading to stereotyped characters (the question arose for bards in another topic)? One of the "trade mark" of D100 is that any character can train in almost any skill. - when acquiring new traits, you start at least at the same level as the other traits of this skill. So a Swin specialist for example may acquire the Brawl trait and become on the spot a Brawl specialist as well. There is no intermediate level for Traits. - there is no way to train in a single trait, so all traits belonging to the same Skill are trained together. Can you explain the logic behind all this ?

My first feeling is that RD100 allows for a broader range of game styles and adresses a wider public. Traits and Motivations can be used as acurate gritty skills or as more freeform capabilities and the basic rules are well adapted to narrative games while the advanced ones will please the simulationists. RD100 sticks also better to the first Petersen's convention. On the contrary, the BRP offers more granularity -at the cost of a rather long skills list. I think -but I may be wrong- that there are 2 generation of BRP-based games : before MRQ/RQ6 (separate skill rolls, resistance table, fixed starting skill levels, general Hit Points...) and after MRQ/RQ6 (opposed skill rolls, characteristics based starting skills, combat effects, no general Hit Points...). The BRP is the compilation of all the versions and improvements of the former, while RD100 belongs to the latter.