Zit

if they are not to be reedited at some time, it would be nice from Chaosium to release them as free pdf, or to allow someone to do it.

Are Durulz mammals ? I'm asking because of the breast armour the duck is wearing.

When reading the extended powers rule, I thought it was basically a default rule for any power system (even if it is clearly written that it is not the case), and the divine magic the exception (I haven't read the weird science). That may be because my English is not sufficient, or there may be so much info that I missed it. As a consequence, there was for me 2 ways of extending all the powers : the extended casting and the ritual casting. You may try to find a way to make it clear for stupid people like me what is a core rule (e.g. pre-activation or rituals) and what is an option (e.g. extended duration). That's the difficulty with a toolkit like RD100. A side bar comment seems not correct to me, p. 178 beside the enchantment section: The ritual is missing. As it is written, the extended duration looks like a standard default rule. A question : does the rules for dissipating long duration power works for extended powers (with channeling) as well ?

Not exactly, if I recall well. The higher skill skill was not reduced down to 100%, you just removed the part over 100 from the opponent's skill. Actually the case with both opponents above 100% was not clearly stated in RQ2, but you could just deduce that for instance 150 vs 120 -> 150-20 vs 120-50 = 130 vs 70. The new rule makes it 100 vs 70. Both work, the old way keeps higher chances for crits (+1.5% in our example) and specials (+6%) and advantages the highest skilled, but gets complicated when more than 2 opponents are fighting. The new rule makes it easier with less maths. Since it does not fundamentally changes things but simplifies, I'm ok with it.

I had some difficulties with the power extensions and ritual castings. Page 176, improved and ritual use of powers. The first sentence is about improved power, but in the second sentence a "ritual" pops up from nowhere. Or do you mean : "To activate an improved version of a power, you have to use a Ritual ? This paragraph is actually about improving a power which is basically not a ritual, by using a conflict. It seems that a ritual is also a power which simply requires some time to activate (ex. summon [entity]). If this is the case, explain it in the section about power activation (p. 172). After all, as soon as you take some time to activate a power, you are stricto sensu conducting a ritual. May be reserve the term "ritual" for powers actually requiring a ritual, and stay by "improved activation" or even "improvement ritual" (always both terms together) for powers modified through a conflict,. The next section "Extended Range and Area Effect" is not clear. You start with : And then the chart. So it looks like the range is automatically extended with the duration. In this case, the whole paragraph shall be next to the "extended power duration" page 175. But later comes : you finish with : And then here is the Manipulation. At this point I'm lost. Extension, ritual, manipulate...please clarify and simplify. The chart page 177 (in the middle of the enchantments, wrong place, move it) explains it a bit more : if you want to use the extended range, you have to make a ritual, that is a conflict. So the extended ranges on the chart are how the powers are POTENTIALY extendible with a conflict vs. value x time scale. Why don't you use the same rule as for duration scale, that is simply multiply the channeling point by the range scale, without any conflict, and keep the conflict for the range score only -as per other attributes ? It looks like the rules are unable to chose between two -nice- procedures : using channeling or using conflicts. So to improve an attribute of a power on a higher time scale, I must : 1- extend the power with an extended activation procedure (which is also called "extended power duration") using the channeling, and 2.- improve the attributes using the ritual activation (also called ritual use, which brings some confusion with the ritual powers) with a conflict. Except if you have a manipulation stunt. Am I correct ? Or don't I need an extended activation as soon as I made a ritual in a higher time scale ? Which would mean that there is no limit, I can activate as many powers as i want in a high time scale, as long as I win my conflicts. Well, this post is a bit confuse because the rules are confusing (for me at least).

The rules state, p. 190 : "The summoning must take place at least in Narrative time, and the creature will stay on the mundane plane for a period determined by normal Conflict rules." What do you mean ? How do the "normal Conflict rules" determine the period ?

I second. My very first rpg was RQ2. I started with a friend, none of us having played any rpg before. Our English was awful. We played the BRP a couple of times and then jumped into RQ, and we understood the rules without any trouble. They were really intuitive and consistent. A soon as you get the easy logic behind then, everything goes fluent. And RQG is more or less RQ2 + what was missing in RQ2. So no worries with RQG, despite the number of pages.

"Heroes" ?

I may have overseen this in this long thread, but something seems to be slightly inconsistent in the combat rule : So actually during combat, the final chances of success never go beyond 100% (except if one of he combatant neither parries nor dodges, a very unlikely event). Then, on same page: ...hence based on the 100% for the highest skilled fighter, and a special never go beyond 20% and a critical beyond 5% Which contradicts the following: ... which he will never enjoy because his final modified chances of success will never go beyond 100% Or did I miss a point ?

SR looks actually like an action potential within the round. It is at the same time when you act and how much you can act.

1- explicitly allow multiple traits for rolling (at least you get one support), once in the Conflict per additional Trait ? It is like allowing one support but obliging to use it immediately. The available supports are also limited, you'll need your friends. If you want a standard support which you can use whenever you like and without limitation, then you can't roll 2- leave it to the narrator's decision, which players do anyway.

Another question : during a Conflict, you must chose between gaining a support or rolling for effect. Why shouldn't you do both, at least in other time scales than combat ? It is especially frustrating during a one-to-one conflict. I don't see the point here, but there may be some balance reason.

like this one http://kadnax.pagesperso-orange.fr/pagly4.htm ? (I haven't read it).

Just a detail : in the Blessing Invoke Lesser Cantrip, Invoke Cantrip and Smite With Cantrip, you mention "offensive cantrips": I'm not sure to have seen any definition of what an offensive spell is.

same for Sengoku Jidai please

is it downloadable from another source than he BRP forum, which requires to sign in ?

What about the creatures ? So I actually already shared a Mesopotamian package on D100.fr 😄. I'm close to share a second one for the Sarmates. They are unfortunately both in French. I shall adapt them to the template, although they are already rather close to it.

For more clarity, I'd rename "Power types for [belief system]" as "Standard Power systems for [belief system]" or "Power systems from the core rules for [belief system]" and [Power System] as [Specific Power System] If I understand properly the template...

ok, I did it, without stirrups and with a fitness ribbon. I'm untrained (I already shoot a little bit with the bow -I even have a self-built one- but I'm far away from being a true bowman), I am not a great rider, I have an estimated STR of 08 (*) and my horse was staying (I didn't want to take a risk). I was able to aim my ribbon at 180°, so I guess it is not a problem for a trained horse archer, even at gallop which is a rather comfortable pace. I noticed that, while when turning left your right leg applies a pressure on the right flank as expected, you push at the same time on the left leg to help the rotation (which explains why you can rotate so much), which seems to compensate the pressure from the right, and helps holding the horse. My conclusion is that the Parthian shot is highly plausible - with all the limitations such an experiment may have. (*) I estimate the draw at at least 50lbs, which, considering my ridiculous muscular mass, should correspond to 80lbs for a trained warrior

I like the idea as well. But for doing this they must wear light armour, unless they can use magic to help. Like trying to get the Jump spell from the Trolls in the rubble. Or may be a strength spell.

I guess they needed some help to get on the horse (which may be considered as a shame for a nomad ), which is quite annoying if you have to change your wounded mount during the battle, which probably happened often. So back to Glorantha, if we consider that Praxians do not have stirrups, any heavy armoured Praxian player character should take this into account. Except if the beast (e.g high llama and may be bison) is trained to lay down to allow its rider to get on its back, like camels IRW. But if the neighbours (Sartar, Lunar Antilopes...) have stirrups, I bet the Praxians would have adopted them as well.

This is what I read about steppe nomads, but it may be true (or not) only for them because of their way of life, but I wont't argue on this. And I meant the rigid saddle, not the art of cushion saddle used before. Which kind of saddles and armours did these older cataphracts have ? You're right. I actually used it has a limit for horse archery at all. I've read it and I got it confirmed by an horse archer (he mentioned about max 80-90 lbs). Nomads brought at least 2 bows at war. The second (or 3rd) bow was most probably a spare one, but sometime was much stronger and supposedly to be used only on foot. When you see how a foot archer has to draw a >120lbs long bow, you can imagine it is not possible at all on horseback. It is here not about taking time shooting tens of arrows right in the middle of the target, or during a full battle, but about fast shooting of only a few arrows during a tactical move, so even if uncomfortable, uneasy, less efficient and tiring, it may have been used. All our discussions are anyway suppositions only, and even YRWWV. For a fantasy world, you can actually chose whatever you prefer. For instance, state that in Glorantha, Impala riders are can turn at 180°. Or even humans. After all, they can magic.

ok, I'll try it again tomorrow on my icelandic pony (which is much like ancient horses and steppe ponies). I may not find a bow, though. I may also not dare doing it at gallop either, since neither my horse nor myself are trained for that. I don't see any reason not to believe the old pictures and sculptures depicting a Parthian shot. You probably can train a horse to move forward while you shoot backward. Horse can learn a lot of tricks. You can probably train our body to turn : much of us are probably unable to, but what about people having been trained to it since their childhood (although I just tried on my chair and I was able with bare hands to aim an imaginary bow at a target 180° behind me) ? It is anyway possible to do it without holding the stance for a long time. This implies "instinctive shooting" without aiming, like hunters often do. Nomads had several bows of different strengths, probably one for horse archery and one for foot archery. Note also that using the thumb to draw the bow seems to allow to keep a small angle between the shoulders and the arrow, which helps further. I wrote rules for steppe nomads and my proposals were: Any archer can do a Parthian shot while mounted if he has stirrups but with a penalty, and not at all without stirrups. A trained horse archer (here some special skill, trait or stunt has to be introduced) can do the Parthian shot at normal score with stirrups, and with a penalty without stirrups. No aiming is allowed. Bow strength as well as size have to be limited. Speaking about stirrups, one thing they made possible was probably heavy cavalry: jumping onto a horse while wearing an armor may prove difficult, and Praxians have no cranes. The introduction of stirrups is also probably related to that of saddle (and especially wooden ones).

RosenMcstern is a passionate game designer whom I had the chance to work with, so you can count on him to work on the product and to have it been released. He only has a much higher score in Knowledge [Game Design] than in Communication [Stroke Customer], but this is what matters, isn't it ?

.