Kloster

21 hours ago, Jeff said:

like with the Druze I doubt the Aeolians speak about the mysteries of their religion to outsiders.

I know that druze faith is a syncretism, including elements of shi'ism and other faith, but I see more the Aeolians as Glotanthan equivalents of the Hazaras, that lives as a homogeneous group, are considered as shi'i muslims by muslims, but as budhists by the budhist world, even if their beliefs include elements of mongolian shamanism. This is the earth comparison I used to explain them to my players (even if Lebanon has been a french possession during a few decades, hazaras are best known to french people because of a book by Joseph Kessel).

2 hours ago, g33k said:

can (will) the "aspiring Aeolian" can sufficiently adapt to the new cultural & Cultic norms?

As commoner and nobles function quite as 'normal' Orlanthi, I think that in most the case, the answer would be yes (but ...)

2 hours ago, g33k said:

is there an officiant willing to bless their becoming an Aeolian?

This part is clearly much more complicated, as said officiant can be a zzaburi, but MGF!

1 hour ago, Godlearner said:

Critical hits ignores protection magic such Shield (rune spell), Protection (spirit magic) and Ward Against weapons.

I agree Shield and Protection are ignored (although I know GM that are not ignoring) but I think Ward against Weapons counts because it is not armor.

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I also suggest looking outside the BRP-derived systems for inspiration, too. . There are some older Pulp genre RPGs such as Justice Inc., while not BRP based, are still good resources for a pulp campaign, and much of the game mechanics (in this case HERO system) can be adapted easily to BRP.A lot of the material in the game, such as the advice on writing adventures for the different types of Pulp stories (Crime-fighting, Espionage, Action, Horror/Occult,  Detective/Mystery, Spicy Stories,  Science Fiction, Western) and how to plot& prepare an adventure are  system neutral. 

Yep, 'Justice Inc' was good, but Hero system (especially the 3rd ed on which it is based) is completely different of BRP and quite difficult to convert into anything.

The other good pulp RPG I have played is 'Daredevils', fom FGU. It shares it's system (and authors) with 'Bushido', and is even more difficult to find and to convert.

In sales and number of players, DnD, by far.

White Wolf and Paizo should compete for 2nd rank.

P.S. Not that I am playing any of them, neither am I recommending one of them.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

The most complex game I read was french first edition of Légendes.

Agreed, it was probably the worst. I seem to remember a game a collector friend of mine purchased that contain square and cubic root that has to be calculated in game (not at chargen) could compete, but that's it.

At least, Légendes's authors had quite good humorous easter eggs that made part fun to read (In Légendes des Mille et une nuits, there was a spell called Paralysis, whose physical component was to throw Garlic to the target. If the target catch the garlic in flight and throwed it back to the caster and hits him, the caster himself is paralyzed. The comment was that 'le lanceur doit faire attention au retour du jet d'ail'. The play on words can not be translated, so I let french speakers with it).

6 hours ago, tooley1chris said:

Where the hell was ANY starship info?🙄

In Knight Hawks!!

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

WHay would that matter?

He already owns Other Suns, and could print it as a stand alone game. Nothing to be gained by putting it under the ORC umbrella, and accepting the restrictions and changes necessary to do so. 

Completely agreed here, not counting the fact it was a very good product. I much enjoyed it way back.

13 minutes ago, Mugen said:

One thing I liked in l'Ultime Épreuve was the short list of skills, which is very close to what I'd chose myself. Without much surprise, it's almost identical to the list of RuneQuest's skill categories.

 

Yes, but one of the bugs I spoke earlier is that skill value was the sum or 2 or 3 attributes, depending on the skill, and giving different max values (Ironically, iirc, you could not pass 'l ultime epreuve' because magic skill could not be high enough, being the sum of only 2 attributes).

38 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Ok. Aside from too many attributes, I didn't feel the game was very complex (but more complex than Dragonbane for sure).

Even not counting magic, 'Rève de dragon' was far more complex than 'L'oeil noir' (Das schwarze Auge auf deutsch). Mugen is right, the only french game that could have competed was 'L'ultime épreuve', but it was not good, filled with bugs, and not very interesting. Even DSA v1.0, level and class based (which L'ultime épreuve wasn't), was better done.

paint .net if on windows

1 hour ago, Zit said:

nor really. With a score of 123%, the tens are 12, which is 6- crit and 24- special.

Correct. I've not seen it.

38 minutes ago, Zit said:

Well, if you want to simplify the maths and stick close to the RAW, just look at the tens of you score. If you roll under half of it, it is a crit. If under twice of it, it is a special.

It only marginaly change the odds, and dividing or multiplying by 2 a one-digit number is not that difficult.

Correct. If you want to be closer to RAW, you just have to check when the result of the die is precisely the target number ... but this still fail with scores above 100%.

Globally, the RQ3 +3SR became a +5SR in RQG

19 hours ago, g33k said:

Offhand, it looks to me like the easiest thing to do is just add traditional "low rolls" to the Crit-doubles... 1% per 10% over 100 keeps the 1-in-10 crit, and is easy to figure.

Except that crits are 1/20, not 1/10, so you should add 1% per 20% over 100, but in that case, you loose the simplicity, and I think simpler to keep RAW.

19 hours ago, g33k said:

I don't see a similarly-easy way to figure Specials.

Same for me.

7 hours ago, g33k said:

No; with skills above 100 (using the "d99" method) the RAW chance of a critical is 9% (9 of the possible 10 doubles (all but 99)).  If you use the traditional "d100" reading, 99+00 are both fumbles, so crits are only 8%.

Your working numbers are assuming crit-on-best-5%-of-hits; but the "doubles" method is explicitly a 10%-of-hit crit (and fumble).

You're right.

I have answered to the OP's question, but with your method (D99), you are right.

7 hours ago, g33k said:

But you're right -- the "Doubles" method doesn't scale crits with "over 100" skills.
Offhand, it looks to me like the easiest thing to do is just add traditional "low rolls" to the Crit-doubles... 1% per 10% over 100 keeps the 1-in-10 crit, and is easy to figure.
I don't see a similarly-easy way to figure Specials.

I've not cheked the figures. You'll have a later answer once I've my eyes in front of their socket.

This works correctly for scores below or equal to 100, but does not scale with scores above 100:

With a skill core of 140%, RAW critical chance is 7% and RAW special chance is 28%, but with your method, you have 6% of critical and 19% of special.

With a skill core of 200%, RAW critical chance is 10% and RAW special chance is 40%, but with your method, you still have 6% of critical and 19% of special.

Welcome on board.

1 hour ago, Martin said:

I always go with Yelmali

The 7 years of Latin at school makes me agree.

What I like in RQ3:

- Rules consistency.

- A nice character creation set that allows a lot of things.

- Separation of Rules and world (namely Glorantha), allowing to play in almost any setting.

- A very special feeling.

1 hour ago, Ian Absentia said:

It is so, and that was our understanding all the way back to the original Trollpak.  In one notorious campaign, a friend of mine and I played twin Great Trolls, technically trollkin.  Dumb as rocks, built like bricks.

!i!

Yes, same for me. We had a dark troll (a far above average one because the player was quite lucky) initiate of Argan Argar and later of Arkat (he became a sorcerer) that was considered by hes brethren as a trollkin. Even the duck had a better rep when we encountered trolls.

16 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Actually, in my previous post I was confusing Diadochi with "Warlords of Alexandria" by Zozer.

Warlords of Alexander is good.

Thanks. I would use 4 intensity per split, to stay on line with the other spells. Very useful and powerful, but as you need 2 splits (i.e. intensity 5) to begin being useful, not too much. And I think fire fits well.

58 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I just created a spell which I think I'll call Split Mind (sort of similar to Solace of Logical Mind), in which X points of Intensity splits your concentration (puts a bit on maintaining X spells) while the main part of your concentration is focussed on other things (eg, movement, casting other spells, etc). Each split allows for 1 spell requiring concentration.

Interesting idea. Would you share it, please.

Ah yes, the gloire. Nice zebra.