Kloster

This is what I would consider to be the 'augment' made by the 1st character. This, I like. This, I don't like. It works for the success (but only 1 get to roll for experience), but in case of a fail, everybody has failed. I'm much more on the line of our desperate Windchild: It depends on the situation.

As a former army guy, I can ensure you this is quite realist. This is why you don't try stealth with a large group of encumbered people, because at least 1 will be heard. You just try to avoid giving too large bonus to the guard. On the other hand, everybody in the squad is looking for problem and has instructions to warn others in case he spots something. But realist does not mean interesting to play, and I understand your point. I personally would use option 1, using the highest skill as leader for this roll. That way seems the best, considering the way experience works.

In fact, In JB007, the Quality of Result was the main factor of the damage. You could easily kill someone with a Quality 1 (a critical, in BRP linguo), even with the lightest weapon

French has no weird punctuation and accents. English is just missing some parts of the alphabet. By the way, Nick, your french on Deadcrows forum is more than correct (even if typically british). You should have no problem translating from ancient persian to modern french.

What about shipping and handling cost: The weight should be close to 2 (metric) tons!

It could work.

In that case, it could be a possibility to use the score of one of the runes used in the spell (as for rune/divine magic). I have not yet decided to go that way, and am using sorcery RAW (for now).

I have no problem with spirit magic restraining sorcery capacity (and I like creating spirit using sorcerers, even if I know I diminish what my characters can do), but I dislike sorcery spells reducing it. For me, the concept of free INT is correct, but the sorcery spells you know should not reduce it: With this, the more sorcery you know, the less it is effective.

RQ3 had skills for weapon categories, but for individual sorcery spells. RQG has skills for individual weapons and individual sorcery spells. It is thus more coherent. Perhaps you should go back to weapon categories (I did it) and create spell categories?

Same. I feel the 5mn/10mn/15mn of RQ3 more interesting. I also noticed that with the RQG rules, but the old durations, players used more magic, because they are not afraid of having their spells expire before the end of use (especially with combat). RQ3 fatigue works, but is far too bookkeeping. RQ sorcery works well (and I like it), but is a bit bland. RQG sorcery is interesting, but far more complicated (but I like it).

In a similar way, I am playing and GMing RQ since close to 40 years: I have always played in Glorantha, but before RQG, I had never GMed in Glorantha. I have used RQ3 for 1 home campaign in Rome, 1 Vikings campaign, 2 Land of Ninja campaign, 1 SF campaign (with some psi powers built along the rules for lunar magic). Frankly, if missing, RQG would have been completely different, and much less interesting for me. My own tastes would have been to start from RQ3, not RQ2.

Agreed (and same comment for french).

Don't worry. I didn't took it bad, nor against me. I just told I don't agree, because my experience is not similar to yours.

I don't quite agree with you. Most of the persons I gamed with (including myself) don't take penalties (whatever the reason) as role-playing opportunities, but that don't mean we don't have fun if we don't win. As I have already explained, I have sometimes declined to roll the dice and answered 'fail', because I felt the failure more fun.

I take.

No problemo. Thanks for the Thanks.

Sooo right. I have several times decided NOT to roll and told the GM I failed, because I thought at that time it was funnier. Easier said than done when the character is dead, but I basically agree.

Completely agree here. I am not defending this option, and I, as a player and as a GM, am using augments and runes (less passions, but for other reasons. We already discussed about this on the french forum). I am just describing what my players did and how they reacted. As I already explained, I pushed them to used those rolls in social and non critical situations and I fudged some rolls, with the hope they take the habit to use them. It more or less worked.

I've never heard of this guy, but I wholeheartedly approve his comment. I will try to find the book.

In fact, the main difference between those 2 situation I see is that: - If you miss a parry because of a failed augment/rune/passion roll, you know you would have successed if you hadn't roll, whereas - If you miss the parry roll, having not rolled for augment/rune/passion, you don't know if you would have had it. Even if the mathematical gain is positive, the perception is not (for some persons).

This is exactly what I suggested for the 2nd session. The consequences are less immediate (even if they can be dangerous), and can more easily be 'modified'. That means rolling above his skill (without modifier). Nobody ever complained about that. This is the value of the skill, not the consequence of a decision (and a bad roll). Exactly. And there are cautious people that don't like to take too much risks, and there are more 'daredevilish' players and characters. I would say (after discussing with my players) that what blocks them is not the frustration (or fear of), but the fear of the consequences, even if they know the mathematical gain is positive (This is not automatic, thus). This is why , as proposed by Andyl, I pushed toward the use in social or not too dangerous situations, where the risks is not too high and where I could more easily fudge the results. My hope was that they take the habit of using them.

Exactly. But it is not fun to have your character killed because you miss a parry because you failed an augment. This is exactly the answer I was given, and I have to agree: In RQ, combat is deadly, and missing a parry can lead to immediate dire consequences. Having a -10% or -20% to all your subsequent parries is close to a death penalty, even if your ransom is high because you can not even have the time to throw your weapons, yelling 'My ransom is 500L'. I am not even speaking of the consequences of a Fumble.

This should absolutely be clarified, at least in the Well, and in all next versions of the text.

This is also how I understood it (and when I explained that to my players, why they were afraid). But I am not a native english speaker.

I will not be part of those who argue. Wholeheartedly agree. Superworld works fine for Punisher style and level characters (deadly combat), is correct for Iron Fist or Daredevil. For higher levels (typically Batman, X-men), not very good. For Avengers or Superman class, too stretched.