Kloster

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.

Correct. Still correct. Hero is based on Champions (A Super game) and BRP is based on RQ (a gritty fantasy game). This is why Hero scales better for Super than BRP, but BRP is better than Hero for gritty games. Fantasy Hero was adequate if you wanted light hearted fantasy, but not for Glorantha, and not for deadly combats. Still correct (based on his 50 STR in Mayfair's DC Heroes).

I love this feel

I like the rule, but I had exactly the same problem. Following session, my players began to use them, but like Rodney, they used only their high score passions and runes, because were afraid of the failure consequences.

I know Prax is not a typical Orlanthi land, but I seem to remember that the 'typical' Lodril worshipers in Prax are the Agimori.

Dead on spot.This is exactly why after several very enjoyable Superworld games, I switched to Champions. Hero system is far less enjoyable than BRP for gritty games, but scales far better for Supers.

As much (but not more) than a solar weapon wielded by a darkness deity.

Same.

So, it's a kind of 'Landsgemeinde'?

I didn't remember the Waertagi had 4D6 CHA but 1D6 APP.