Kloster

2 hours ago, Psullie said:

However I don't see how one person could augment another's sneak skill beyond pre-stage prepping (taking off armour etc).

This is what I would consider to be the 'augment' made by the 1st character.

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

Scan, I always let every one roll, mainly so they can disagree on who has seen what.

This, I like.

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

I use the worst adventurer's sneak from a group (the weakest link). If they succeed everyone else auto-succeeds.

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.

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

I find that one common issue about asking for everyone to roll for Scan or Move Quietly means that, inevitably, someone will succeed with Scan (and will inform the others) and someone will fail Move Quietly (and will blow everyone's cover). Which means that things almost always get spotted, and stealth almost always fails.

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.

3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

• 1 - Nominate a "leader". That player's roll is done first, and acts a skill augment for the other players' rolls. Simplest, doesn't introduce any mechanics, easy to run!
• 2 - Nominate a "leader". A success or better lets them bump the success level of two other players of two other players (fumble -> fail, fail -> success, etc.... like QW masteries, basically). A special lets them bump three players. A critical bumps five (the mnemonic here is that it mimics the +20/+30/+50 of augments).

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.

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

IIRC, James Bond 007 also had such a success level step.

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

7 hours ago, Nick Brooke said:

Bah. Cuneiform doesn't have any accents or weird punctuation conventions: translating into French is much tougher. @Minlister

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!

7 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I'm  not keen on using runic influences here, as I think Sorcery should primarily be based on skills.

That's an idea I had back in the MRQ1 days, but never made into a real ruleset : use Runic Magic skills as a base, and put Sorcery Skills on top of those. Not very different from the RQG Runes & Techniques, in fact, but with R&T as skills.

It could work.

3 hours ago, Mugen said:

Yes, that's one of the possible fixes I have in mind. Runes seem like a natural fit for those categories.

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).

5 hours ago, Godlearner said:

As I have said in other threads, my beef with it is Free INT concept primarily. RQG version is more interesting and fits Glorantha better overall, but some of the mechanics .... well, don't get me started.

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.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

To me, Free INT is also a major concern, but so is the need to develop an individual skill for every different spell (even though Intensity, Range and Duration are gone). IMHO, knowing some Fire-based spells should give a bonus when learning a new Fire spell. But it's a complaint I can also make for weapon skills.

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?

28 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Yeap, also kept spirit spells lasting 5 minutes instead of 2 as per RQG

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).

27 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Two things to get rid/change from RQ3 are Fatigue and Sorcery (RQG sorcery is slightly better IMO, but not by much)

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).

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Nowadays, there are a lot of rules from RQ3 I can't stand anymore (Skill bonuses, Strike Ranks, for instance) and others I never really used (Fatigue).

Frankly, if missing, RQG would have been completely different, and much less interesting for me.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

But my hopes for RQG was for something closer to RQ3 than RQ2 or Mythras while also being simpler.

My own tastes would have been to start from RQ3, not RQ2.

14 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

I STILL wouldn´t translate the title of the game. 
It´s "Warhammer" not "Kriegshammer". 
It´s "Traveller" not "Reisender". 
It´s "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Kerker & Drachen". 
etc. 

Agreed (and same comment for french).

4 minutes ago, klecser said:

My post was not directed at you simply because it came right after your post. I read the first post in the topic and commented my general thoughts on the topic. 

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.

8 hours ago, klecser said:

I'm wondering if this is a cultural symptom of how people approach role-playing. Many players I know (myself included) interpret augment-induced penalties as role-playing opportunities. We also know there is the segment of the hobby that has been trained to "make big number and win. If I don't win, I don't have fun." I play at tables with players like this all the time, from young to old, and if they aren't making big numbers, they are convinced they aren't having fun. I find it sad.

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.

8 hours ago, dumuzid said:

At my table we don't use the fail penalties for augments, only the normal rules for fumbles.  At first it was just because we were all first-time RuneQuest players, but we never adopted the penalties once we knew better.  Now that I'm the one GMing I've decided to keep omitting despite knowing the rules much better, though hardly completely.  I want to encourage my players to use their more marginal passions and runes; the ever-present fumble chance keeps the element of risk without the potential to put a player character into a failure spiral during a scene.

I take.

46 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Good to know, thanks!  (I'm out of reactions for today so I can't just "like" your post 😉  )

No problemo. Thanks for the Thanks.

1 minute ago, Manimati said:

One must not forget the the goal of role playing is to have fun.

Sometimes, a failed roll leads to a lot of role playing fun. That's good.

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.

2 minutes ago, Manimati said:

When a failed roll leads to players feeling miserable, the GM must find a way to bring fun back at the table. 

Easier said than done when the character is dead, but I basically agree.

2 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

It's interesting that you're arguing for the case of (1) failing a Passion roll, followed by (2) a failed roll that fell inside the 10% margin that makes you regret having roll a Passion. The probability for that is pretty small, and it's actually close to (or sometimes smaller than) the probability of rolling a Fumble! And I don't see people avoiding rolling at all by fear of getting a Fumble.

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.

8 minutes ago, Manimati said:

This is precisely why Daniel Kahnemann got his Nobel prize in Economics in 2002. Humans don't always almost never behave rationally in the field of economics (and real life).

See his "Thinking fast and slow" book for an enlightening (dare I say illuminating) presentation of cognitive biases.

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

3 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

what about the character killed because  the player miss a parry only because the player choose to not use the passion / rune augment

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).

1 hour ago, andyl said:

Yep but not everything is combat. Trying an augment when you are doing something social would seem pretty safe. I find it difficult to see how a failed dance or sing or orate could lead to immediate death.

I think if I had players who were resistant to augments I would start by suggesting them outside combat.

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'.

43 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

what about the character killed because  the player miss a parry only because the player choose to not use the passion / rune augment

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).

43 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

passion / rune can save a pc, passion / rune can kill a pc.

that is just the player's strategy + dices consequences

Exactly.

43 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

they are people who love a strategy only when this strategy succeed, and they are people who love strategy when they are good, even if the conclusion is bad.

And there are cautious people that don't like to take too much risks, and there are more 'daredevilish' players and characters.

43 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

i would say the first should not try a lot of augment rolls (the risk of being frustrated is important), when  the second should try it more often (the benefit/risk is positive)

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.

3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

It's all supposed to be fun and games,

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.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

"Despondent" is only a result that can happen from a Passion augment, not a Rune. The Passion failure is -10% to everything, the Rune failure is -20% to use of the Rune. There is no -10% result for attempting to use a Rune.

I think the text should say "If the adventurer fails the Passion roll and becomes despondent (modifying all further actions by –10%), or fails the Rune roll (modifying use of the Rune by -20%), that state continues for the rest of the fight."

Basically, "The consequences of failure, whatever they are, persist for the rest of the fight". The text on page 202 that says how long the effects last in combat should not be extrapolated to change the primary description of the results of failure on pages 227 and 236.

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

1 hour ago, claycle said:

The phrase all further actions is troublesome, as all further actions could be construed to include, well, all further actions. The rules do not explicitly point back to only actions related to the inspiration attempt - but all further actions. As a native speaker of English, that statement is clear and encompassing: use a Rune to inspire yourself in combat and fail? You become despondent (an overwhelming feeling of depression that affects your entire being). You will now be taking a penalty on all further actions (spell casting, dodging, attacking, Battle skill tests, et al) in the combat.

And furthermore, in addition to the global despondency penalty of -10% to all further tests (which applies to both Passions and Runes), the player will also suffer the additional penalty described on pg227 (-20% to all further rolls using that Rune), if the attempt was Runic Inspiration.

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.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Well, in that case, I'd say you won your argument- assuming that there is anyone to argue against. 😊

I will not be part of those who argue. Wholeheartedly agree.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But yeah, the very feature that make RQ/BRP what it is mostly work against the typical comic book superhero style. Of course there are really multiple styles of comic books, so BRP might actually work out well for some comic book characters.

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.