Kloster

For me, it does not mean she was not involved, but only that she didn't like what occurred. She may have planned to disrupt the Lunar ceremony, but not to have a dragon doing the job. She has to live with the consequences of having a true dragon in the middle of her kingdom, after all.

This could perhaps be possible for Rune Lords, but not for Priests, as they have to lead offices, teach spells and have other activities that need the direct contact with the god, including initiation of new members.

No, but the english Voi Law sounds like french Voila, meaning 'here it is'.

Ouch

Gaming time advance is roughly the same (1 experience roll, including POW per check per adventure), but game time advance is much slower RAW, because you have only 1 adventure per season. Our previous rhythm (RQ3, because I don't remember for RQ2) was around 2 to 3 adventures per season (with at least 1 week between each), meaning an advance rate at least twice as fast.

Beastman? This is becoming complicated, as I see beastmen as already being part-men and part-beast. How can you have a scorpion centaur, and what would he be like?

Correct. Also correct, although the poetic sense of freedom, as exposed by our on site barbarian, was also implied. I was in Paris in May '68, Boulevard Saint Michel (on my father's shoulders, because I was just over 1 year old). This is a nice book.

This is exactly how I read and play it. No training, no learning, but ok for experience.

Agreed (woodworking or redsmithing, at the very least).

This is what I do. I feel the same.

Of course. I am using similar tricks, but players are players and don't change easily their habits.

This, I agree. That means having points or checks attributed by the GM in addition to those attributed normally, but not replacing them (for me). Agreed. But, I think those games can have extra ways, such as those proposed by RQG, or your idea of 'attributed by GM' checks. On this, we differ.

According to wikipedia, soap has been created in Babylonia around 2800BC, so is clearly bronze age. All the methods you cite can also be used.

This contradicts RQG (p74 and p290): Chalana Arroy cultists take an oath never to harm an intelligent creature or needlessly cause pain to any living thing. That does not mean they can't have a combat skill (other than dodge, of course). Another reason to keep attack and defense skills separate. Not only is Parry Ok (for me) but Disarm (which is an attack maneuver) is also Ok (for me, again), because it cause no harm, and thus don't violate the oath.

Having the GM that assign even part of the exp/checks seems plainly wrong to me. This takes away part of the interest of having a character evolution. I know that I would feel cheated.

You lucky guy. I had, and still have this kind of behavior. This is why I think it failed that goal, but only from my personal experience. If others don't have the problem anymore, that just means I am unlucky or that I don't know how to choose my players.

I don't know if it was the (for me legitimate) goal, but if the case, it is from my perspective a complete failure, because players that had this habit continue to have it ... and in addition, take all the bonus they can get.

perhaps for simple prosthesis?

Same for me. But I think the bonus checks accorded by RQG are intended to increase the integration in the society (and are a way to compensate the lower number of checks compared to lower editions).

I know this is not purely bronze age, but iron age, but on this matter, it doesn't change much. Some roman maps were quite good, but the one that remains are not very movable because made of stone (for reasons explained by Joerg above). The one of the Orange Cadastre are a good example.

This is roughly what does Hero system when you use hit locations.

I didn't even knew it existed. By whom? I will try this evening on youtube.

Yipee. Another fan of 'Damnation alley' (both novel and movie).

English original text is: 'A person may be an initiate of more than one cult, so long as he maintains all the requirements (including tithing and time) for all his cults. None of this cults may be hostile or unfriendly to another.' That means 1) that your back translation from french is ok and2) that neutral cults are (or more properly were) compatible. This clearly contradicts RQ2 statement, as expressed by Jeff, but also contradicts Jeff that situation has not changed. The problem I see is that RQ3's matrix is about pantheons and not individual cults. On this, I fully agree. If I stay with RQ3's ruling, I agree, because neutral cults may have compatible beliefs and world views, but I can't see hostile or enemy cults being compatible, even if with exactly the same beliefs.

This is also what we understood.