Kloster

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

I had always thought that it was Kallyr's doing, but the Sourcebook also says: Kallyr Starbrow also acted quickly. She exiled Orlaront Dragonfriend, seeking to contain what had been awakened.

Again, this implies to me that she wasn't involved (or, at least, the DR wasn't her intention), and somehow she blames Orlaront for it.

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.

2 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

Or are there a bunch of rune levels in name only, with the sinecure & the admin but untouched by their deity? (One can imagine a ‘real’ priest stood in the wings to make sure services pass off according to the script.) This offers humour, so I like it.

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.

50 minutes ago, Joerg said:

  I demonstrated how you could construct a Law rune out of Disorder runes, and in the spirit of the material I concluded the demonstration with the quoted line below.

Wrong punctuation? Should I have inserted a comma?

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

33 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Voi Law...

Ouch

17 hours ago, Godlearner said:

RQG is a good system, but not if you expect your character to advance or learn new things. Both skills and POW increases very slowly.

14 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

My own experience does not support that.

14 hours ago, Godlearner said:

YFWV, I find it to be snail paced.

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.

20 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Yes.  But they do have to be sentient creatures, so you'll generally have humans and trolls where those are the most prominent species (e.g. around Dragon Pass).  Gorilla, Duck, Baboon, Elf, morocanth, beastman - those are all possible.

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?

9 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

The English translation I know and love is “Beneath the streets, the beach!”

Correct.

9 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

As I understand it, the reason the “beach” was being revealed is that the stones were being prised up to throw at the coppers.

Also correct, although the poetic sense of freedom, as exposed by our on site barbarian, was also implied.

11 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

My baby brother was born in May ’68, but I think the poetry of it was lost on him

I was in Paris in May '68, Boulevard Saint Michel (on my father's shoulders, because I was just over 1 year old).

12 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

though I did get him this as a birthday present one year:

This is a nice book.

2 hours ago, svensson said:

I have no problem with a Healer learning to use a staff if they don't attack with it. As for the 'can't train it', my ruling on that would be that the skill would start base + Manipulation bonus and must be learned through skill checks [aka practice].

None of that violates the spirit of the restrictions on Healers

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

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Maaaayyybeeee... although, I'd suggest you'd need to have a relevant craft skill as well.

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

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

It doesn't contradict it, it builds on and extends it. Feel free to ignore it in your game though if it doesn't fit your vision of Glorantha

This is what I do.

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

and I'm sure it varies according to region and subcult.

I feel the same.

17 hours ago, g33k said:

The GM, IIRC, can veto getting any tick -- "no, doing that doesn't generate a tick for you."

Of course.

17 hours ago, g33k said:

"Well, it's after dark and you're spreading out to hunt, let me just  roll a random-encounter  for each one who's stumbling around in the dark...  Ooooh, Joe, 2d4+2 trollkin looking to fill THEIR stew-pot!  Roll for surprise..."

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

16 hours ago, Mugen said:

Sometimes you learn something you did not expect to learn.

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).

16 hours ago, Mugen said:

I've always thought that the two ways that exist in RQ3 to earn points in skills (experience and training/study) were mandatory in all BRP games.

Agreed. But, I think those games can have extra ways, such as those proposed by RQG, or your idea of 'attributed by GM' checks.

16 hours ago, Mugen said:

Nowadays, I prefer to give ticks rather than use traditional rules.

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.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Jeff has indicated that even blocking would be considered a combat skill, and thus a CA can't do it. YGMV...

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).

2 hours ago, svensson said:

With Weapon Attack and Weapon Parry now being the same skill [in earlier editions, they were separated and each had their own percentages], I can see your point.

Another reason to keep attack and defense skills separate.

2 hours ago, svensson said:

I would have to think long and hard about a Healer [be it Chalana Arroy or Apollo/Hippocrates] training to Trip or Disarm attackers and whether that constituted 'doing harm', but Parrying is still OK in my opinion.

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.

37 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I prefer to give a number of checks, but assign half of those according to the events that took place during the session.

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.

Just now, DreadDomain said:

The intention behind the rule is highly speculative on my part! I would not be able to judge of the success or failure since, while I read about the issue, I have never experienced any check chasing players in any BRP games I have ever played. 

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.

12 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

From a mechanical perspective, I always thought the intention was to circumvent the habit that some players had to try to roll everything and anything in the hope to get a check. With the bonus checks, it is now less of an issue (although, you are right, it is done in a way to encourage skills that are connected with your position, occupation and community)

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?

24 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

* by the way, I prefer checks assigned on usage (like RQ) rather than a number of checks given by the GM (like Mythras) plus bonus checks to be distributed (like both RQG and Mytras).

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.

19 hours ago, olskool said:

A quick and easy hybrid system of location HP and one HP total is to use Locations (rolled by D20 as per BRP/Runequest 2) with a "Damage Multiplier" and a total HP model.  So typical Damage Multipliers would be...

Head = X 2

Chest = X 1

Abdomen = X 1.5

Arms = X 0.5

Legs = X 0.5  

   These multipliers would then be applied to any damage and the total subtracted from the HP total. 

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

2 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

What about the song?

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).

12 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

"une personne peut s'initier à plus d'un culte, tant qu'elle maintient les restrictions (y compris le don de temps et de revenus) de tous ses cultes. Aucun de ces cultes ne peut être hostile ou ennemi l'un de l'autre"

 

so for the bold part, "None of these cults can be hostile or ennemy to each other" (hope I translate well)

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.

12 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

In my examples I would consider that even friendly cults may be incompatible, just because their perspectives, their values are different.

On this, I fully agree.

12 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

But in other hand, not friendly cults may be compatible

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.

On 9/16/2022 at 5:49 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Unfortunately, we originally treated "requires that the cults be compatible" as neutral or better, not friendly.

This is also what we understood.