Barak Shathur

3 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

Where are half-trolls from? Those wretched movies? Or were they something Tolkien was considering when working through how he wanted the stone giants be?

Given Tolkien references multi-headed trolls in The Hobbit, the simplest way to have trolls reproduce is by budding.

I’ve heard (maybe just speculation) that MERP came up with half-trolls based on the ‘men with jet black skin and long red tongues’ (as I recall the description in ROTK, been a while), Tolkien’s words, not mine, fighting for Sauron in the Battle of the Pelennor fields. And Umli, the half-dwarves, based on the ‘stocky men, bearded like dwarves, wielding great axes’ doing the same (they are the ones who slay Forlong). 
 

As an aside, this seems like an illustrative example of the implied racism in Tolkien’s works, in that the ‘good races’ are always fair, and usually tall (the taller and fairer the better) while the ‘evil races’ tend to be short and swarthy. Not to mention orcs, which he in a letter claims to have modeled on ‘the mongol face’, which he considered ‘the least lovely to europeans’. This, more than the differentiation of various Elvish tribes, is what always rubs me the wrong way in these books that I in other ways love so much. 

I just remembered that there’s a pdf file for converting Harnmaster for Middle Earth. It’s rather brief, mostly it’s stats for the various races, plus discussions of differences between Kethira and Arda in terms of cultures, religion etc. I’ve been wanting to test it myself. 

16 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I think we can say that it all comes from a model for damage that is inherited from D&D and basically considers that "damage" is essentially kinetic energy. Hence the higher damage output for big weapons, and the bonus damage for strong and massive opponents.

Which is why I like the impale rule as implemented in the earlier versions of RQ and also BGB, where a lighter weapon such as a short sword can do more damage than a heavier one on a special success, simulating the effect of precision in contrast to brute force. This effect was unfortunately neutralised in RQG by also giving slashing weapons double damage on specials. 

7 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

My point was precisely that Roman legionaries used 1d6+1 shortswords rather than 1d8+1 broadswords because they worked better in the formation fighting that was their job.

And yes RQ doesn't represent that sort of close combat (or any combat involving more than a literal handful of characters on either side) at all well. 

Neither however does it represent well the sort of fighting even those small groups might get into inside buildings or tunnels or on bridges or in forests or anywhere else that you may not have room to swing or poke the high damage weapons adventurers tend to pick. 

But to reflect that you need yet more spot rules in a system already overladen with them. 

So in the end you just have to accept that for all its fiddliness and granularity RQ is not and cannot and should not be a realistic combat simulator.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed. But certain design choices are better simulation wise, without adding bloat. 

I want to say something about this idea of min-maxing, which people keep bringing up as some sort of critique of my position. This is a total straw man. What I'm talking about is evolutionary logic, which is a trademark of simulationist games like BRP/RQ etc. It just doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint that any individual or species, in matters of life and death, would choose anything less than the best option available to them. A species that completely irrationally handicapped itself would not survive for long, it would be transplanted by other groups and species that didn't. And the dwarves are extremely rational, and have been around for a long time as a species. This is a question about game design. It has absolutely nothing to do with min-maxing.

20 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

2) So following minimaxing logic why on earth would the most successful actual army of our ancient times have chosen to be armed with a mere 1d6+1 gladius when they could have a 1d8+1 broadsword or a 1d10+1 long spear? 

Because maybe RQG's weapon system perhaps does not reflect reality that closely? Like Godlearner said, a short stabbing sword is more useful in a tightly packed, othmosis style melee or otherwise cramped space than a long slashing one. There might be other benefits, like the ability to 'crowd' your longer weapon wielding opponent, where the shorter weapon also has some advantage. And possibly there are other advantages that are hard for us to imagine from our armchairs. None of this is reflected in the rules. So then you either have to write the rules so that a gladius would be the obvious choice for a legionnaire, or you give him what would be the most effective melee weapon for him under the rules as written. 

BRP, for example, has a technical way of making short swords useful weapons, by giving them Impale, unlike longer swords that only have Slash (which doesn't do double damage under that system). That's one way to simulate the different but equal status of those two particular weapons. Another way is the rule for close combat, where short weapons have an advantage (while long weapons have the ability to keep shorter ones at bay).

21 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

So Iron Mostali are armed that way because it works in the most important situations they will find themselves - which would be battles for existence against their primary Aldryami and Uz enemies and not random skirmishes with weird little gangs of human adventurers.

And again, the rules as written seem to contradict this, certainly in the case of the primary melee weapon (warhammer) dwarves are given in the printed RQG. At least now that it has been corrected, and has Impale, it could be argued it is an effective weapon against such foes, but a battle axe would seem much more so (especially against the tree-like Aldryami). Warhammers are supposed to be good against armoured foes (although rules wise, battle axes are better), which, correct me if I'm wrong, neither Uz nor Aldryami in general seem to be. If anything, I would say, in RQG Iron dwarves would be likely to train more with a battle axe, that being more effective (rules wise) in every way, and keep a warhammer as a backup weapon, since it can double as a smithying and all purpose tool. Thus I would switch the percentages for those two skills. 

3 hours ago, smiorgan said:

RAW you can only use shields as passive defense in 2 situations:

1) against missile weapons

2) in phalanx formation (of at least 6 people) where you are covered by the guy on you right

 

 

 

 

But

"Shields as passive armor

Can you bear a shield with, let’s say, a Great Axe or a Bow, although you can not parry, in order to get some kind of “passive defense” against missiles, or, otherwise,  what is the meaning of the expression “A shield may not be ready for use when the adventurer is using a two-handed weapon” in p. 219

Here’s where we get into some crunch, based on how realistic you want to go. In the real world, shields usually require a hand to hold onto an interior strap or handle so they don’t get in the way or slip around. Part of a shield’s virtue is being mobile enough that it doesn’t take hits directly, angling them away from the defender when possible. 

These straps not like Captain America’s magical shield that has grips tight enough for him to wield it like a weapon AND then slip over his shoulder with backpack like straps. (Comics version Captain America, in the movie he has some sort of magnetic harness.) That’s not super-fun, though, and fantasy art and fiction is full of characters with a shield slung over one arm loosely while using a two-handed weapon like a bow or great axe. 

So if as a GM you want to allow it, we suggest using this ruling: 

• The adventurer will receive no benefit from the shield unless against melee or missile fire that happens to strike that or an adjacent hit location (see p219) AND comes from a direction that would reasonably have a chance of hitting (gamemaster discretion). In this case, the shield will protect for half its usual armor points (as per the rules for a slung shield on the back, p219). 

For example, an adventurer is using a bow, holding it with their left hand and drawing the string with the right hand. The shield is affixed to the back of the left arm. An attack comes from the adventurer’s left and rolls the left arm hit location. The shield, being between the attacker and the arm in question, protects for half its normal value. Later in the same combat, an attack comes from the right/front or back and rolls the left arm hit location. The gamemaster decides that the arm is exposed and that the shield isn’t between the attack and the arm, so the shield is useless."

12 hours ago, Beoferret said:

And here I thought I was having an epiphany! Apologies for not fully understanding your point. I do think you can make an argument for using shields for active defense (e.g., not risking a damaged weapon), but enabling the option of using shields as passive defense in melee combat does make them more ... well ... useful. 

No problem. And yes, parrying with the shield prevents your weapon being damaged, which however is pretty rare in my experience. Against high damage attacks like great weapons and large monsters it makes more sense to parry with the shield though. 

53 minutes ago, Beoferret said:

Another idea working off of this one. If character is holding a shield in place as functionally passive protection, then give them the added benefit of allowing the standard opportunity to attack and parry with their weapon.

This is what I meant (if I read you correctly), and how the rules work as I understand it. Since in RQG it makes absolutely no difference to parrying whether you have a shield and weapon or just a single weapon, you might as well use the shield as passive armour while you parry (and attack) with your weapon. This is pretty much the only way using a shield in melee makes sense to me within RAW. Otherwise it's just dead weight as far as I can tell.

The more I think about it, I would make HP = SIZ, modified by CON instead of the other way round. 

47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

All this dwarf lore and technique / interaction of the rules indicates to me that there is reason to write a Dwarfpack.

Not necessarily oriented toward Mostali PCs, but as a GM aid and sourcebook.  I currently feel that I am out of my depth running Mostali.  At least for more than a casual encounter as my players pass by Dwarf Run, which is the only Mostali encounter I have run.

1. Mostali history, mythology, and factions.

2. Mostali types, and stats.

3. Mostali psychology and behavior, a section oriented toward their interaction with Adventurers.

4. Mostali technology and how and how much to present to the players.  As I understand it this is steampunk mixed with sorcery, and the dwarfs don't let much out and do take it back.  Aggressively.  

5. Mostali in combat.  Not only weapon preference and  stats and the discussion of armor above, and a gunpowder section,  but tactics including the discussion of sorcery above.  Plus the Cannon Cult, which is a Mostali thing even though it's human cannoneers. 

I have a vision of a Mostali military intervention using pike and shot tactics.  Which does not exclude crossbows and war hammers.  The Swiss in the 1300s-1400s used crossbows and pole arms, and pike and shot is just a logical development of that.  Is this anachronistic for  "bronze age" setting? Yes but Glorantha..... is not all bronze age.

6. Mostal magic (Clearly their sorcery goes beyond the Lhankor Mhy oriented intro in the RQiG rules.)  

7. Mostali places with map and descriptions.   At least one city submap, which should have layers for the 3D nature of its layout.

8. Mostali encounters.

Sure, some of this is scattered through the Bestiary and the 4.5 pages in the Glorantha Souurcebook, and the Guide to Glorantha.  But much of the discussion above is not.  And there is value in bringing the pieces together and explaining how to work them.

 

 

 

I would buy it, for sure.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Agree - a 28 HP Giant falls apart like nothing when PCs are skilled and buffed (I would be shocked if it survived the first round of melee) while 63 HPs means some effort (it might well go down on the first round still, but it takes some work).

PCs are scary in fights.

I think the dream dragon we encountered went down in two or three.

44 minutes ago, Jeff said:

We found in play that it is exactly the opposite. RQ3 falls apart for very large creatures - as they become nearly unkillable. Which we know is wrong because killing giants and other big monsters is a staple in Greg's stories. And before anyone says it is not realistic that Bigclub the Giant "only" has 28 hit points instead of 63 hit points, well if we want to be at all realistic, Bigclub can't actually walk.

If my calculation isn't off, a 63 HP giant would have 21 HP in its head. A critical with a broadsword is 18 HP damage, plus DB of +1D4. Should take care of it. Not to mention possible magical damage added to that. Sounds about right to me?

8 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I do seem to recall one game that we played that restricted STR maximum to 1.5x SIZ. Can't recall if that was a published work or house rule, or not. But it is a restriction that I have played in some of my games.

I've been ruling in my BRP game that for creatures like humans, where STR and SIZ have similar range, they can't differ by more than 6 (so one die, essentially). If they do, you move points from the higher to the lower until they are within 6. For dwarves and orcs, I make it 12 (I give dwarves SIZ 1d6+6).

4 hours ago, davecake said:

Contrary to Jeff I prefer the RQ3 average of Con and SIZ for hit points, as the RQ2/RQG system completely falls apart for very large or small things - and I think that may have come in with Superworld too. The problem of having to give dwarves a large Con in RQ3 could easily be solved by separating Height and Weight for dwarves, and it makes the game much more intrinsically simulationist, with large creatures generally appropriate hit points without a huge CON.
Though it might appeal to have large things fairly easily defeated, in practice RQ2 stats would compensate by giving large things loads of armor - dinosaurs in RQ2/RQG tend to have as many armour points as hit points for even not notably armored ones in order to make them scary enough, for example, so it become a quest for a critical, rather than whittling big things down. 

I was just thinking that it might make more sense in RQ to reverse the DB and HP generation systems, so that HP goes back to being the average of HP and SIZ, while DB is based STR, with a modifier for high or low SIZ. Why? Because arguably, strength is more important for damage generation, since kinetic force is the most important factor here, and higher muscular strength allows you to move your weapon faster. Large body mass can help with a stable point to generate that force from and allow you to 'lean into it', but it's not as decisive (and small size can detract from it similarly).  

Size however has a huge impact on ability to sustain damage. It's been said before on these forums, a given blow might knock a small creature down while not having much impact on a large one. I'd say it's at least as important as health and ability to withstand pain (CON).

2 hours ago, Al. said:

I see this artefact* slightly differently.

No less a figure than Steve Perrin mentioned in (one of) the RuneQuest playtest(s) that SIZ was always supposed to model mass not height and that given the chance he'd go back and make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6 or 2d6+6 just like for humans.

If I still used SIZ in my [d100] games I'd make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6.

 

* a younger, angrier Al would call it a 'problem' now I am happy to be less judgemental.

I feel vindicated. This is exactly how I feel about it. For me, BRP systems flunked the SIZ stat in a couple of ways. One being that it was completely untethered to STR, which could make for some absurd combinations. The other that it ought to represent mass, not height, since it has such a big effect on both DB and HP. But in most iterations I've come across it seems to be implemented more as the latter, most egregiously in the case of dwarves, who ought to have larger SIZ than pure height would dictate, due to their stockiness. Even RQ dwarves, who emphatically are not D&D or Tolkien dwarves, with 4D6 STR surely have got to be heavier per inch than humans. If they're not super muscular they at least probably have much denser muscle tissue, and much heavier bone structure to support that immense 'pound for pound' strength. Which should net them a greater SIZ stat. Still, I'm not sure I'd give them the same mass as humans, but at least 1D6+6, if humans are at 2D6+6.

On 11/13/2022 at 2:41 PM, soltakss said:

We always took 1 SIZ = 1 Stone (14 lb or 6.3 kg) as a general rule of thumb. 

We also took the SIZ chart in RQ2 and used that as a rule of thumb when talking about humanoid creatures. I think I played that stocky creatures, such as dwarves, used the height range from 1 SIZ lower and the weight range from 1 SIZ higher, so a SIZ 6 Dwarf would have a height range of 106-120 cm and a weight range of 42-49 kg, instead of the 121-135 cm/36-41 kg for SIZ 6.

RQ3 had 6 kg per point of SIZ (at least at the humanoid end of the scale) and this makes sense to me. I'd put an average dwarf at around 120 cm and 54-60 kg (SIZ 9-10).

Oh and I should clarify, I don't see dwarves as 'combat monsters'. I think they should be about on a par with humans in a stand up fight. Not better, but definitely not inferior. That's how they were when RQ was first conceived, before humans had their sudden growth spurt, and that's how they ought to be in my mind.

I have been running a MERP conversion campaign off and on for the last two years. I started out with RQ3 because I felt the grittiness and the character building fit the world quite well. After a while I started adding elements of BGB to it, like the multiple parries, weapon specials and fate points. I felt the sweet spot was somewhere there, though now I've switched over almost entirely to BGB.

I've been using the fan made MERP-BRP conversion that I got from this site, although I found some of the creature stats (e.g. elves) were a bit unbalanced. I liked the magic system, but since I'm using actual MERP modules I got tired of converting the spell lists to suitable spells from the magic supplement, so I started just adapting the MERP spells to BRP. As a whole I find BRP is a really good fit for Middle Earth.

I think this from the QA under “Shields as passive armor” is the best use one can have for a shield within the RQG rules:

• The adventurer will receive no benefit from the shield unless against melee or missile fire that happens to strike that or an adjacent hit location (see p219) AND comes from a direction that would reasonably have a chance of hitting (gamemaster discretion). In this case, the shield will protect for half its usual armor points (as per the rules for a slung shield on the back, p219). 

It would be nice if they could just write that “holding a shield in place without using it to parry actively provides half its AP to the locations covered against melee or missile attacks coming from the facing direction” or something. 

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

SIZ scale is not linear ! You can't just multiply it by a factor to get one's height.

Also, even if it's called "Size", it is actually more strongly linked to mass than height. The relationship between mass and height is also not linear, as mass depends on one's volume. A 230 cm tall dwarf will have all his proportions doubled, and his mass is expected to be roughly 8 times the mass of a 115 cm dwarf, if all other factors remain the same.

As a result, his SIZ will be far above 14.

That makes sense, thanks!

On 11/4/2022 at 2:37 PM, Jeff said:

Dwarfs in RQ2 are the same as in RQG. The only change with humans is that their SIZ now averages 13 instead of 11. They have one hit point less than the average human despite being 6 SIZ points smaller.

Again, this is not a problem in our eyes. Dwarves are not intended to be combat monsters, any more than ducks are. And their ranged weapons and explosives should be far more threatening than fighting them up close where humans longer reach and greater SIZ gives them an advantage.

Part of this is how we look at the dwarfs. I view the dwarfs as being less like Gimli or Thorin Oakenshield and more like:

Follow up! In the Bestiary, it says an average dwarf is 115 cm and 45 kg. Average SIZ is 7, which is slightly over half of the human average of 13. So is an average human just under 230 cm tall?

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Jackson's take on Dwarves was, I always thought, among the weakest bits of his movies; much less Tolkien-esque than most of the rest.

Yup. I made a fan edit of the Rings trilogy for myself where I tried to edit out the worst of Gimli’s nonsense to make it a little more watchable. And book-Gimli is one of my favorite characters!

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

At first, I thought you were referring to Games Workshop's Steve Jackson... Obviously, WarHammer's dwarves can be described as "Jacksonian", in this context. 😄

Good catch!

The later contributions here have been truly awesome. Again, the information contained in this thread alone would seem to justify a dwarven supplement. 

Just to clarify: I too have no interest in the Jacksonian dwarf, scottish-spouting, beer-frothing, rage-clowning. That is something quite far removed from Tolkien's Khazâd. Maybe that image is more in line with the Warhammer Fantasy universe? It's plain to me that Gloranthan dwarves are a different kind of bird. More machine-like. An iron dwarf adventurer would in my mind be an Individualist, maybe due to some freak accident in the process of creation imbued with a kind of self awareness that sets him/her apart. Kind of like the Tin Man, wandering the world searching for his heart. Or individual soul. 

20 hours ago, soltakss said:

Mostali are specialised.

However, the Mostali that we see, the Dwarves, are all Clay Mostali, so are very much alike.

Other Mostali are very different. Each of the True Mostali castes are different from the other castes, and have specialisms that help them in their tasks.

Look at the RQ3 Mostali spells and make them abilities for the True Mostali.

By Mostali I meant Gloranthan clay dwarves rather than True Mostali.

On 11/5/2022 at 4:27 PM, Jeff said:

As a followup thought, remember that Gloranthan dwarves are most emphatically not the Scottish-accented dwarves of the Peter Jackson movies or of most D&D campaigns. A small Gloranthan dwarf might only weigh 10 kg (22 pounds) and be 60 cm (23 inches) tall. That's about the same size as my cat (admittedly she is a Maine Coon)! Dwarfs often have grotesque (but not hideous or repulsive) facial features, disproportionate and gnarled limbs, hunchbacked and twisted.

Larger dwarves exist, of course. A large dwarf might be 140 cm tall (55 inches) and weigh 75 kg (165 pounds). So there is a bewildering variety in sizes and shapes among dwarfdom. A dwarf like Ginkizzie or The Dwarf might be almost human sized, while other dwarfs in the community are no bigger than a large house cat. 

Yes. This is one of the aspects I love about Gloranthan dwwarves, and it is obvious from one glance at the illustrations in the Bestiary. Though the example there is for a typical Iron Dwarf encountered above ground, and as such it is perhaps less likely to be SIZ 2? Again, slightly different stats for the different subtypes could be something in you were to make a dwarf supplement.