g33k

For what you want, I think "Size" & "Speed" should be derived characteristica. "Height" should be a fixed quantity (barring magic or super-science or the like); plus some "weight factor" indicating where on the spectrum they fit: lanky/skinny ... normal ... bigger/heavier (this seems to be something some people can adjust (via diet/exercise) easier than others; on some, a "muscular" build is just the way their body IS, whereas others are naturally "lean"). For "speed" then, runners have more endurance if they are lean (and don't have to carry 'round the body mass -- but long strides make up for higher weight), whereas a more "normal" (albeit muscular!) build is better for most sprinters. "Strength" obviously plays into both sprinting and endurance-running, so Height + Build + Strength all impact your "speed". If realism/simulationism is a goal, at least... Similarly, "Education" is easier to improve (via "training" aka "education") than is "Intelligence." I think a quest for "symmetry" or "parallels" between your phys/ment/sprt/socl "Dimensions" is probably not worth much effort...

It's worth noting that some skills need specific training or practice. Someone CAN, for example, drive a car without training (unskillfully, and only in non-challenging circumstances) just from observing others. Neurosurgery... not so much so. Anyone can learn to SPEAK a language just from exposure, and if you know the alphabet / sounds (which is usually taught), you can read it, too (n.b. ideogram based languages need more training); and can record some rough ideas via the written word... but to write skillfully (not just "penmanship") usually takes instruction & study, Anybody can throw a rock; range and accuracy and power come with practice; special "training" is probably not going to add a huge amount to the "Thrown Rock" skill. This sort of variation needs to be included, IMHO; ideally, something a bit more nuanced than a binary "DOES / DOES NOT" need special training. Also, it's worth noting that sometimes an apex specialization can be "hothouse trained" or otherwise achieved, without actually having much of the "broad swath" skillset or even the specialized skills that would normally be part of getting that apex specialization; but almost always, realistically, one "specializes" from already having the broader base of skills. Finally, it's worth noting that many skills provide overlapping/interlocking abilities, and include being good at "related" skills even if never specifically trained. Someone who is adept with both the "knightlty" sword and the pole-axe will be a dangerous opponent from the very first time they pick up a classic German Zweihander... Granted, not so dangerous as with one of their more-familiar weapons; but far more than if their background had been gladius-and-shield plus shortspear-and-shield (but that guy in turn will be adept at axe-and-shield... more-so than the guy who trained knight-sword and pole-axe). All of these are things I've seen in different RPG's, and/or experienced in real life; and in revising or creating a skill-system they are thinks I "like" and "want."

Since this is now an official venue for the pubisher, I think it reasonable for those folks to speak up when a very-strong implication is made that the publisher is suppressing fan content (given how long it has been... well, "central" to BRP online, I think they might have spoken up even before it became "official"). In light of Baron's recent post, I suspect he didn't intend to make an implication as strong as what I had read, nor specific to Glorantha, to MoonDesign or other current publishers, etc (of course, just how strongly-implied something is, is a matter of personal interpretation). Personally, I had read it as a pretty-strong implication, specific to Glorantha and to current publishers thereof; I am unsurprised that they found it necessary to challenge that implication! Letting it stand (by implication) enderses that implication...

The only problematic / stifling "policy" that I personally know of, or can speak to, is that of 3rd-party products, e.g. conversions/supplements/etc for sundry Big Name License material. I'd rather not name any explicit names, as the IP-lawyers' google-fu may summon those Great Old Ones' eyes to this forum, and/or the d/l pages/etc. RE the "newpavis" page: I encourage everyone to go to that page, and read the letter from MD (I just did). I have no complaints about "stifle."

Yes, I've gotten the e-mail. Haven't d/l'ed anything yet, as I'm stuck for the moment on a Chromebook with VERY limited storage. :-(

I would consider 2 "possible" ways to have Mostali PC's -- one (as widely suggested here) is the "broken cog," that is someone who is insane by Mostali standards, resulting in a degree of "adventuring functionality" that works from a non-Mostali POV. The other is someone who is a "scout" -- tasked with investigating the world-at-large and reporting back with relevant information (previously-unknown threats, lost pieces of the World-Machine, etc).

Thanks all! I will be getting GtG via the recent Kickstarter, and hardcopies when the reprints come out. In the meantime, the above material is an excellent framework for me!

I did not understand them to be saying that they were "moving" from Backerkit to OBS, just using OBS for the larger files (Backerkit had iirc a 50MB/file limit); but maybe I misunderstood...?

So. the Dwarves invented "iron" -- not "discovered" it as an ore, but "invented" it; presumably, a Heroquest (or more than one) was involved. Any details (and in which book(s)) as to the process for creating iron in Glorantha? Also: in at least some supplements, I understand, Dwarves have guns of some description. Is that muzzle-load, breach-load, or...? Personal weapons (rifles, pistols) or only canon/artillery pieces, or both? Etc... What other "mytho-tech" do Dwarves possess that others don't (or at least, that Dwarves created, even if the "secret" has spread)?

But what's the co$t of one-off print runs like that? Can you really get a product that's just as high-quality (durable vs. use, non-bleeding, etc) at a comparable price?

Well... DAMN. Every time I think the racists can't sink any lower... Sometimes, I hate Googling for something. The usage seems to occur far beyond California. And it looks (so nobody ELSE has to wade through the muck) to be largely a whiteF/blackM usage -- the woman being the "mudshark" and "mudsharking" the behavior.

The "RQ Classic" kickstarter was the "reissue RQ2 wholesale" engine. The smashing success of that KS was largely responsible for choosing RQ2 as the base from which to elaborate the "RQ Next" (which will be called... Lord only knows what, at this point! Personally, I'm rooting for "Runequest Glorantha.").

@Jae -- does your 8yo already understand what "percent" is? Most don't, but some do. I probably wouldn't try this unless they have some familiarity with what this is... FWIW -- my oldest (now 24, and an avid gamer) played "character games" (her term (because mom & dad (and sometimes guests) played games with THEIR "characters")) with her dolls and toys from about 3 years of age. Most would have called it "playing pretend," but the toys went on story-oriented adventures. At age 6, I created her first "official" RPG character, a not-entirely-by-the-rules "flying horse". She played that character successfully for some time, before wanting to build her OWN characters, by-the-book... But as I said: if the basic concept of "percentage" is already understood, I'd go for it! Though you should expect to do some extra hand-holding...

I like sheets that have a "mini-stat-block" per weapon (or per-any-reasonably-frequently-used skill) with base %hit, 1/5=Special, 1/20=Critical, StrikeRank, etc all pre-calculated; also damage (if a weapon) or any other specifically-relevant stats/traits (e.g. magical effects, etc). That is, front-load the calculation, just as you would for any other "derived" trait. Within a session or two (in my experience) everyone knows both (a) the %Hit / %Special / %Critical for their Go-To skills, and (b) how to quickly find/use those numbers on their sheet, for less-used skills.

Animals-as-viable-foes can sometimes lead to some kinds of frustration, though... indeed ANY foes the players are used to plowing through as a "trivial" challenge can become a sign that the new game is "under-powered" or "less heroic". I once ran a D&D campaign (actually one large/complex multi-session adventure-arc) based around foes that were "half man" creatures like minotaurs &c... all based off of domesticated herbivores, turned monstrous/carnivorous. Gorgons instead of dragons, etc... Some of my players from that arc are still active, 20-ish years later; others remarked after the arc, "I can't believe we just spent 10 sessions on COWS!" and I never saw them again. So be sure your players who want to FEEL "heroic" can do so... or if you plan on "grittier" (something RQ/d100 is (legitimately) lauded for), make sure the players sign on for THAT!

@Revilo Divad Of Dyoll: If you were a KS backer who ordered this, see the KS pages for most-recent "Update" and for "Comments," and see your Backerkit d/l page. I don't believe anyone but the KS-backers have access to this, yet. And Kickstarter/Backerkit is probably the place to address those issues...

"Can be played" is different from "meant to be played from RAW, without extra work" (fwiw, btw: there was a Dragonewt in my 2nd Glorantha campaign back in... 1981, that must have been)

Someone DID point this out to him, and he (a) admitted that Chaos only tainted the Cave Troll, in the core/canonical setting, & (b) stated that His Glorantha Varied on this point. I think he and/or his group wanted Trolls to be more-clearly-foe, more-clearly-evil, more-readily-kill'able.

The thing is, "Sanity" rules are NOT specific to the Cthulhu setting... they're _essential_ to most games in the "horrror" genre, and (with minor tweaks) many games that delve into the psych/consequences sides of "thriller" and other genres. They are as significant as magic -- and I'd hope for at least 1-2 magic systems! Ditto "guns" being needed for modern-era games, and "swords" for ancient-through-colonial-era games. Any of that left out, leaves out something "essential." YMMobviouslyV!

By "default" BRP assumes (as compared to D&D) more combat-lethality and less healing than D&D; hit-locations in particular accentuate this... and are often either a favorite/popular or a much-hated difference from "good ol' D&D". But the "Big Gold Book" is the toolkit with all the tweaks -- easy enough to up the availability of healing magic, for example!

Sentient animals -- baboons, ducks, morokanth; those seem to be "intentionally" PC'able, meant to be played in core Glorantha. Is that a correct impression? Any others in the "core"? Any others "meant to be" (originally overlooked, didn't fit pagecount, or planned for a later expansion) in the core?

10 weeks? Timing with the RQ "Classic" kickstarter is a bit suspicious...

"Real Life" has been far, FAR to "real" of late; although everyone in the house plays RPG's, we aren't currently running ANYTHING. Most recently, it was a largely RQ6/RQE driven game of magical influence and geopolitics set in the Himalayan & Indian pats of an alt-Victoriana semi-steampunk world, with the PC's involved in the theft and recovery of a magical artifact. We may or may not ever return to that. :-( Up next (or after the game mentioned above, if we do finish it) will likely be a RQ2/RQClassic game using the Gloranthan Classics and/or some of the Kickstarter Stretch Goals...

It sounds as if sweet reason and the lighthearted approach have been tried, and haven't worked... In which case, I think you have to go back to the Greatsword-throwing character's player and... just assert GM authority (being reasonable in demeanor, but firm in position), also offering a few options. GM AUTHORITY: Swords are made for MELEE, not THROWING; even a "throwing knife" is a different item than a melee dagger (though they are much closer and are reasonable for interchange (but the specialized items ARE different!); similarly, a throwing-axe is essentially a "hatchet" style weapon... but NOT a battle-axe or "great-axe" type weapon. Larger thrown-weapons with blades are essentially variations on the spear; that should be considered an absolute cap on damage-capacity, as it is the specialized heavy-weight thrown weapon, the culmination of the type (where a "dart" is akin to "shortsword" and "javelin" is akin to a "longsword"). It is obviously ridiculous to assert that it works BETTER (25% vs 15% base chance) to throw ANY sword, than it does to wield it "properly". Congratulations, you have found a prima facie reading of the rules that is broken and wrong. Therefore, this is disallowed, absolutely, within the RQ rules (but see below!). I think (without having my books at hand to check) that nDervish has the correct interpretation (& rules-citation): "Nowhere does is say that a greatsword has the same base damage as an improvised thrown weapon as it has when used normally. On the contrary, when you throw a greatsword, you're not using it as "a greatsword with range", you're using it as a SIZ 3.5 improvised thrown weapon. The fact that the object you're throwing happens to be a greatsword is largely beside the point." The arguments that "this is a heroic game" and "magic is unrealistic so you should allow unrealistic weapons-usage too" are both straw-man arguments - "heroic game?" Yes, it's heroic fantasy; but not a pastiche grab-bag of every fantasy-heroic trope from every genre. RQ-style heroic fantasy holds to a reasonably-realistic standard of physical combat, in which sword-throwing is a desperate, hail-mary, last-ditch, emergency measure; routine sword-throwing belongs with a different subset of heroic-fantasy tropes. - magic explicitly violates physical rules and game-world "physics." The game-world physical rules explicitly do NOT violate physical rules (tautologically -- "ruleset A does not violate ruleset A". Any reading of the "physics" of the game-world that produce these very counter-intuitive results (such as, "it's more-effective to throw a 2-H sword than it is to wield it as a melee weapon") is explicitly an incorrect reading of the rules. THAT SAID, we can look at some other options... Yes, you may certainly rearrange your Skills-selection if you wish to put those %-points into some other, more reasonable skill. Alternatively, maybe we want to play something more high-powered, instead; something like Exalted, or an Anime-style system... something where these tropes DO fit; or a Tons-of-Rules-with-all-situations-covered game (GURPS, Pathfinder, I'm looking at you guys!) One possible avenue, a "middle way" to keep the rules and throw swords: explicitly looking toward "supers" level BRP play, wherein greatsword-throwing is just another special attack, mundanely-overpowered but appropriate for a less-realistic / more over-the-top gameworld. Characters may need powerup/rebuild work...

IIRC (I am away from my rulebook at the moment) RQ6 even has a sidebar on this topic, titled "The Head Again? Really?" noting that it's an effective strategy and (based on archeological evidence) matched well with battlefield practice: analysis of ancient-through-medieval battlefield burial mounds suggests that head-wounds were a leading cause of death...