Job

Page 163 and all weapon stats.

Attk and RF are redundant. In BGB, Attk is used with DEX rank initiative system and RF is used with Strike Rank system. Since they is no SR system in the new BRP, there is no place for RF anymore and should be eliminated. In the RF description on page 163 also refer to Volley Fire spot rule on page 155, but Volley Fire spot rule only talk about Attk.

Page 118, Encumbrance.

New maximum ENC allowed is an average of STR+CON or STR if that is lower. This is only in the new edition and copy straight from RQG. However, Plate Armor's ENC is 25. There is no normal human being can still wear plate armor and still functioning. Even with STR 18 & CON 18, you will still get 35% to all Physical, Manipulation, and Combat skills. Average human with STR & CON at 10 will have the penalties of 75% just for wearing the armor alone. Either you have to adjust all equipment's ENC values to match the new ENC maximum limit imported from RQG or you have to increase the maximum ENC.

Page 42, Fly skill.

"Flying while wearing armor or heavy gear incurs a penalty equal to your character’s current ENC total (see Encumbrance, page 120)." The part about ENC is redundant with the new ENC penalties as mentioned in the post about swim skill above. And page 120 reference is wrong, it should be 118.

Page 52, Swim skill.

"Subtract any ENC a swimmer has from their Swim rating." This is redundant with the new ENC penalties (that taken from RQG) from page 118. I think it should be eliminated. And I am not sure that "If their ENC exceeds their STR, they sink and must shed weight or drown." should be eliminated as well, although I incline to think so, as, in BGB, the Encumbrance entry doesn't specified the effect of ENC on swim skill, but the new BRP it does. So it is redundant now.

Page 132, Skill Penalties (from wearing armor).

It mentioned that wearing armor can give penalty to the Agility characteristic rolls, but there is no indication as such in any of the armor stats in the Equipment section.

Page 118, ENC Penalties
 

Quote

• –5% to the Agility characteristic roll
• –5% to all Agility, Manipulation, Stealth, Dodge, and weapon skills

There are no Agility, Stealth, Dodge, and Weapon skill categories. The text is copied from RQG which use different names for categories. I think they should be "–5% to all Physical, Manipulation, and Combat skills"

@RosenMcStern I wish to reproduce Fin Funnels from UC/Gundam in BRP Mecha. I saw in one of the examples in the book about the usage of psi-guided drones in a battle between Tetsuro Rey and Rana Moone, but I can't find any rules about such a drone. I guess that Support Vehicle rules might have something to do with this. Any recommendation?

Another point is, in Gundam, shield breakage happened often, but the shield rule in BRP Mecha, shield is indestrictible. Any recommendation if I wish the shields to be destructible? I thought of giving the shield an AP/HP value and losing points when getting critical or special attack like normal BRP.

I always understand that in both RQG and RQ3, First Aid skill can be used once per wound, but it seems I might misunderstood.

RQ3 Deluxe, Player's Book, pp. 75
"First Aid can only be used successfully once against injury to a specific hit location, but it may be tried again and again until successful. However, a fumble with the skill will cause 103 damage to the recipient, and no further attempts may be made to fix that injury by that First Aid user."

It seems, to me, that in RQ3, First Aid skill is per-hit-location basis, not per-wound basis. Am I wrong? I am not a native English speaker, so some confirmation will be appreciated.

I think per-hit-location basis will lower the bookkeeping tremendously. I think I will port it to RQG.

I would love that one as well, if anyone willing to part with it.

On 4/28/2019 at 9:34 PM, Ian Cooper said:

Sure, we have had a couple of hold ups on the layout. It's coming. Soon.

Would it be SRD web site, PDF, or both?

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Thanks for that -- it's still very hazy in my mind though. I've re-read the Heroquesting chapter in HQG and frankly there's not much that's HQ-specific in there except for a bit of mechanics about the final quest challanges (how you lose your wagered ability or gain boons and other abilities). Other than that it seems system-agnostic and, therefore, equally easy to do in any system (apart from the fact that there's no Heroquesting chapter in the other systems of course 😅).

Heroquesting is a setting thing, not a game-system thing. It's how people in Glorantha interact with the Myths and the timeless worlds. I like how 13G's authors put it, D&D has dungeon-crawling, Glorantha has myth-crawling.

@Ian Cooper Is it possible to have HQG actual session on YouTube? In this age of steaming craze, that would be a nice promotion.

2 hours ago, boradicus said:

Trust is not the issue.  The DM necessarily maintains a fourth wall throughout the game, and there are often times when due to the DM's creative license, it would be helpful to have knowledge about the particulars of the players' characters, and the DM might not always want to broadcast what he is doing by asking his players questions.  Although broadcasting that something is going on is certainly a tool in the DM's toolbox, it really isn't much of a tool if you are doing all the time.  This really has a lot more to do with play style and having the room to orchestrate things for the players in such a way that they have a great game.  Sometimes, in order to achieve the desired effect, the DM might not ever want any of the players to know what went on behind the curtain, or he might only want a few to have some gleaning.

Combat is a little more opaque - but combat is not the end-all, be-all of the rules. When combat takes place, the players are obviously aware of various sorts of events, effects, actions, etc.  But even during combat there might be things you don't want your players to know about - such as an enemy rogue sneaking to a certain part of the room (a passive perception check).  There also many kinds of passive checks that could potentially have a list of various bonuses added to them.  An app would would probably help a lot if it was written in such a way to account for all such cases.  Otherwise, it is probably best to just get a succinct stat block for each player's character which will cover all of the necessaries.

You can do all those things by knowing just passive perception/insight/investigation. Most people just use PP, that’s why they later remove PIns, PInv from the char sheet. There is not a bunch of bonuses to be added in 5e. This is not 3.5e.

15 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'm glad you brought such things up! And, yes, the magic system is exactly the example I wanted to make of the complexity involved.

Let's just take a real good hard look at that "few modifiers" bit...

Let's assume a newbie player is trying out RQ/D&D, and they're given a pre-gen (a few levels up/experience checks), and knows about RPGs in general. They want to cast a healing spell...

RQ

I cast Heal 3 - what do I do?

Roll to see if you cast it, deduct MPs, remove damage.

I roll under my POWx5% - success - how many points do I heal?

Three.

I rolled a crit.

Three.

It says I'm a human...

Three.

I'm healing another human...

Three.

My character is in Chalana Arroy, the healer's cult...

Three.

I'm a priest...

Three.

It says here I have First Aid.

Three

I'm trying to heal their head...

Three.

I have some healing matrix thing...

Three.

I have this 2pt Healing Crystal...

Oh, ok - five.

 

D&D

I cast Heal - how many points do I heal?

(GM starts the inquisition...)

Which spell?

What class are you?

What level?

What level of what class?

What race are you (does it allow any healing modifiers?)

What level spell are you using? (do you have that slot available? Is it level dependant?)

(if you're a cleric) What is your domain?

Does it have a healing modifier? (Can you use it in this situation?)

Do you have a feat that adjusts it?

Does your heal spell have an ability modifier?

Do you have a feat that changes that ability modifier?

Have you changed your modifier?

Have you done an action that has enabled you to modify your spell?

Has someone near you done something that may modify your healing ability?

Does someone nearby have an ability that changes your modifier? (eg Aura) Have they turned it on? is it currently in use? (wait for the arguments about all that!)

Who is your target?

Do they have any modifiers to healing?

Does their race have any healing modifiers?

Do you have any magic items that can change your healing modifiers? (what are they? What do they do? How many can you use at once?)

Are all the above modifiers stackable? Which ones? Which don't count?

 

 

Does anyone think I'm being grossly unfair in my comparison? Because I know I've missed a few things in the D&D comparison... And, obviously, I can do the same for attack rolls... And, what's worse, a lot of those questions/modifiers need to be recalculated not only for every battle/situation, but often within/between combat rounds! (do you still have advantage? Has the enemy moved away? Has your friend moved next to them? Are you considered to be flanking still? Do you have companions who have a feat that is now activated? Do you have a feat that needs them to also have the same feat, and are they now activated?

 

As for other magic... D&D has quite different stats, abilities, and everything else. RQ? Spirit (POWx5 for every, basically same range, all with same duration (well, instant/temporal), variables easy math for MPs). Rune (usually same duration, range, have to sacrifice POW, wipe of RPs for a while, % roll under appropriate Rune). Sorcery - yeah, getting more complex!! I'll pay that. But, it's supposed to be complex, which is part of the reason most characters (not players) don't use it! There's an actual in-world reason associated with the complexity.

So, yes, I think D&D is far more complex and complicated... How many times have those here played D&D and forgotten a bonus/modifier in amongst all the race/class/feats etc etc??

As indicated previously, I don't dislike complex... In some ways, I revel in them. (Personally, I'd like to see a more defined Hit Location table in RQ )

 

I also agree with what's been said before - this debate is somewhat apples and oranges. D&D is "high fantasy" with lots of books telling you what you can do. RQ is fantasy, with a couple of books with a few rules, and you decide where you want to take it within the game world.

 

It has never happened that way in any 5e game I’ve run or participated. 

Player will just say “I cast Heal using xx spell slot to heal Mr. X. It heal him up xxx hp.” Then he roll the dice and that’s the end of it. 

There are not many special bonuses in D&D 5e, it is designed to be much more streamline, fast, with much less bookkeeping than previous editions. And if certain character have any special bonus, they are expected to remind DM or else they don’t get to use it. That is the case in any 5e game I ran, played, or observed. 

10 hours ago, g33k said:

I find that 3.x / PF (which to many is still "D&D") really suffers from "bonus-itis" as Shiningbrow so amusingly portrayed it.  I find high-level play... tedious, at best.

I have played 5e a bit, but not enough to be sure if it suffers a comparable flaw.  Rolling with Advantage or Disadvantage is the Big Deal in 5e, and I can see a /potential/ issue where you have to tote up a LOT of +Adv's and -Disadv's to figure out if you are rolling one way or the other, or neither.  But maybe that's a rarity even in high level play... ?  I dunno.

 

Never experienced anything more than 1 adv or 1 disadv cancel out each other generally. It’s very fast and intuitive. 

10 hours ago, boradicus said:

Even though in D&D the rules may mostly now be on a player's character sheet, the DM will want to have all of his player's character sheets in front of him if he wants to run the game properly (and not be beholden to the players, needing to continuously ask them questions about their character's abilities) and that can take up a lot of space behind the DM screen where the go-to rules are supposed to be efficiently organized and summarized.  So, no, in my opinion, pouring the rules into the character sheets is not a substitute for a well thought-out and appropriately streamlined-for-play gaming system.

It’s no different than GM have to ask players for the effects of various magics/spells in RQG if he can’t memorize them. And DM can just open their PHB for references behind DM screen. Some even use D&D Beyond app in their tablet for much faster referencing.

I find that it is not a game system issue but a trust issue if you can’t trust your players. I’ve never seen any D&D 5e DM need, generally speaking, more than to know HP, AC, and passive perception of the players to run the game smoothly. 

8 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

A few years ago we focused on HQ because we did not have the license to produce RQ material. We still like HQ. Whether you love it or hate it, HQ has always struggled to have profitable sales numbers. Most of the wonderful HQ books in the works were largely being done by devoted fans writing them for the love of the game. They were/are writing them in their spare time, which is often scarce. RQ books outsell HQ books at least 4-1. While we do not have exact numbers, we know a large portion of the audience for HQ books bought them because they wanted Gloranthan material, even if HQ was not their system of choice. Publishing the same supplement for HQ and also for RQ isn't economically viable. Let's say we sold 1000 copies of the Sartar Companion, which was only available as an HQ book. If we sold it as an RQ book we would have certainly sold much more of it. If we had sold it as an RQ book, and as an HQ book too, the HQ version would have maybe sold 500 copies. The best we can do economically is to publish RQ books (mostly) and provide HQ stats for them in a separate document. That said, if someone only wants to write an awesome HQG book for us, we won't automatically say no to them.

Fully understood. As I said, from the business perspective, it is a reasonable and wise choice for Chaosium. 

Rick from Chaosium contacted me and I am a happy gamer now. 

4 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Except confusing for the RQG player as there are Runes that aren't used there (e.g. Issaries rune).

In that cast, a single-sheet free pdf or an appendix summarize HQG runic associations would be nice.

3 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

While much of the setting has been elaborated, I believe the focus for getting this material out will be in association with RQG scenarios. 

I believe they will be RQG-based. However, I don't see any barriers to use in HQG. And there is plenty of material within to utilize for any HQG game. (Even information such as Associated Cults is useful/usable whether from mapping shrines in a given temple to possible Feats/abilities to incorporate in a hero's arsenal of magic.)

 

There won't be any barrier, just that it will only utilize the runes existing on RQG character sheet which is less than HQG. I just hope they can give both version, it would just be 2-3 more characters for each god.

23 minutes ago, Lysus said:

I wish you luck, but I treasure my copy far too much to part with it, especially considering that it's signed by Greg. 

Perfectly understandable. I wouldn't ever part with my signed copy too, if I have one. LoL

37 minutes ago, JonL said:

Where I feel the loss most acutely is the Gods book being re-directed. The thing that would have otherwise been most useful to me has its utility (to me) most degraded, with so much word count devoted to crunch like associated cult spell lists & skill training opportunities rather than setting info, Runic associations that aren't on the RQG character sheet replaced and so on. 

With @jajagappa writing the Nochet book, and with the significant changes to the setting there between the game-lines time periods, I have some hope it will stay HQG. (Fingers crossed.)

I hope they will provide HQG runes as well as RQG runes for each deity in the Gods book. I'm looking forward to Dragonrise add-on to Eleven Lights campaign. I am also hope for Sartar-Rising-era Nochet and Whitewall scenario books. At least these books will link up the Sartar Rising era to the RQG time period nicely.

Just a few years ago, the focus of Chaosium/Moon Design was on HQG, and I heard from the publisher staffs at the time that if you want to play in Glorantha, HQG is the best way to go to emulate Greg’s stories. Now HQG has taken the back seat to RQG and that marketing tagline was changed. All the books that suppose to be for HQG now turned into RQG supplements. Ive heard of Whitewall book, Prax book, Big Rubble book since before the Guide Kickstarter and Gods book immediately after the Guide, if I remember correctly. That was many years ago. 

It’s not so bad because we can use RQG supplements easily with HQG. And from the business perspective, it is a reasonable and wise choice for Chaosium. However, I still feel it’s a pity that HQG seems not to be in the focus anymore for Glorantha gaming. 

Yup, but I still would love to have it in my collection. I can't go to Cons because I live so far away.

Anyone has an extra copy and willing to part ways with it?