Falconer

Thanks for posting that, Rick!

I think the point of Gateway products was always to be “non-canon” and “anything goes,” rather than specifically scrubbed of anything Gloranthan. Most if not all of the Judges Guild RQ products referenced Gloranthan cults, and of course monsters and races from the RQ rulebook which we might think of as Gloranthan were fair game.

On 6/25/2016 at 3:06 PM, Khedrac said:

Anyway, I even found the RQ2 stats for half elves (they are in the Questworld solo-gaming environment box).

By any chance can you give a page reference, please? Thanks!

Since there are two very different dwarf stereotypes in literature and legend — the Gimli type warrior who is suspicious of elvish magic, and the trickster little people — AD&D provides both options via the Dwarf and Gnome races. Having different types of magic open to different races is part of what helps them feel unique and true to type. A third type, the Deep Gnome, was later added which is more of a true earth elemental creature.

Okay, you might want to change which “alternate covers” are shown on page 18, then.

Which cover won the poll?

I love The Sea Cave and would very gladly purchase more products in the OSR format.

Since this appears to be the logic…

      ● RuneQuest 1
      ● RuneQuest 2
      ● RuneQuest 3
               ◦ Mongoose RuneQuest I
               ◦ Mongoose RuneQuest II
               ◦ Design Mechanism RuneQuest 6
               ◦ Design Mechanism Mythras
      ● RuneQuest 4

…then the naming convention is actually rather respectful, IMO, and not so sinister as people seem to suggest. It couldn’t be more clear that people wanting to continue to play the Mongoose/Design Mechanism “fork” of the game should go with Mythras.

In fact, if they named the new edition RQ7, that might be painted as an attempt to trick Design Mechanism fans into “upgrading” to a game that is not, after all, based on RQ6.

This “fork” phenomenon is not something created by the naming convention; it’s a reality that already exists, which the naming convention in fact acknowledges — i.e., the continued existence of Design Mechanism Mythras vs. the continued existence of a game based on RQ2 and RQ3.

Well, that’s one way of looking at it!

There is a dizzying array of gods, but in preparing my Griffin Mountain campaign, the gods most apparent and useful for the players to worship appear to be Hunter, Yelmalio, Chalana Arroy, Lhankor Mhy, and Orlanth Adventurous.

I prefer reprints (esp. real printings, not POD) over new material, just for what it’s worth (probably not much vs. accepted wisdom).

Such a Kickstarter would also be a way to quickly get back into print classics such as Shadows of Yog-Sothoth, The Asylum, The Fungi from Yuggoth, Trail of Tsathogghua, Fragments of Fear, and Fatal Experiments without undergoing the tortured and uninspired process of “updating” them to 7e (again following the model where in which they are reprinting the RQ Classics without updating but stating that they are basically already compatible with the upcoming edition).

On 6/4/2016 at 11:52 PM, Mankcam said:

If people are uncertain about changing from the old mechanics, then RQ2 is a perfectly valid option now that it is being released as RQ Classic. In fact perhaps Chaosium could release a CoC Classic as well, a slim book based upon the first or second edition, with the original text and art etc. Could be quite charming if it is a slim hardcover volume.

I would buy this. I’ve been on the lookout for a nice decently-priced Games Workshop Call of Cthulhu 3rd Edition hardback for years, without luck.

Uh, Arya is most definitely evil.

On 3/31/2016 at 4:47 PM, Mike M said:

Pulp Cthulhu  - has been written and is currently being relaid out. Due for release later this year.

Astounding Adventures was written for BRP and is completely separate book to Pulp Cthulhu, which is specifically for Call of Cthulhu.

Which would be better suited to a game inspired by Indiana Jones (esp. Raiders and Last Crusade)? I want to incorporate supernatural religious elements (artifacts, etc.) not necessarily related to Yog-Sothothery,

Can someone give a summary of the publication history (or lack thereof) of Pulp Cthulhu?

What is Astounding Adventures, and how do the products relate?

Got it.

I did so on Tuesday.

I’m interested in running some CoC scenarios that involve intense exploration, tricks & traps & puzzles & straight monster fights & treasure. You know, OSR stuff. I have come across these:

“The Warren” by Ed Gore, from Shadows of Yog Sothoth (1982)
“The Brockford House” by Marc Hutchison, from Call of Cthulhu 2e-4e (1983)
“Black Devil Mountain” by David Hargrave, from The Asylum and Other Tales (1983)
“The Lurker in the Crypt” by Kurt Miller, from Fatal Experiments (1990)

Any experience with any of these scenarios? Any other scenarios of this sort?

Oops, never mind, I think I only bought these in hardcopy.

Oh, no, it was print + pdf.

Same…

I started with Griffin Mountain, but I inserted the Rainbow Mounds as the main introductory scenario there (interspersed with the excellent “Growing Up” scenarios from GM).

So, which supplements were published under RQ1? I noticed Apple Lane has its stats in Str/Int/Pow/Con/Dex/Cha/Siz order, which would seem to match 1e. What else?

Someone mentioned that this will be available as print-on-demand at some point, is that true?

I would suggest…

        BRP1          BRP2

      /     \       /

RQ2 ----------- RQ3

Excellent! Congrats, guys!

I am super tempted to bump myself up to the $250 pledge. The reason is that I am planning on buying all the hardcopy reprints that are coming out in 2016, and with all the discounts I will get from this Kickstarter, it will pay for itself. Hmm…

Just curious why no Gateway Bestiary? I know it’s “Gateway,” but some of its monsters were subsequently used in Gloranthan products.

I have to say I think WotC did a great thing by reprinting old editions of D&D before peddling the new edition. They won a lot of good will from fans, and it also displayed confidence in the 5e because they were just selling it on its merits rather than just repressing old editions. So in that sense, I don’t see the reprint of RQ2 as harming the new RQ.

I also think it was always a mistake to strip flavor from games in order to make them more general. So go ahead and load up Runequest with iconic Gloranthan cults and monsters. It’s easy enough to swap them out, but I just don’t see any benefit in a bland base.