TrippyHippy

Actually, something I wanted to ask about Mythras is whether it can Supers or not? It's a low priority, but is in some ways is the critical measure of how generic a system is. Luther Arkwright has psychic powers, which is largely in this direction - but what about being able to do things like the Avengers or the Justice League?

It's too early to say. To be honest, as much as anything, I was just confused by the last designer update. I don't really know how it will finally turn out. The bigger priority for me currently is just receiving my Classic RuneQuest book, which is beginning to feel like a mini CoC7E style patience test at the moment, and I am actually still content with my copies of RQ6 and HeroQuest currently anyway.

If they did try to model the rules of CoC7E, which are not universally liked as they stand, to RQ then it would fly in the face of the statements made by the design team as to what they intended. RQ2 is supposed to be the model, with developments made to enhance the rules from that edition rather than change what is not regarded as broken. The stated point about design was that different games would have their own rules, to suit specific needs, rather than attempting any sort of universal system.

Implementing CoC 7E rules into RQ would not appeal to me in any way slightest, I have to say. It would be a turn off. The information that is presented in the designer notes is all a bit confusing to me at the moment, generally. There's a lot of discussion about calculating skill scores and the like, but without seeing the full set of mechanisms it's difficult to see how it all hangs together - and that sort of thing is often a finely balanced thing in terms of personal taste.

In sofar that you had Critical Successes (1%), Special Successes (<20%), Normal Successes (<%), Failures (>%) and Fumbles (99%) - there has always been degrees of success/failure in BRP systems. Personally, I prefer the method used in RQ6, Pendragon and other systems where each roll can be contested with the highest successful roll winning, as it's the most intuitive for me. Each to their own though.

Postmodernism means that anything can be art. For me though, the two decisive factors are whether there is some craft involved in development, and whether the final result makes some sort of emotional or cerebral impact on the consciousness of the audience. Both factors are present in RPGs in one degree or another.

From the looks of it, it ought to be a very popular supplement. As it provides character generation information, a primer on the 1930s and groups to join, it almost serves as an alternative to the Investigator's Handbook. The rules essentially add Talents and toughen the characters up a bit (double HP and no ageing, lots of uses of Luck points, etc) but there is plenty of variety in Careers and in Archetypes (a new thing that allows for more skill points, for the most part). The bonus for me is the four (count them!) scenarios included in the book, and it's all well presented in full colour. The high octane style might not be to every CoC player's taste, particularly if they are used to more slow burning mysteries and thrillers, but this supplement does achieve what it sets out to do with aplomb and brio. In my view the chase rules would have been better included in this book rather than the Keeper's core rules, but this is a meaty book regardless. It does bode well for the future 7E line.

For me, not all PCs are heroes. Actually, sometimes they are not even protagonists in a strict definition of the word (that is they act in response to actions made by another, rather than force the narrative themselves). It really just depends on the story I'm trying tell with the players. I'm not sure that the stats are directly linked to these things anyway.

Well, that's the entire X-Men series discounted then... Seriously though, in mechanical terms the only difference between Mutations and Superpowers in BRP lies in the point that mutations include negative effects as well as positive. If it were me, I'd simply make a universal advantages/disadvantages style system and integrate the whole into one. Ditto Magic/Sorcery, noting that RQ manages to divide magic systems on a genuinely philosophical level, whereas the differences in BRP are mainly arbitrary mechanical differences that we, as players, then invent narrative reasons for separation. There are lots of ways that magic systems can be done, but for me it's a design flaw in BRP core that it's so disparately pick and mix. I'd prefer a more integrated holistic approach to powers in the core rules, generally, with more alternative options in supplements and specific settings. This may be just me of course.

Going on most superhero comics, I think superpowers and mutations are largely entwined with each other. I always felt it was a mistake to separate the two in the BRP rules actually. Indeed, I felt they needed to chose one or the other in the Magic/Sorcery split too actually.

I stand corrected, and it does mark a significant departure from RQ6 and some clarity from the GtG/HQ info.

I think that has always been the implication hasn't it? The magic referred to in the Guide to Glorantha highlights Spirit Magic (or Animism) , Runic (or Divine) Magic, Sorcery and Mysticism (or Illumination). The set up of HeroQuest uses Runes to define personality as well as ability and we've seen the designer notes of RQ going that same way. The Battle Magic of old looks like it will be an application of broader Runes associated with each character.

Well, if you have Assassins and Witches in an Unearthed Companion book, I'd buy it. To me, Assassins like Arya in Game of Thrones don't have to be evil , while Witches have never been fully done as a true archetype in D&D beyond Warlocks. I think they both make interesting PC choices if done well. I'm not criticising the game for Magic-Users or grittiness as such, merely observing.

I've got the pdf and it's certainly well laid out, readable and easy on the eye, while the combination of RQ rules and D&D sensibilities seem to gel well (on first reading at least). I have to budget a bit in a financial and logistical sense for physical books these days, but I may get it later in the year - maybe alongside the proposed historical releases (Rome & Greece) perhaps. The only curiosities I have I guess was the choice of Thief Acrobat over what I'd consider a more archetypal Assassin Class, and that Magic-Users are back, instead of the now current 5E D&D split into separate magic using classes (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock). It is also probably a bit grittier than D&D is too - so the 'Classic' is more a reflection of genre tropes rather than full emulation really.

It may not matter that much, but if that was the case why make a point of coming onto a public forum and stating that you want to call it RQ4? I do think it is insulting to the creators of the last three editions - which were all legitimately licensed by Issaries while Moon Design were busy doing other things. It's also just confusing to the RQ fans, or those that like to follow the historical genealogy of the game. When Mongoose pointedly referred to their second bite at the game as "RQII", they were heavily criticised for it. Why should it be any different for nChaosium? I've no objections with the new game being titled simply "RuneQuest" (as they did with the current edition of Dungeons & Dragons), but it's a 7th edition of the game whether people want to be selective in it's history or not.

So, will we be getting a highly detailed, full colour map of a Gloranthan female or not? .....I'll get my coat......

I'd like the new RuneQuest layout and art direction to be consistent with Guide to Glorantha.

Although the terms didn't originate with them, RuneQuest and HeroQuest are often held up as definitive examples of the difference between 'simulationist' and 'narrativist' roleplaying. I'm not sure I agree with these categories, but in terms of their respective approaches RuneQuest has an attempt to simulate real combat (in particular) in it's rules, whereas HeroQuest is mainly interested in outcomes as they pertain to the overarching story. RuneQuest has details like parrying, impales and hit locations, while HeroQuest generally ignores these things and simply takes degrees of success to determine what happens in a more abstract way. When RuneQuest was written back in the late 70s, a lot of the ideas that went into HeroQuest's design weren't thought of yet, but it was a hugely innovative game in it's time too (being one of the first games to introduce skills, for example). The distinction between 'simulationist' and 'narrativist' are probably not as distinct in later editions, however.

After the backers finally get theirs. About April or May, I guess.

The interior layout looks good. I note the Class list doesn't appear to include the Illusionist anymore, while there are two types of Bard. Is this the case? Also, this preview appears to have been out for a day or so without me noticing. Hint: Put it on the front web page. Finally, will you still be using this cover for the full release?:

Aw....I was going to name my next born child 'Mythras'. Oh, well, I'll just go back to 'Figweasel' as the alternative....

Pendragon is the ideal. The recent editions of RQ, up to RQ6 have moved towards reducing tabular use in play with things like special effects over combat tables. I'd like to see this design objective upheld.

Actually, if there is one design feature I'd like to insist on, it's that we ensure that game play is not based upon tabular reference. So, for example, no Resistance tables or Crit/Fumble tables or the like. What I want is for the game to flow intuitively, without having to crack open the book all the time.

I like having Skills divided into categories, and it saves time in character generation to have each category sharing the same base score calculation. Keeping the number of skills reasonably low is also quite important in that respect and I personally, prefer having the Parry skill integrated into whole Combat Styles a la RQ6.

The question I have to ask, which is adjunct to a similar question I put to The Design Mechanism some months ago, is why did Moon Design only actually go for the RuneQuest IP now, in the aftermath of the Chaosium takeover? That is, if the Moon Design team and other interested parties were passionate about doing RuneQuest right, then why didn't they jump at the IP license when Issaries first got it back in 2006 (or thereabouts)? Why let it go to Mongoose and then to The Design Mechanism, allowing the system to evolve as it had, while pushing the refrain that the better system for Glorantha was HeroQuest instead? In terms of the system development itself, I think the main motivation for me to buy it is to have a fully integrated game to go along with my Guide to Glorantha set. I do already have HeroQuest: Glorantha and for me it very much seems like the new RuneQuest game is a sort of amalgamation of ideas from it, Classic RuneQuest and a sprinkling of Pendragon to boot. It's a shame that there is no room for the combat maneuvers from RQ6 as it was the chief innovation from that game, but I do accept that the major drive of the new game is to introduce key aspects of the setting as a priority and there really isn't much space left for detailed subsystems like these within the page count they want to go with. And actually, although I don't think it will ever happen, I do think that a D20 roll would be a better fit to the broader system than D100...... In short, I remain interested in the game, but I'm still uncomfortable with the circumstances surrounding the changeover from RQ6.