smjn

2 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

Leaving those first two pages here, renaming this as "Chaosium's RuneQuest", and relocating the rest of this sub-forum in to the Extended Family as tDMGFKaR ("The Design Mechanisms Game Formerly Known as RQ6") or whatever the official name ends up being strikes me as least disruptive and of greatest utility to most users.

Did anybody suggest this forum be named Chaosium RuneQuest? I did not and I don't think anybody did. I figured it would remain free for discussing any edition of RQ, not just the latest. And I'm not so sure about the distruption. Most people would propably find what they're looking for and if not, others would point them to the correct location.

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is not the truth. The very first post of this subforum is the announcement that The Design Mechanism had been born and that it would create RuneQuest 6.

My mistake then. Did not check, remembered wrong.

I think it is reasonable that the RuneQuest forum remains the RuneQuest forum. This subforum has, after all, existed before The Design Mechanism did. Legend also has its own subforum even though it used to be known as RuneQuest II. Changing the RQ forum to Legend would be similar to changing it to whatever the new version of what was RQ6 will be named.

I think Simon's approach is very reasonable and the path of least resistance. Why make it more complicated than necessary? The way he does it keeps it simple without ruining the anything. The players do not know what the supplement says, so it doesn't matter if an NPC uses separate skills for each weapon attack and parry while the PCs use RQ6 combat styles, for example.

On 02/01/2016 at 1:12 PM, Newt said:

More information (inc links to where you can buy the book) The Company @d101games.com

Oddly, that page causes my web browser to crash. Not really blaming the site, no program should crash due to a "faulty" page or any other reason of course. Just saying. Anybody else seeing this?

Happy 2016 everybody. May all your games be glorious this new year.

14 minutes ago, Archivist said:

Dark Heresy offers a Fate Chip mechanic where players' have a small pool of fate points they can use to avoid certain death, re-roll, etc. Is there a D100 game that has that mechanic?

Yes, several. The BRP Big Gold Book has Fate Points, RQ6 has Luck Points, Legend and OpenQuest have Hero Points.

I don't understand why all characters would eventually become masters of all trades since in most BRP-family games you only get better in those skills that you actually use. So if you suck in a skill, you're not going to get better unless you get training. To get training you will have to find a teacher, time and money or other resources to pay for it, so it may not be easy. And you can only train so far. Therefore I fail to see achieving niche protection as a problem, if you're into that kind of thing.

Like others have pointed out, the traditional way to differentiate character progression in RQ&BRP is membership in cults and other organisations which defines what kind of training and magic you have available. But it is true, that any character can, at least in theory, get good in any skill and that is an important feature and a main selling point for BRP. If, for some reason you want to arbitrarily limit what skills are avalaible to certain character, then just say that they can't put points to those skills in character creation and don't make training available. Problem solved.

2 hours ago, Steve said:

The new Chaosium RuneQuest will be later in 2016.

Will be? Will be what? Released? With so many things in the works ATM I highly doubt this will be the case in reality. If the game is supposed to be ready, say this time next year, it should already be quite far in the development cycle and perhaps even being playtested. From what we've learned so far this does not seem to be the case. Actually I think we can consider ourselves extremely lucky if RQ7 will get released this decade.

I'm really somewhat frustrated that the New Chaosium has caused more unneccesary delays by changing course again instead of allowing The Design Mechanism finish what they started with Adventures in Glorantha. At the very least I think Chaosium should give TDM a permission to publish the unfinished draft AiG to the awaiting public.

14 minutes ago, Baulderstone said:

On the other hand, consider a situation in which a player with a 15% in History make a successful roll. Okay, so that fact was part of the 15% you happen to know. Why does this suggest that because he knows this one fact that he suddenly knows more facts? It's a demonstration of knowledge he already he has, not a learning experience. 

Making use of and applying the character's knowledge in practice helps them make connections they would not otherwise have made. This leads them to gain insight into their excisting knowledge and understand things better. So an "experience" tick might be in order. Other than this, I agree with your post.

26 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Everyone loves tick boxes.

Except, of course those of us who don't.

27 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

There's no such thing as Tock-Chase.

Whatever you call it, the phenomenon does exist. Just saying it doesn't does not make it so. I have withnessed it myself several times.

29 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

It's a myth propagated by GM's who don't know the simple word : NO.  Better yet, the simple phrases: You can mark it. and Don't mark it.

Just because the GM may say something like this doesn't mean some people will no try. And even the strictest GM may let it slide on occasion. Players are slippery devils.

36 minutes ago, K Peterson said:

What's the risk of failure for the bard?

Inciting rebellion in his home town he may attrach the attention and ire of the local nobles he's trying to undermine, therefore he's taking a much larger risk than the thief who's keeping to the shadows and never seen. But even when the bard is just chatting up people in bar to get some information, if he fails his Human Lore he may insult people in a way that escalates into something he is unable to deal with. And for Human Lore he doesn't even get a tick even if he succeeds...

1 hour ago, Vile said:

"Fair" and "game balance" are terms that have no real place in my games because they are essentially simulationist (at least within their own laws of physics or fantasy). If a character doesn't or can't contribute then he/she won't get any experience.

The problem I have with this is that contributing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with rolling the dice. A player can contribute a lot by just good role-playing and doing things that don't require any skill rolls. I don't think its a very good simulation that people don't get better in things that they do day-to-day but instead only in stuff they perform under pressure. So it's no so much about game balance as it is about the system rewarding some contributions and ignoring other kinds.

This is a great problem in RQ3 because the way skills are spread out and tick-boxes handled. So the thief who is sneaking around is getting a check in several skills (sneaking, hiding, climbing, jumping, throwing) while the bard who does a lot more by influencing people only gets a check in Fast Talk while not in Human Lore, which is a Knowledge skill without a check-box.

So in my view the RQ6 system helps make the system both fairer and a better simulation.

I prefer the current, RQ6 approach for various reasons. Giving all players a similar amount of experience rolls helps keep things fair and avoids unnecessary tick-hunting. In the RQ3 campaign I'm playing my mage character seems to get fever opportunities to raise skills than the thief, who is constantly sneaking or the bard who does most of the direct influencing of people. And I have a ton of spell skills, which seldom get better because I don't often get to use many of them. Plus the most inexperienced players seem to keep doing stuff just to get those marks, which is a little annoying and not very good role-playing in my opinion.

So Chaosium, please don't bring those tickboxes back. They are wholly unnecessary. If people insist on using them for whatever reason they can do it of course, but the newer approach has clear advantages over the old one IMHO.

3 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

Pavis and Big Rubble will be reprinted.

This is great! I have one question though. I haven't got or read PaBR, but the other three volumes on Gloranthan classics have quite many typo-like errors left from OCR:ing, so I must assume this is the case with Volume I as well. Will this be fixed, i.e. will there be a new proofreading/error checking process and a new, revised printing based on that?

Oh, I think that leads me to a second question: Will the other Volumes be corrected and reprinted as well?

11 minutes ago, UnlikelyLass said:

This (and several other similar conversations on other forums) is making me want to generate a giant graphviz diagram of all the various BRP-derived systems. A kind of family tree. 

Something like this? http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/4025-im-with-brp-any-edition/?do=findComment&comment=62421

I'm totallly in the same camp and I'm fairlly certain there used to be a button on the toolbar to switch to somekind of markup editing mode but it must have disappeared in one of the many updates to this site. Hopefully there is a chance of getting it re-enabled.

I really would like to participate, but reading the Ulule Terms of Use is insane. They're over 80000 characters long (excluding whitespace and punctuation), more than four times the length of Kickstarter Terms and Conditions! I can't understand how any of you guys were able to complete the mandatory registration, since it requires you to read through the terms. You all read through them, right?

RQ3 had the penalty at 5% per point below minimum.

I play FTF in one group every one or two months with one GM and five players. We all have our laptops on the table, GM sometimes has two. Our character sheets are all in a spreadsheet format and we type our notes on the computers, especially me, because I kind of make the official campaign log from my characters PoV.

We use a wiki for campaign background and house rule information. We also use IRC and XMPP for private communications and when a player can't make it, because we live far apart. But we use physical dice and the GM scribbles his ad hoc maps on pencil with paper.

You can tell you friend I'll take take that junk off his hands for, say, £5, ok? :-)

EDIT: Or friend of you friend, as might be the case.

This was already posted in another thread at For some reason I'm no longer allowed to view that thread. Anybody else experiencing this?

This is kinda like it would have felt if the Beatles got back together in the '70s, well kind of...

Now that Lynn Willis has passed, I think its more like The Beatles getting together in the ninteties.

Still great news, though.

I think that the View New Content page is very functional and actually find this particular forum much more easy to follow than the old one or any other of the several forums that I frequent. By choosing View New Content I see all the forum threads that have new content and by clicking on the blue ball (or star if I've posted on the thread myself) I get the first post I haven't seen. No other forum that I use has utility and functionality anywhere near that of this forum. Compare for example with http://www.glorantha.com/bbpress/which is a usability nightmare.

The ability to filter content by type or time period can also come very handy. It is also the kind of functionality that is sorely lacking from any other forum software. So no, I don't share your grief and I certainly can't understand where you get the feeling that "not much is happening on the forum" since there's new content waiting almost every time I click the View New Content link.

I mean, a book, written from scratch, 18 chapters long, with development time, play testing, editorial, art commissioning, proofing and then actual production ought to be out within a few months of announcement.

Not months but weeks if not days.

 

See that you do!

(    )