Jump to content

rabindranath72

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About rabindranath72

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Started in the 80s with Basic D&D, then AD&D, CoC etc. It's been a long way!
  • Current games
    Basic D&D, 13th Age, Trail of Cthulhu, D&D 4e
  • Location
    Stafford, UK
  • Blurb
    Father, Mathematician, Gamer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you need "fresh" eyes to look at the material, I am willing to help. I am a newbie to the game (so I have essentially no bias) and I am a published author, quite used at writing, editing and reviewing (I am a mathematician, so I write very complex text, and I developed a good attention to detail; or as my colleagues put it, I am a pain in the ass .) I have also helped edit some gaming products; the latest one, Modiphius' Conan (with Jason Durall.)
  2. Nice find! Here's hoping that character creation is explained better than in HQ2 and HQG, because as a newbie, I am finding the whole process obscure. For a rules-light game, one would expect it to be explained in a simple and straightforward way
  3. Yes, the difference I was outlining is whether culture, religion (and community, which is suggested to be free in the relationships chapter) are free also in the as-you-go method. The free abilities are marked with an explicit step (2.) in the list method, not so in the as-you-go method. The Genre Packs chapter doesn't mention that breakout abilities should get a +1, and on page 10 where the Keyword concept is explained, it simply notes that the player should note how much they have improved the breakout abilities (two examples are shown, at +1 and +2; again, nowhere it's stated that breakout abilities start at +1 automatically.) The Genre Packs chapter shows sample occupational, cultural, species and religious keyword with long lists of abilities. Since there's no mention of +1s, I reckon that singling out breakout abilities at the rating of their keyword, means the remaining ones are considered non-specific? (so for example, in a contest, someone with a more specific ability would get a +3 or +6, as soltakss seems to suggest?) In the sample species keyword box (Elves of Ammelon), it also states: "plus any one of the following abilities", which I suppose is a way for the player to customise the keyword. In the Glorantha section I was referring to spells. But there's no mention that magical abilities are breakouts. Actually, it states that magical abilities are keywords (and they explicitly start at 17) so it seems the spells in a grimoire (and charms) should then be considered breakouts following the convention previously established (i.e. no +1). If they aren't breakout abilities, at least they are syntactically equivalent. At this point, it's not clear whether the magical ability is free, or if one chooses a magical ability and it automatically counts as the first ability at 17. And also it's not clear whether spells or charms are free or should be bought. It's noted that Charms can be increased like breakout abilities by expenditure of hero points at +1 or whatever, and that spells are learned and improved like other skills. My gut reaction is that since it's not spelled out explicitly, spells/charms should actually be bought as abilities (up to 5 charms, as explicitly stated in Spirit Magic section, and 4 spells.) Comparing with the HQG character generation and analogous topics, it's clear the authors changed quite a few bits, and I wonder whether the changes are only meant to reflect Glorantha, or if they should be considered as updates/errata of the HQ2 rules. Thanks in advance for any and all help! Cheers, Antonio
  4. Blood of Heroes is based on the Mayfair Game System (used in the various iterations of the DC Heroes RPG). The Hero System is a different beast entirely.
  5. Thanks for chiming in. I'd add that the HQ2 rules aren't exactly straightforward when it comes to character creation. For example, the Gaming in Glorantha section shows breakout abilities at the same value of the keyword, but is that correct? What's the point of having breakouts at the same value of the keyword, if the keyword subsumes a potentially larger set of abilities anyway? (as shown in the Genre Packs chapter.) Also, is the magical ability at 17 in addition to the 11 abilities (so, it's free), or is it supposed to be the main ability that gets the 17 rating? Why the discrepancy about the list and as-you-go methods in terms of free abilities? (cultural, religion). Thanks, Antonio
  6. Hi all, so as I am slowly wading through the material for my Vikings campaign, I have noticed that the HQG character creation is apparently different from the HQ2 system. Apart from the free cultural keyword, HQG seems to offer many more skill points. Is this an optional rule somewhere in HQ2, or am I missing something? Also, it's not clear what happens if a distinguishing characteristic is instead taken as a flaw; can you choose another ability in its place, or the ability "slot" is simply lost? (doesn't seem a good trade-off) Thanks, Antonio
  7. Thanks again! I am afraid I am not very well versed in Gloranthan lore to understand how magic works. Are you suggesting that each character should start with three Runes? Looking at HQG, I was thinking of making Runes work roughly like spells; the ability (similar to a Grimoire?) would be Rune-Casting, and the Odinic Priest would choose five of the Futhark runes for free at the start of play, with the possibility of learning more runes or perfecting the knowledge. There is also the issue of Occupations. My player will convert his Odinic Priest character to an Occupation, so would magic/runes perhaps be best described as a breakout ability? (But then I suppose I'd lose the ability to define breakout runes like spells in a grimoire.) If I keep Rune-Casting as a separate ability, could the Odinic Priest occupation (or one of his breakout abilities, e.g. Read Runes or Odinism) be used to augment the magical ability? Thanks in advance for your help, I am still not entirely sure how to handle it all. Cheers, Antonio
  8. Thanks everyone for your feedback, much appreciated! A little bit more background to put things in context. I have actually already started a campaign, we are two sessions in and I used Pendragon 4e/Land of Giants, with a lot of background info taken from Legend Vikings (LV) and RQ3 Vikings (RV). The campaign is the one laid out in RV, and I plan on using also the two scenarios in LoG, and the suggested scenarios in LV at some point. Now, for a series of reasons my players aren't happy about Pendragon, so I thought I'd go with HQ2 which has similar but overall simpler mechanics (my group isn't much into complex games in general.) In terms of magic, the level I expect to inject is mild fantasy; ideally, I'd use the magic rules in LV (Divination, Shape-shifting, Rune Casting, Seidr) and I'd like to each as skill (breakout?) Following the HQG framework, I think I'd use: 1) Professions from LV, and make them into Keywords abilities 2) Magic skills from LV, and make them into Keywords abilities (with each Rune as a breakout?) 3) Traits from LoG, and make them into Flaws and Distinguishing characteristics 4) Clans/Tribes from RV and LoG and make them into Keywords I am not sure how Runes would work if I used them as in HQG. Anything I am missing? Cheers, Antonio
  9. Hi all, long time lurker, I have recently bought HQ2, and I'd like to start a campaign. As I am a sucker for everything Viking, I thought of perhaps converting/adapting the Legend Vikings and/or RQ3 Vikings material, but I am a bit at a loss where to start. Has anyone done something similar? Or is there a "conversion" of RQ to HQ? Thanks in advance, Antonio
  10. p. 24, the boxed text. The first bullet item, Zoran Zoran should be Zorak Zoran. Also, the formatting inside the box is weird (look at the last three rows.) I have seen the same weird formatting in other boxes, and in columns of text throughout the book. I'd suggest looking at all of them again.
  11. This is the reply I got from the author of the conversion. Hope it's helpful to someone else!
  12. Thanks for the reply. I posted on MG website but I got no reply. I wonder how people really run these scenarios without these basic information
  13. I finally got the pdfs, and I am reading the material. Very well done. However, I noticed that Legend's cultural backgrounds are completely ignored here I can identify some of the backgrounds from the racial descriptions in some cases, but in many others, it's nebulous at best. Is there an errata?
  14. I have been playing 5e since August, and we are loving the system. It does indeed look like a "cleaned up" 2e, although we have found that magic has been somewhat nerfed, with a lot of spells having much less impact than before (see for example Phantasmal Force) and some class abilities being less broad than before (e.g. the inspiration ability of 5e bards vs. 2e bards.) I have been running a Birthright campaign, and converting the 2e stuff has been relatively easy. The three 5e core books form an excellent basis for all the classical D&D stuff, from race and class options (more than core 3e and core 4e) to the excellent DMG which covers dungeon design, outer planes, lots of optional rules to tweak the "feel" of the game, finishing with the Monster Manual that has a lot of excellent stuff, striking a good balance between interesting mechanics and background info. I have sold most of my 3e stuff, since 5e scratches the "itch" of a "modern" D&D very well, and with its simple mechanics, I can see it as a good replacement for 2e also. I have never been a fan of 4e for all the reasons that Darkholme described. I am also a big fan of 13th Age, and I have been torn between running it and 5e, but the latter won because it's just a lot easier to port the 2e stuff I have got, both in terms of rules and "feel." 13th Age works as an excellent rules-light replacement of 4e, and if one wants to run a more heroic campaign from the start, I'd recommend it. So...for the foreseeable future 5e will be our "go to" D&D (unless I have some newbies; then I'll always start with the Mentzer Red Box; it's just too good ) although I can see how 5e could be easily streamlined to get an even simpler game (e.g. there are options in the DMG to completely remove skills.)
  15. Thanks again for the inputs, much appreciated! I have the RQ6 pdfs, and while nice, the whole system looks ponderous. I don't plan on buying hardcovers; actually, one of the aims of this campaign, is to decide which RQ should I keep on the shelf and which to sell. Looks like RQ3 is going on the chopping block.
×
×
  • Create New...