aknaton

Yes I tried that link before I posted here. Maybe I'll poke him. And see if we can get it up again.

Thanx. I have the printed book. So no updates there

In the dscription of the skill Brawl there are an example of dong damage with a cestus. I dont understand how the damage was calculated (if I remember correctly, I dont have the book available now, it was 1D4+7D3+db). In the skill description it states that you get 2D3 damage with brawl when you have a skill of 100+. Can anyone explain?

This we like

I agree with this. For me it was the logic and consistency of the system that drew me to it. And Trollkins.

I'm not a simulationist. And I have never played any D100 game from a simulationist perspective. But the inherent logic to the D100 system makes it very easy to game master. For me an rpg is a game with rules that lets a group of people under the guidance of a game master tell a story together. I want a game system that promotes story. And I'm very okey with rules, like fate points, that doesn't corresponds to something in the real world, as long as the rule promotes the kind of game I want. As I see it people often forget the role of personal commitment to a task. When I write computer programs my commitment plays a large role in how the end result will be (how buggy etc.). My skill is always 75% in programming, but if I'm committed to the end result *will' be better. How can we take this commitment into account in a rpg? I think that having a fate point system that allows for re-rolls is a good way to do that. For instance if a person has a 50% skill and is allowed one re-roll due to spending a fate point the chance goes up to 75%. Not an earth shattering difference. But gives the player a chance to express the characters commitment to the task at hand. I want a game where characters have flaws and relations that helps promote story. Mechanically it can be done that the character gets fate points for playing out the flaws and relations, but nothing forces them to do so. The fate points can then be used to get some small mechanically benefits, like re-rolling. (Sorry if I'm rambling, but I'm a bit unfocused today)

How could I have missed the crowdfunding for this game. It seems right up my alley

I'm curious to know if people in this forum consider 13th Age too narrative (and lacking in mechanics)?

I also like to have strong storytelling/narrative gears in a rpg. And I agree with you that the term 'narrative' has been used too often as an excuse for poor or non-existent mechanics.

Vi kanske ska göra detta till ett svenskt forum istället Järn seems to be a very nice game. Good work there.

I second this and is of the same opinion.

I second that. I want to see a new version that could appeal to new players (it's not that productive that the same old crowd buys the same old stuff once more).

Yeah. RQ is very moddable. And thats a good thing.

Loss of player agency is bad. We like carrots better. We want bonuses to the players when they do things that carries the story further onward. By complicating it och by resolving troublesome relationships etc.

That's a point. RuneQuest has always had a really good community

Am I the only one who has some concerns about the new RQ edition (RQ4)? From the design notes I fear that it will lack the storytelling gears I would have wanted to see. Much has happened in the hobby since the 80s. Even Dungeons & Dragons 5e have picked up on the storytelling with backgrounds, inspiration etc. It would have been easy to include rules that would have helped drive the story. And yes this is wild speculation from my part. But RQ (II and III) has, since the 80s, been my "to go system" and I really want to see it great again. It is elegant and easy to understand. But it has always been a tad dry and simulationist.

I agree with this. It's easy to make the skills fewer or more abundant if you like. So it's most a matter of taste.

The game is now ranked as number 124 among "Core Rules". I think that the game deserves better than that. So vote att rpg.net. Se link in first post of this thread.

I may be a bit daft but I don't really get how volley fire functions compared to "normal fire". :confused: I was writing up some miracles (that is spells) for my fantasy campaign Acquisition (a house campaign, no plans to publish). And I was considering to do a spell that increased the rate of fire of thrown and missile weapons. So I started to read in the rulebook what it said. So can someone please explain how many shots, with what skill, and on what DEX ranks a DEX 16 character can launch the following projectiles with "normal fire" and with volley fire: Thrown rock: 2 Attk. Blowgun: 1 Attk. Light crossbow: 1/2 Attk. Arbalest: 1/3 Attk. Light pistol: 3 Attk. (It's not going to be in my fantasy campaign, but is included here for the sake of argument) All help appreciated.

Nice. :thumb:

I agree totally. I could live with the MRQ rules, and what they done to Glorantha (I was never really that much of a fan, anyway), but it felt somehow cheap and that they were milking their customers for money (this is my opion not facts :ohwell: ).

Same dish, but with a somewhat different flavor...

I have done my duty, too.

I can't agree more. So who's doing it ??? Added as an afterthought: There can be too much background. Players and GMs feel overwhelmed. And I personally can get really bored by weird creation myths.

Good. I'm too old and have too little gaming time to be bothered by hit locations. :ohwell: