Jump to content

aknaton

Member
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aknaton

  1. Thanx. I have the printed book. So no updates there ^_^

    11 minutes ago, Nick J. said:

    The typo is corrected in the updated version of the PDF. But yes, if you have Brawl and Cestus at 101 or higher, you get 1d4+1+2d3+db

     

  2. 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?

  3. 6 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

    I'm not sure that RQ, when it first came out, set out to be a 'gritty' system particularly. It was simply an alternative to D&D - which was riddled with inconsistencies, arbitrary and illogical rulings in it's first incarnation. The RQ rules were just a set of common sense rules, that then largely became celebrated as the best set of '1st wave' rpg rules in the years that followed on. There was always a debate happening about 'realism' in game rules - which eventually morphed into 'simulationism' as a concept - but there wasn't any great tribalism or nuance in terms of game styles as such until much later. 

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

  4. 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)

  5. 13 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

    I really like having strong 'narrative' aspects to rpgs, but only if there is good mechanics backing it up if I need to use them. Some may call these mechanics 'simulationist', which is a fair call. What I don't like is when the term 'narrative' is used to justify poor mechanics, as has been the case in some rpgs during recent years.

    Generally I think BRP can walk the line between 'narrative' and 'simulationist' quite well, although it obviously leans more toward the later, which is a good thing.

    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. 

  6. 28 minutes ago, styopa said:

    Which is perfectly fine for many people, particularly grognards that have been futzing with RQ systems for decades.

    *NOT* so great for pulling in new players to the genre.

    I second this and is of the same opinion.

    • Like 1
  7. On 2016-05-27 at 9:54 PM, styopa said:

    I sincerely hope that the new RQ takes *everything* widely regarded as a "good idea" and implements it.  I get that it's based on RQ2 and they want to remain at least reasonably consistent with former materials* but RPGs (and what players have expected from them, and how they play them) have evolved a lot since 1979 or whenever RQ2 appeared.

    *I know the new Chaosium doesn't have ample resources, so this makes sense.  At the same time, this backward focus somewhat condemns us to "oh look, it's Pavis...again".  Glorantha's a big, big world, with tons of cool stuff.  If you browse around, you'll find some fascinating campaigns run in Safelster and other places.  Heck, the (IMO) greatest-ever narrative of one of the old house RQ games was mostly set in Pamaltela.

    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).

  8. 2 minutes ago, soltakss said:

    Personally, I don't really care what is in which edition of RQ/D100-style rules.

    I take what I like and ignore what I don't, so I'll take the good bits from RQ, Mythras, Legend, BRP, Renaissance, Revolution and so on.

     

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

  9. 1 hour ago, styopa said:

    For example, whether a character would lie to an NPC, cower in fear from something, etc could be essentially taken away from the player's control, and made subject of a dice roll result to which the player was expected to hew.

    That would trouble me deeply, because that takes agency away from players.

    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. 

  10. 47 minutes ago, rust said:

    Which is why I am not concerned. Even if the core system would not include such rules, there would doubtless be someone (perhaps Chaosium themselves, perhaps someone from the community, with a monograph or in some download section) who would provide them soon enough. :)

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

  11. 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. 

     

  12. Just seems a matter of taste to me... I don't think the number of skills is unmanageable or a detriment to the book.

    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.

  13. 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.

  14. That feeling has remained with me to this day and, no offence to anyone here, was reinforced after receiving the first MRQ book and comparing it to the "Companion" my brother bought; they really should have been combined. That BTW, more than anything else sealed MRQ's fate...in my bank book at least. Again...just MHO.

    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: ).

  15. I don't see the need for a super detailed mega-setting to make BRP work. Give me some good solid adventures set in a small regional area (like Dragon Pass!). Save the world maps and encyclopediac fluff for years down the road and let the setting grow naturally.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...