DreadDomain

Really! Where did you get it? Not that it matters because I won't be in Brissy for a short while but I'm curious.

I hope you can. I truly hate podcast too.

I have never heard of that one. Someone knows something about it?

Dark Detective? By the way, very cool family tree!

It never was an issue for us in RQ3 as we did choose age based on concept rather than minmax. I thought generation in RQ2 was more tedious than in RQ3 and in fact loved how age directly impacted skills in RQ3. It felt very organic. However... ...looks like an even better approach. RQ was the game to hardcode in my brain that the best chargen was all about choosing race, culture, homeland, occupation and so on instead of race/class and level. That background will be so ingrained in the process is a definite plus. 1) How will characteristics be determine? Assign points? Roll dice? Different options? 2) Will there be options to start older/younger or less or more powerful (having more skill points to distribute, a generation method that drives the characteristics up)? 3) Will age influence skills at all? 4) A stated goal was to make this edition a true % system (as opposed to RQ2 who only had skills in 5% increment). From what I understand, skill bases will be in 5% increments, skill packs will be in 5% increments, skill distribution will be in 5% increments, skill bonuses from characteristics will be in 5% increments so am I correct to say that starting characters will have all of their skills in 5% increments? What makes the skill system %based then? Experience can be gain in 1% increments? Critical/special/fumble values can have none 5% increment values? So far the chargen of the new edition sounds very promising. Thanks, DD

Sounds pretty good! I know I might push it but is there any chance to have gruesome and highly descriptive critical hit tables per damage categories. Not that they are absolutely required but they are so much fun!

Was that an official rule? I remember playing that way in RQ3 but I didn't remember we borrowed it from RQ2.

I'm glad it's the case. I personally don't like super-granularity but for RQ, I would been sad to lose % skills and the 1d6 gain.

I agree the balance between useless stats and dominating stat is tricky. In RQ3, the difference between average (10) and top shelf (20) characteristics (assuming all other stats the same) is +10%. In RQ6, it is at best +20% for skills where the stat is figured twice in the base score. Where the sweet spots lie might be a matter of preference but for me, an approach where each skills have a base score (like RQ2 and RQ3) with a category modifier based on CHAR+CHAR* brings the best of both worlds. * Alternatively, to mimic RQ3, it could be CHAR+CHAR-20 so someone woth stats below 10 would have a negative modifier.

Belgath, I am sorry to hear your sessions did not go well. RQ2 was a phenomenal game for its time but it is still a game from the 80's with its quirkiness, bugs and broken bits. Hopefully new RQ will fix all of this. I agree with you that the way the skill modifiers are calculated doesn't make a lot of sense but ultimately Jeff made it clear the design team chose to retain them for the next edition. Again house rules are fairly easy to implement depending on your expectations. RQ3 is more consistent but don't really make the characteristics more significant. You could also choose to use skill modifiers based on CHAR+CHAR (per category not per skill) giving some attributes a lot more oomph and avoiding break points. That would also make your characters more competent which might or might not be a desirable effect. Jeff is overstating the realism of consequences (the lost limb frequency in RQ is not realistic) but as he states, fights in RQ are way more dangerous than in D&D. You can easily reduce the number of chopped off limbs by changing the amount of damage required to do so.

I'm like you, I prefer 10 SR but it really isn't a deal breaker. I always liked strike ranks. They make sense and they give a flow to the game. They require you to consider carefully howbto use them in specific situation (like when a short weapon fighter close a longer weapon fighter) but they feel very tactical and very... RuneQuest.

This is definitely an area where we prefered the less limiting, more freeflowing approach of RQ2. After trying combat with the two actions limit, we ended up with a mix of RQ2 and RQ3: - allowing any number of actions limited by the number of SR - SR 10 with 3 SR between actions - dodge was used but only against a single attack I hope Jeff uses the freeflowing approach.

I agree with Mugen and Mankcam, skill + skill by skill categoties would be a very good solution. And I agree a whole lot of this conversation should have been in the "New RQ dedign questions" thread.

It's not just you. When "evaluating" a game, it's fairly common to be invested by a sense of nostalgia and go back to that feeling of wonder and discovery we had at the time. I suspect the "soul" comment is heavily tinted by this nostalgia lense. How many people have we heard raving about RQ2 cover art? Many. However, from an artistic point of view, it is fairly ordinary. Within the context of the 80's, RQ2 was great. I would even argue that RQ2 was greater for its time than RQ3 was for its time or even RQ6 is for its time. Rereading it today, within the context of today, frankly RQ2 is, well, a game from the 80's. The cover is average at best, the art is mediocre, the organization is a mess. I believe the rules still stand out. Sure the rules still feel somewhat "still under development" and some specific rules are clunky or broken but the core of RQ2 is solid. My hope is that new RQ will fix the broken rules, polish the clunky one and bring the organization and production value to the level of today.

I too would prefer to keep POW in the skill modifiers. That's why I was suggesting to make POW less swingy otherwise it will be a problem whatever the method. Someone hovering around POW 16 or 17 will keep adding and substracting 5% to some of his skills.