DreadDomain

Only if the link is procured through Facebook...

The announcement has gone live! A few more days for the PDF👍

Way to go James! I have to say that Dave, Jackson, Art, Alex and you are the reason I am now more interested in actual plays! I am intrigued by "native French speaker". I can only guess one of your parent is a French speaker or you moved from a French speaking country.

Awersome cover!

It's in GURPS Fantasy (no log involved). It is actually a way to calculate/estimate Hit Points (and ST) based on longest dimension (height/length) and/or weight.

Same here. The guaranteed success and failure ranges are meta rules that come when everything else have been considered but before the gamemaster rules the attempt too silly or too easy, foregoes the roll and tell you what happen.

Wow! I didn't know that! I'll search for it just for fun. The Death Dealer cover always made me curious, and is perhaps the only reason I vaguely know about the game, but at the time, my plate was full with RuneQuest, Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, Champions, Talislanta, Rolemaster... Good years...

As far as I know Bloodlust was a French RPG published in the 90s where you could play sentient weapons (I never played, I might be wrong) but I am not aware of any english translation or connection with Stormbringer. Theater of the Mind has published the Octagon of Chaos for Stormbringer in the 80s https://index.rpg.net/display-entry.phtml?mainid=1107.

The real challenge is that some characteristics appears to be mechanically linear in that they do not represent anything measurable (DEX, CON, INT, POW, CHA) while STR and SIZ are somewhat exponential. From roughly each +8 difference you are twice a strong (+16 is four time as strong). If the resistance table is used to pit linear characteristics against linear characteristics, it generally works. If it pits exponential characteristics against exponential characteristics, it generally works. If it mixes the two, like in your example, it falls apart at higher level. In a contest of STR vs STR or STR vs SIZ, it actually works very well. Each +8 is a doubling of strength or size. Someone with STR 18 arm wrestle someone with STR 10, is twice as strong and has 90% chance to win. Someone with STR 86 arm wrestle someone with STR 78 is twice as strong and has 90% chance to win. Depending on different play styles, some might see these unbeliveable results as a feature and an opportunity for good narratives. I personally don't and would reserve the right to ask the player to give a very good, interesting and exciting explaination on why it worked, or call it a fail anyway. This is one of the two BRP "features" that I detest. The exponential progression should continue forever. Luckily, the bug happens so high in the curve that it is rarely a consideration.

A and B are correct. However, when it comes to the allosaurus vs brontosaurus example, the problem is that STR and SIZ follow a progression that often other characteristics do not follow (except when magic is involved). A slam between the two would be better represented by a STR+SIZ vs STR+SIZ (I have a hard time picturing a brontosaurus trying agily to avoid or deflect a slam). I suspect the official answer would be the rule do not work as it was not intended to be applied to such a situation.

This deserves a place in the skill list!

There are also a few scenarios for M-Space DriveThruRPG.com - FrostByte Books - The Largest RPG Download Store!

Perhaps my meanings were not well explained. What I meant by "The rules in the core book are very human centric" was that it is only concerned with the human range of characteristics and does not concern itself with whatever is outside that range. Any races with characteristics more or less within the human range would therefore work without too much need for exceptions and house ruling. I feel the bestiary should have covered some of the differences with the "human range centric" core book assumptions and how it applies to some creatures. Skill categories is an example of that, move is another. Skill categories, when STR and SIZ are involved, simply do not work for large, strong creatures. As far as I recall, they never worked in any RQ iterations.

The rules in the core book are very human centric and do not seem to attempt to resolve issues outside of that purview. Personally, I believe the impact of secondary characteristics (and perhaps even of a primary) on a skill should be capped at, I don't know, 20%, 25%...

I stand corrected on my conceding of my own point. Gee, I really can't win in this thread 😀

These are bold words Rick. We all know that "near future" is measured in days by fans, weeks at best. All joking aside, this is good news.

This, I absolutely concede. Without access ro the RQ3 rulebook, a character with sorcery in a scenario would be very difficult, if not impossible to use. Except that there is no reason to do that. The character would have the spells they have and the POW they have, as written on the character write-up.

You may have misunderstood my comment. I was not commenting on why and if the reprint of some RQ3 material might or might not happen. I was only referring to the bolded part below (and here I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that Jeff meant "RQ3 is more of a different product line than RQ2/G". If it is not a typo and he really meant that "RQG is more of a different product line than RQ2/3", then I can only say "yup, reprinting old stuff is clearly a different endeavor than supporting the current edition, which should take precedence", and go back to my corner. If by that you mean it is easy to use a RQ2 scenario with RQG, and vice versa, I absolutely agree. My point is that it is no more difficult to do so with a RQ3 scenario. Pretending RQ3 "is more of a different product line" is pure fallacy. If by that you mean that RQG is a soft evolution of RQ2, with 80 to 90% retained and some additional rules added and others refreshed, then we will have to strongly disagree. Character creation is very different, the skill list is different, that attack, parry economy and results are different, the effect of damage on hit location is different, the weapon stats are different. We could go on and lists loads of areas where RQG and RQ2 are different. And the same could be said of the differences between RQG and RQ3 (all the above applies). Is it a bad thing? Absolutely not. RQG is better for it. We can call the current edition RQ4, RQ7 or RQG but it is definitely not RQ2.5. And it's a better game for it. What RQG does is carrying the spirit and essence of what made RQ2 and the RQ3 renaissance great. And it's a better game for it. Note that I was not commenting nor even disputing any of this but thank you for the clarification. Also note that even if I'd like to see some of the reprints go live, and would buy them, the originals are all nicely sitting on my shelves and it's not like I am waiting for them with any kind or urgency. I'll go back in my corner now.

I am genuinely puzzled by this statement. Cross compatibility of scenarios is mainly driven by how character sheets can be interpreted. I can crack open any RQ3 scenario on my shelves, look at a character sheet and use it on the fly. Some values have computed differently (SR, hit points in the case of RQ3) but so what? They are close enough that you can use them as is. The inverse is also true, I can open any of the RQG scenarios and play them in RQ3 if I so desire.

Copying your comment from another thread. How about this? I removed the exceptions and color-coded (same color, same effect)

A while ago I was suggesting to give bonuses to shield for parrying only, say +10% for small, +20% for medium and +30% for large. I understand the point that shield are useful against missile and that in melee they were often "sacrificial" and getting pummeled by repeated blows but there is a reason they were use and in my view it is because it is easier to block and deflect with a board of wood than it is with a long stick. At least until the long stick carrier becomes very proficient with their long stick. Another option would be to allow the shield bearer to ward a number of location in melee, as it is done against missile. Bearing a shield would become very atttactive as it would partially protect even without parrying.

If by charitable you mean I ignored the exceptions, then yes, it is absolutely what it is 😀. To be honest, I find the two exceptions of the table unnecessary.

Yes, this is correct with the caveat that if you attack with the shield you cannot parry with it

I am with you, RQG made really nice additions but combat is still my least favourite part of the rules with some terrible copy-paste from previous editions. Below is a breakdown of the RQG attack-parry matrix. It feels inspired by the Stormbringer/Elric/BGB matrix RQ3 was much simpler.

It's not codified but if a players wants to fight defensively (forfeit all attacks), I would allow an extra defense that does not count towards the cumulative -20% penalty. This has been errataed in the Well of Daliath but unfortunately, the errata did not make it into the starter set. It should read: "With two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry."