DreadDomain

In your previous post you were mentioning "plus maximum damage bonus" which does not seem to be the case for the quote above.

I am also interested to know when the file will be updated in the store (maybe it has already). Also, there was supposed to be a reprint in the work with integrated erratas and strurdier booklet covers. Is it still the plan?

While I am interested by the answer, please keep in mind that Chaosium has not promised anything, nor could they since they do not control all the variables. They gave us vague ETAs that I am sure they would like to meet as much as we do.

I've done my duty!

Good point. There are a few things that would need to be figured out to make it work. If I ever go back to QW, I might give it a go. Another wart is that having 10 is literally, 1 mastery with 0 as an ability to roll against. It's just that abilities would look so much better written as 46 instead of 12M4 😉

For a long while I've been thinking that QW should have used a d10 instead of d20 and abilities wriiten like this "Electric Zap 06", "Parkour 12", "Super Strength 58" where the last number is the number you roll on a d10 and first number(s) represents the number of mastery.

I was about to say this was very refreshing feedback from a newcomer. More often than not, newcomers struggle with the strike ranks, the attack vs parry matrix and the wound levels per hit locations. However... ... this here might explain it ;). Welcome back!

I consider Mythras and CoC 7E the best implementations of the BRP rules so far but they cover a very different space, Mythras being on the crunchy, tactical side and CoC 7E on the easier, smooth-sailing side of it. Judging LotMS just on the character creation steps (on FB) and the character sheet, it gives the impression it will be on the lighter side from a rules perspective but still offering interesting options to individualize characters. I have the feeling it might occupy a similar space as Savage Worlds on the the rule light/rule heavy scale. It seems like a very traditional BRP game (more so than Mythras or CoC 7E) and it's a good thing.

Hmmm fair point. Would I need to hack BRP for my own setting, I'd probably start from Mythras or CoC 7e. Having said that, I really like what we have been showed so far about Lords of the Middle Sea.

Thanks! Now I've got to see this. If it would be set in Glorantha, where would you put it? I always liked Troy. I really need to watch it again along with Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut). I also liked the Barbaren series on Netflix and really liked Vikings in general (the arc with the Rus wasn't really that great though). Someone mentionned Pathfinder. I didn't think much of it at the time but I suspect I was expecting something else. I think I need to watch it again. Another one that I like is Wolfhound (Volkodav) from 2006. It's a sword and sorcery fantasy film based on a series of novels.

Hi Chris, Are you at liberty to discuss your design approach or is it hush-hush (obviously understand that things could/will change if Chaosium ever get to publish it)? I am very intrigued by this one.

You are correct. To be more accurate we were not too impressed that all the faints, dodges, thrusts, slashes, parties, etc that happened within those 12 seconds were encapsulated in a single attack roll.

It's actually not. The first part does not quite say the same thing as the second part. Which part is right? You read these two bits and you come to a conclusion. I read them and I come to another. Mind you, I am not saying you are wrong and recognise your interpretation is as good as mine and possibly correct.

I think it is RAW. But it might have been clarified otherwise somewhere else (The Well) but to be honest, I have a hard time to keep up with all the clarifications. I am 95% certain this is also how it was played in the Jeff's White Bull campaign (which doesn't make it automatically RAW of course)

I personally find CoC 7e to be an excellent ruleset for a lot more than just CoC and I can totally see it verge into full pulp and adventure, sword and sorcery or even superhero territory. It feels like it managed to balance well designed simplicity with depth of rules. For combat, it has interesting tactical choices and damage rules that are both deadly but with a level of forgiveness (as long as you don't get a major wound, you'll be fine). Now, me perfect generic CoC 7e ruleset would include all the options from Pulp Cthulhu (specifically talents), would organise skills into skill categories and would repurpose Luck and Sanity into more adaptable, generic Drive and Adversity. Drive and Adversity Each characters have two pools of points that define their nature, their drive, and what they need to overcome, the adversity they face. The names of these pools are generally personalised for each character. What drives a character, and the type of adversity they must overcome, is a decision that must be made carefully by the player. It should flavour how the character responds to challenges and what can become their undoing. Drive and Adversity can be physical, mental or personality traits (determination, ruggedness, selfimportance, callousness, stress), values (truth, justice, duty, power), passions (love, hatred, fear, loyalty) or even intangible or esoteric concepts (luck, fate, destiny, doom). In some campaigns, players might want to change their Drive and Adversity as their character evolve or even from one scenario to another. In other campaigns, Drive and Adversity might be the same for everyone. In Call of Cthulhu, the drive pool is Luck, only luck can truly make a difference against cosmic horror, and the adversity pool is Sanity, which represents their ability to cling to their comprehension of reality. As an Example of Drive and Adversity, Batman could have Saving Gotham and Childhood Trauma and Superman could have Truth and Justice and Blue Boy Scout. Note how BBS sounds like a positive thing but it often disadvantages him because he gets blindsided by the pettiness of people and so on. Drive would work exactly like Luck but Adversity would need a bit of work to make it more generic than Sanity.

It reminds me a bit of something we tried a quarter of a century ago to make RQ3 combat more dynamic. Instead of having a successful Parry versus Failed Attack reducing attacking weapon's AP by any damage over current AP, we made it dependent on the parry success. It was kind of a mix of Riposte (from Stormbringer if I recall) and the RQ3 rule. It went something like this (fuzzy memory applies): Parry results vs failed attack Critical Roll parrying weapon normal damage. Attacking weapon's AP is reduced by any damage over current AP. Defender gets an immediate opportunity melee Special Roll parrying weapon normal damage. Attacking weapon's AP is reduced by 1 AP if damage exceeds current AP. Defender gets an immediate opportunity melee Normal Roll parrying weapon normal damage. Attacking weapon's AP is reduced by 1 AP if damage exceeds current AP. Fail Missed defense Fumble Missed defense, roll on Fumbles Table We were not too impressed by the "only 1 attack per 12 seconds" (really, that slow!?) and wanted to use the opportunity melee rule a bit more. Using this rule, it also meant we were allowing multiple parries and dodges in a round (I can't recall if we specifically applied the -30% per extra defense as per Stormbringer but I think not)

Yes, and both are wrong! 😄

There is only one mechanical difference between the two: the core book matrix states that a critical attack delivers maximum special damage against a special parry. The starter set matrix does not agree with the core book matrix on that. Ignoring the table in RQG is difficult because the results are comparative between offense and defense. This is not unlike Mythras except that the effects are set in stone. See my summary from another thread: To ignore the table, it is easier to use combat results from RQ3 since your attack result is not "downgraded" by the defense result. If you rolled a special attack, you can roll your special damage. The defense result will determine how much gets through and how affected the weapons are:

My understanding has always been that while engaged, you are simply limited to one attack action. You can cast spells like Bladesharp or Heal (yourself or others) or Truesword or Berserk (they are not attacking a target) and attack in the same round. You can't cast Sever Spirit or Thunderbolt and attack in the same round since it would constitute 2 attacks.

I would go one further and only allow reduction of 20% increment, so it's significant and meaningful and prevents people from playing the math. (for players who have their crit and special ranges noted on their sheet, it has the side benefit of neatly reducing your crit by 1% and special by 4% for each increment) Not all tactics are valid against all opponents for sure.

or c) try to overwhelm your opponent by splitting your attack and striking them multiple times. a) strong, powerful offensive b) mobile, feinting offensive c) quick, multiple attacks

This. Exactly this. I'd love to see RQ3 make a comeback as a hard cover with the few pages of errata incorporated and (a guy can dream), the Genertelan Character Creation section from the Players Book of the Glorantha box set (it's about 12 pages) added to it. It would make the whole stream of RQ1/2/3/G available and playable in Glorantha!

Excellent! There is no problem then!

It is a two-books-plus-full-of-handouts slipcase. If you click on the link, you will see a picture of the content.

I haven't but MoN has a great pulp feel to it and there boxes discussiong adapting scenes to Pulp throughout the book so I suspect it woul run quite well.