DreadDomain

Personally, I am happy to wait for the full cults book, fully illustrated, and I see the prosopedia as a welcomed bonus.

Interesting video. From a world perspective, I am definitely in the camp of de-emphasizing Elmal and focus on Yelmalio = good, and de-emphasizing the Hero Wars/HeroQuest era and focus on the RQ2/RQ3 era = good, and demedievalize the west = good.

Very sensible. Consider it stolen.

As a war god, even if specialized with facing chaos, I agree his magic is a bit on the low side compared to say, Babs. However, I didn't want to turn him into a weapon specialist (weapon trance, slash, true weapon) and decided instead to focus on his Beast aspect rather than his Death aspect. Accordingly, I have added to the cult rune spells the equivalent of "Elk Strength" from the RboM.

I must admit, I went "uh, whot?!" but then read this: Which explains me not remembering any of this since my primary source for chaos gods is Lords of Terror. But you are right, these things are in Cults... Thanks, it's fascinating..

For sure, my comment was more about Chaosium staff currently focused on new RQG product. I am not Chaosium but I am interesed!

I would love to see the RQ3 books back in print but it sounds like a lot of effort and I'd rather have the effort deployed on new products. I might be a bit selfish here but I still have most of my RQ3 books in fairly good condition and the book I would most like to buy again is one Chaosium doesn't seem to be keen on. My expectations was (and still is) that RQ Classics would not sell terribly well. I have no doubt it is popular with RQ enthiusiasts and nostalgics but I do not see the RQ Classics line having a strong pull on newcomers. It is also logical that of the line, RQ2 would be the most popular, probably followed by Cults of Prax, Pavis and The Big Rubble. It would probably be the same for RQ3 with the rulebook being the biggest seller by far followed by a second tier set of supplements and the rest being fringe curiosities.

IMHO spell foci has always been useful for flavor, explaining why everyone is full of tattoos, scars and trinkets, and narrative hook (the potential of loosing a focus or not being able to access it). Useful and good fun but not something that needs to be actively managed as a resource.

BRP being such a loose system, say compared to GURPS which is a lot more monolithic, there are a lot of opportunities to plunder and be inspired by other lines (RQ 1/2/3, RQ 6/Mythras, Stormbringer/Elric/Magic World, CoC 1-6, CoC 7, BRP, KAP and more!). Having said that, while I may not like all the rules in RQG, I tend to minimize house rules nowadays. Examples of elements I would have done differently had I being the RQG designer include how the skill category modifiers are calculated, hit points calculation, random hit location table, 10 SR in a MR instead or 12, how Move works, and quite a bit more to be honest. However in most cases, it is just not worth the effort. So it is RQG with small house rules here and there (see list below). Damage bonus table with more granularity up to STR+SIZ=40, then follow table as is. Base Skill Values change for Dodge (20) and Jump (30) More sensible Additional experience - not that it happens much Add a Hard success result at half the skills. This is mainly for opposed rolls but also for flavor (a Hard is better than a Regular but not really a special) and some maneuvers (Aimed Blow requires a Hard roll) Opposed Rolls – When a tie does not make sense, on a same level of success, whoever rolled higher, wins. If still tied, higher skill wins. Otherwise, re-roll. Note that by adding a hard success level, it doesn't happen as often. Crushing Damage – On a special, a crushing attack also inflict a special Knockback (p.224). The target is automatically knocked back 1d3 meters. On a crushing critical, the target is knocked down on a failed DEX x5 roll. Aimed Blow and Knockout are Hard maneuvers (half skill), but it happens on normal SR (not at SR 12). Also Knockback takes place on normal SR (not at SR 12). I find these maneuvers too penalized otherwise. Fumbles Table - Replace results between 87 and 98 to “Opponent immediately gets a free attack against you, which you can defend against”. I find it more fun (and less silly) than "you hit yourself with your own weapon" I also ignore the two exceptions in the Attack vs Parry Matrix ("Failed Attack vs Fumbled Defense" and "Critical Attack vs Special Parry") and follow the progression described here I am also tempted by: Weapon skills by weapon categories instead of individual weapons Ignore the rules around skills over 100%. You roll the skill you have, you don't reduce your opponent. I am still not convince that the complexity of this rule brings a lot to the game. I am even surprised it made it to the Starter Set. To be honest, I also quite like @Kloster approach. Some of my house rules above would still apply to RQ3.

If it helps, the Starter Set is currently the best entry point into RuneQuest and, as an additional bonus, the rules are freely available here: https://rqwiki.chaosium.com/rules/. Now the Starter Set do not include character generation but it does include 14 fully detailed pre-generated characters, a solo adventure to help you learn the rules and scenarios to get you starter with your group. The wiki does include a quick character generation system.

Agreed. I understand why they went 3d6x5 for characteristics in CoC, and it works very well, but I still prefer the 3d6 range Good point, "Luck", "Will" "Bad luck", Setback", "Villainy" would also work and probably better than "Fate" and "Doom" for pulp.

Obviously to each its own but I believe the push rolls mechanic does exactly what it is set out to do. Provide the investigators, and keeper, a way to further the story at the risk of potentially terrible consequences, which also further the story. First, statistically push are increasing the chances to succeed. This is a feature, not a bug. The risk needs to be worth it! Second, the better you are at your skill, the more the odds are playing for you. This is another feature. Of course more capable investigators will have a better chance if they risk it. The catch is the potential consequence. If you fail the push roll, what is the consequence? How will it hinder you? How will it make the story more interesting? I like when players and keepers collaborate on that part to make the outcome more exciting, more fun. If you can't come up with a consequence that makes the story better maybe the situation isn't adapted to a push roll. But with players and keeper together, there always a good idea to use.

They were much easier because the attack and defense results were mostly independent of one another instead of comparative. For RQ3, I think it went mostly like this: Attack Results Critical - Inflict maximum special damage, bypasses armour Special - Inflict special damage Normal - Inflict normal damage Fail - Parried, deflected or missed Fumble - Parried, deflected or missed, roll on Fumbles Table Parry Results Critical* - The attack is parried Special* - Damage equal to weapon AP is parried. Any excess damage goes to the affected hit location. Normal* - Damage equal to weapon AP is parried. Any excess damage goes to the affected hit location. Parrying weapon takes 1 AP damage if damage more than its current AP. Fail - Missed defense Fumble - Missed defense, roll on Fumbles Table * Successful Parry versus Failed Attack: Roll parrying weapon normal damage. Attacking weapon's AP is reduced by any damage over current AP It was a lot more straight forward.

There are a few exceptions in the table but if the attack is successful, the matrix is generally a "compare success level" mechanic. Looking at the Attack/Parry Table: A) If attack fails and defender rolls a... (refer to C below for Fumbles) Failure - Attack and Defense miss Normal parry - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by 1 HP if damage over its current HP. Special parry -Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by any damage over its current HP. Critical parry - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by the damage rolled. B) If attack succeeds, compare Attacker and Defender success level where Critical = 2, Special = 1, Normal, Fail or Fumble = 0 (refer to C below for Fumbles) Success Level (Attacker SL - Defender SL) Attacker wins by 2 - Attacker rolls max special damage. If Defender’s roll is successful, damage equal to weapon HP is parried and affected hit location takes any excess damage and ignores armor. Parrying weapon takes damage rolled to HP. Attacker wins by 1 - Attacker rolls special damage. If Defender’s roll is successful, damage equal to weapon HP is parried. Parrying weapon and affected hit location takes any excess damage. Both are equal - Attacker's roll is successful, rolls normal damage. If Defender’s roll is successful, damage equal to weapon HP is parried. Parrying weapon takes 1 HP damage if damage more than its current HP. Any excess damage goes to the affected hit location. Defender wins by 1 - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by 1 HP if damage over its current HP. Defender wins by 2 - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by any damage over its current HP. C) When a Fumble is rolled, roll on the Fumbles Table Now, to put it out there, framing it that way does not make it easier to understand. What it does is help see the system behind it and instead of having to remember 25 results (a 5x5 matrix), there are only 10 results to remember with 2 of them not really difficult to remember (when you roll a fumble, roll on the fumble table, and when you both fail, well, you both fail). Also, what I wrote above is not 100% aligned with the official Attack/Parry table as there are at least two exceptions. On the matrix, a failed attack against a fumbled parry does normal damage. I tend to just ignore this exception as it is already taken care of on the fumble table (results 87 and above). Second, the core book matrix states that a critical attack delivers maximum special damage against a special parry. In my summary above, it would be "Attacker wins by 1 - Attacker rolls special damage". The starter set matrix does not agree with the core book matrix on that.

Here's an idea. Remove Sanity Points but keep sanity dice, now called "Doom dice" Rename "Luck" to "Fate" (or even "Hero Points). Fate works exactly as Luck in CoC 7e, but... When Doom dice are rolled (because of monstrers, bleak situation, etc...), Doom damage is taken out from Fate. Doom grinds the ability to leverage Fate. If a character suffers 5 Doom in one go, they become discouraged, stressed-out, demoralised. They get one penalty die to whatever they attempt until they get the opportunity to "regroup" Oh yeah... But CoC and PC look so much better 😉 . Agreed, as a toolkit, BGB covers more ground but it also means more tinkering to do to adapt to the game you want. CoC/PC minus Sanity feels like pulp right away. What do you mean by that?

I think it's one of these cases where it requires a bit of judgement based on statement of intent. Assuming getting up is a +5 SR action, "I get up as fast as I can and attack Boris" would take DEX SR (1) + SIZ SR (2) + Weapon SR (3) + getting up (5) = SR 11 before Barbara can be on the offense. CASE 1 However, if Boris attacks Barbara in that same turn we may want to know if he does so before she is fully standing. In that case, We could rearrange the same equation in the following order: DEX SR (1) + getting up (5) [SR 6, Barbara is back up] + SIZ SR (2) + Weapon SR (3) = SR 11, she now attacks Boris. Barbara is quick so she can jump back on her feet on SR 6, the same SR big and burly Boris attacks. However, she has a higher DEX than Boris so no penalty or bonus are incurred. CASE 2 Another, perhaps simpler, way to resolve this is to consider the statement as a whole. In the previous example, Boris would benefit from Barbara being prone (or still unbalanced) up to the moment she attacks on SR 11. At that point in time, she would not suffer the penalty of being prone because she stood up before she attacked. Barbara could have stated, "I will attack Boris before he can react and then stand up" She would then attack at half skill (DEX SR + SIZ SR + Weapon SR = 6) before Boris. Anyone attacking her before she stands in SR 11, would get +40% She could also decide to play defensive "I will stand up and regain a defensive stance". By SR 6, she is standing and from then, no one has and advantage on her. While it might feel strange at first, replace "getting up" by "preparing a weapon" in these scenarios leads to the same idea.

My take would be similar but slightly different than Travern's approach. You absolutely can use the BGB with Astounding Adventures but it is in no way more difficult to use CoC 7e and Pulp Cthulhu. The only real decision needed is "what do you do with Sanity?" The most obvious answer is to just ignore it. If you like to tinker, you could as easily keep it, rename it "Stress" or "Doom", down play the effect (no mental breakdown) or narrate them differently. Yet another option is to remove Sanity but keep "Sanity loss" for certain creature or situation. Remove the point lost from Luck instead. I find that with Luck, Push rolls, Bonus/Penalty dice, death only if already majorly wounded, and even more so with double HP and talents from PC, CoC has a tendency to play pulping out of the box. What makes it really horror are characters in way over their heads, sanity loss and overall atmosphere of the game.

I know next to nothing about the setting itself so that part does not excite me much. I love the cover though! I didn't know about the FB page until this week. I went and read the post on char gen and I am loving it. This type of char gen by steps is what I have preferred since RQ3. In this case, nationality, background, role and archetype, occupation and skills, characteristics, drives and personality traits, contacts, connections and reputation, is exactly the kind of mini game I am looking for. Customizing your ship sounds fun too! One thing that I would have preferred is for characteristics to influence skills (skill categories), on the flip side, I really like that all the characteristics use the same roll. I was never found of char average 10 except SIZ and INT. Agreed! Also agree. RQG and CoC have both introduced awesome concepts. And "RQG is 90% RQ2" is absolute propaganda 😉

Fair point. But one does not exclude the other.

Ok better yet, an updated PDF ready for a third printing!

No worries, hopefully there is still time to sneak a few more corrections before the reprint. Whot? And there I thought you were all-powerful! 😉 Speaking of changes, @Ryan Kent and @PhilHibbs made a good point in the wiki thread. The rules about distributing (Book 1, p60, Skill Over 100%, last bit) is fairly difficult to implement and it feels like it over complicates things unnecessarily, even more so for a Starter Set.

I see the Wiki has been updated. in the "Thrown or Dropped Objects" section, right after the bullet points, it reads: "An adventurer can effectively throw an object if it weighs less than their STR in kilograms (see Falling)." To be consistent with the rest of the section, it should be "STR in SIZ". "The damage fis the same, with any necessary alteration depending on the size of the object dropped." fis should be is

This is a timely reminder, and I am sure it is no accident, with the release of the Cthulhu Eternal SRD and the announcement by Green Ronin regarding the kickstarter of the upcoming AGE based Cthulhu game. BRP (used as a broad term) being one of my favorite engine, it's both pleasing to see it influencing and spawning so many other games but it makes me a bit uneasy how close some of these games are. On the other hand, I suppose it's good for the fans, more choices, and could also be good for Chaosium as long as they keep high quality, high production value supplements. People not digging 7E, could still buy 7E supplements and use them with their systems of choice. I didn't know that! I will look into them. Some of these names I am less familiar with.

Then absolutely, don't change what works great already. Personally, I don't really mind the HP as they are and the Shields table from W&E gives more options for the shields. I feel only a medium bronze shield at 16 HP is missing.

Thanks Jason, greatly appreciated. I suppose udated PDF files will be available shortly? Will the reprinted Starter Set take a leaf from the CoC Starter Set reprint and have thicker paper for the booklet covers? I agree with this comment. The difference between the two tables doesn't make any easier to learn and it is confusing at best (I don't have a preference between one or another but should be the same). Perhaps the idea was to make critical results slightly less lethal? I also agree with this. I was surprised to see the official errata was not used in this matter. The Well of Daliath text is much clearer here.