DreadDomain

These three professions now make a lot more sense. Hopefully it will also be updated in the next printing in English.

That would also work. Just for the record, I do not necessarily only want super simulationist systems. What I described above was only a way for us, back in the days, to make RQ3 combat more fun and more believable within the context of a 12 seconds Melee Round. For RQG, which doesn't really try to model movement in combat, I rather think of the Melee Rounds as "an undefined, elastic period of time where everything happens almost simultaneously". I also like the Pendragon-style everything happens at once.

I have not seen any aside from the few small pictures in the scenario at the back. Having said that, I have only given a cursory look at the PDF.

You are challenging my memory now! It's been decades I am 100% sure that we did not roll over from one MR to another and kept the arbitrary 10 SR reset limit (it was 10 in RQ3, not 12). For spacing the actions, we tried various methods but I would be hardpressed to say with certainly which one we ended up landing on. I think we ended up using the standard 3 SR between actions because it was consistent with RAW since it also takes 3 SR to ready a weapon, prepare an arrow or execute a second attack with a skill over 100% (but see below for other methods we tried*). Which makes me think about a few other things we needed to adjust Splitted attacks if skill was over 100% both happened on the same SR. Aimed attack would not be delayed at the end of the round. Having the attack % divided by two seemed a big enough penalty for us. *Other methods we tried a) We tried only adding DEX SR between actions. It meant high DEX character were very lethal. b) We tried adding the full SR (DEX, SIZ and weapon) between melee attacks. It meant big, long-weapon fighters were very fast compared to small, dagger fighting but it was giving interesting results once the small dagger fighter closed.

This update, which comes from @Jeff on Facebook, got me wondering about the GM Book and realised I didn't actually quite know what it will be all about. Do we know what it will cover. I think in the part heroquesting was mentionned but it seems there is now a separate book. Will it then be focused on rules? Mass Combat, more personal combat, naval combat, social interaction, various skills, other cultures? Trollpak 2? Are we going to see Trollpak 1 first @Jeff also add "Plus we plan to rerelease two very important classics in glorious updated form." I am curious what this might be since I believe all the classic stuff from RQ2 has been made available. The only things I could think of were RQ3 itself (but I am pretty sure Chaosium has no interest in republishing RQ3) and... White Bear and Red Moon!! Maybe?

Sure. RQ3 RAW was approximating that combination that way. We decided to approximate it a different way just by removing the arbitrary limit to the number of melee actions. Without that limit, the variable duration of that approximation was well represented by the SR mechanic. For us it made combat more fluid, more believeable and more fun.

And that's why we removed the limit of number of attack/parry/dodge in a MR. If you had enough SR, you could keep going. We thought it made more sense for 12 seconds and was also more fluid.

Correct, it might too fiddly for some. Personally, I prefer the statement of intent to be free for all with players (and gm) declaring what they intend to do and freely adjust depending on what others decide. "I'll run towards Vasana to heal her... what? You want to do it Yanioth? Cool, you are better than me at healing so I'll let you do that while I try to cleave the scorpion man who attacked her..." It makes the game a bit more collaborative

This is exactly what I like about it (well, not that some players have a hard time wrapping their heads around it). Back in the day in RQ3, to enhance that specific experience, we removed the limit of 2 actions out of attack, parry, dodge. In a sense, we were using SR similar to how it is described in BGB p.199

True. And to be fair, even if move is not as well define/integrated in RQG, it also covers that situation. I wasn't thinking about multiple actions in a round where it does get a bit trickier. Also, what if my action is not really attached to a skill? Does my DEX 14 beat your skill 72%? That's probably where an initiative skill like in Harn becomes handy. Still prefer RQ3...

That's a reason why I like RQ3 approach. It resolves situations where a Fighter is running towards and Archer (or running for cover) while the archer is trying to knock an arrow and shoot him. Who will get their first chance? An option would be to declare intent in ascending order of INT and then act in descending order of %. That way more perceptive/intelligence/intuitive characters get to adjust their intent based on what the others are doing, even if they are not the fastest.

That's interesting, I was thinking the opposite. I don't mind the layout for the QS (or a short supplement) but for the core book, I would find it way too distracting and difficult to read. I tried to unpack it a bit and besides the fact that I don't like faux medieval artwork (that's only a matter of taste) I find the garrish colors or the borders and the tables too much and the dividing lines running across the pages too distracting. I suspect removing those lines and perhaps changing the main color of the bottom border from red, blue and green to only one of them (perhaps red to match the color of the headings) would ease it on my eyes. Like I said, I don't mind it for a short supplement and, taking a step back, the QS looks beautiful. Edit. Sorry, don't want to nitpick on this, let's focus on the great things of the QS

Color me curious! I'd like to know what you think CoC 7th could have put on the table. CoC 7th has done very nice things for a CoC game but personally, I'd rather have my RQ a mash or RQ2, RQ3 and KAP than CoC but I am interested to hear diverging opinions.

The Quickstart looks very good and I am looking forward for the full release (even if I have on my shelves KAP 3, 4, 5, 5.1, 5.2) A few quick comments in no particular order: I like the logo and the cover but I am not too enthused by the general look of the QS. The borders, the colors, the faux medieval arts. Not to my taste. I like the renamed Appeal. I wonder how Appeal will be used in this edition and I am curious to know if it will influence some skills that are closely related. No Intelligence. To be honest, I was not expecting intelligence to make an appearance in KAP 6E... but I would have liked it. I generally like when attributes serve as a base for skills (or influence them) and many skills could have been influenced by APP or INT and a number of them by DEX and CON. Again, I am just stating a preference, not really a critique. There is a plethora of things that seems to have been tweaked and I generally like them: How Passions work More general Weapon Skills Horsemanship limitation Brawling and grappling and brawling damage Parries with weapon other than shields Bonuses on damage and parry based on how you use weapons (2-handed vs 1-handed) First aid based on healing rate Segmented armor There are also a few things that I did not care about: 20(+x) annotation for skills. It looks ugly on a sheet, make the game look more complex than what it is and feels unnecessary. As expressed above in this thread, players will have to deal with skills + bonus that will bring them over 20. People will naturally internalize 18+5 as 23 and they will need to know what to do with that number. It is no different than having a skill of 23 on your sheet. SIZ/KD and CON/MW annotations on the sheets. Again, it clutters the sheet and makes the game look more complex. I suspect these two features might be specific to the QS but hopefully they will disappear for the full game.

Colour me curious and interested. Haven't played SuperWorld in decades but as I remember, it would need quite an overhaul to compete in today's market. Solid base though...

Yes. This is pretty much what I meant by: ... you just said it better.

Oh no, not at all. Your comment made me think about it a bit more and I came to realise that maybe having players choose "options" on specials or criticals might be too cumbersome for some groups. Perhaps repurposing already existing RQG mechanics (the "Aim" mechanic for an aggressive close and the "Disengage" mechanic for a more defensive close) might be an easier solution. I agree with you, Mythras approach is more elegant in that matter if only because special effects are all built around "choose an effect based on your level of (relative) success". It makes the system very coherent.

If by that you mean having effects on specials and critical that can be something other than "do more damage", than yes, I suppose. Not sure why it would be clumsier than how it works in Mythras (we were already doing that as a HR back in the good old RQ3 days) . If having options on specials/criticals is potentially confusing or time consuming for players, than the two other options (successful Parry/failed Attack or attack at half % at SR 12) could work better. Another (easier?) option could be for a fighter to spend a MR successfully defending against the longer weapon fighter to slip inside their defense (basically using the Retreating rule but to close the distance instead). To be honest, what I like about using the "Aim" mechanic and the Disengage mechanic is that it uses already existing mechanics and combining both gives both an offensive and defensive way to achieve a closing maneuver.

I think Bill meant that people tend to just play every round like the first one but that is not how we ever played before so I say the Barbarian is WRONG, WRONG I SAY!!... or maybe he is right...

Well, I've never played that way

Something I also considered. However, taking into account the additions in Rune Fixes, there are not a lot of tactical options that are still out of RQG. Closing is an obvious omission and another one I can think of is unintentional knockback (that I would only also on crushing weapons). Of the top of my head' I can't think of any other significant omissions and add special damage per type of weapon and multiple defenses (which I like). Unless my memory fails me and more is missing.

Hmmm... you are correct. I interpreted it one way but it could also be interpreted as "an extra attack". I don't believe it is the case but it certainly could be. The Q&A seems to be silent on this.

This is also my understanding.

Ah, for a moment I thought you were talking about something along the lines of Opportunity Melee (RQ3 Players Book p.59). Correct me if I am wrong but even the last bullet does not really "trigger an attack of opportunity". It is simply that if your opponent tries to attack you, you cannot defend (it is not giving anyone an extra attack). Correct?

Sure but abstracting the move by taking an extra 1 SR is doable. Even if mechanically movement is tallied before we start counting SRs up, everything happens at the same time. In any case, I was less refering to re-introducing the exact same mechanic but more alluding to reintroducing the option of closing and reopening the range. In fact, given how RQG works, I'd rather use another mechanic. Without thinking too much about it (so they may be flawed), a few options could be: a) On a special (or better) attack or defense, a character can choose to close (or reopen the distance) instead of the usual benefit (if a critical, downgrade to special) b) Stealing a page from Aim, a combattant declaring they are attempting to close (or reopen the distance) delay their attack to SR12 and roll their skill at half value c) On a succesful parry against a failed attack, a combattant close (or reopen the distance) instead of damaging the attacking weapon d) A combination of a), b) and c) are in play.