DreadDomain

In this scenario, would you rule: 1) the attack be a "free unopposed" attack (before SR starts) 2) the attack takes place during SR order If 2) what happens if Vivian would run past Jon before (earlier SR) than Jon could attack? One could assume that because Jon is not moving and stated he would wait that he would attack whenever Vivian runs past (her SR). The counter argument would be that Jon might be too slow to get in position to attack her. (It reminds me on a house rule we had in RQ3. We could rush an attack by 1 or 2 SR earlier at -25% per SR.) Edit: forgot to say what I would rule. The attack would happen during SR order. Vivian would get to Jon in SR dictated by distance travelled and speed of movement (I may be missing something but I could not find running or sprinting rules in RQG. I would assume runing at 2xMove but defense if attempted at half skill and sprinting at 3xMove but no defense allowed). If she gets at earlier SR than Jon can attack, tough luck, he is not quick enough (but would consider a rushed attack). This example also brings up a question regarding weapon SR. In this case, because Vivian is running to Jon weapon lenght just not have the same impact and Jon should not be slower if he has a dagger as opposed to a sword.

And if Jeremy was himself engaged with another opponent, he would need to "flee" which I believe would give an unopposed attack during the movement phase. Without a grid, a lot would come to what was described previously and the theater of the mind. 1) Can Jeremy intercept Phil on the way? 2) Will he meet him just as he reaches Tom and get to attack first (lower SR). 3) Will he get there just late (higher SR) but just in time so he can parry for Tom. Lastly 4) Maybe he can't intervene in time. I believe you are confusing Jeremy and Phil but in essence, it describes situation 1) above. Question. If Phil decides to parry, would he then become engaged and thus intercepted before he can reach Tom? I believe so. In situation 2) and 3) above, I believe Phil, Jeremy and Tom would all end up engaged irrespective if Phil tries to parry Jeremy or not since they all end up in close proximity. If any would try to flee, they would attract, I believe, an unopposed attack from their opponents during the movement phase.

That in itself is a good indication of two things I believe; the brand recognition of RuneQuest but also your communication strategy, more specifically during the few weeks prior of the release. I believe you have done a good job at building anticipation (and of course, the quality of the artwork could only help raise interest). Have you any datapoint regarding how well RQG is doing after two weeks compared to how CoC 7th has done in a similar period? CoC also has a good brand and that would potentially be a fairer comparison.

Yes, I think it sums it up nicely. I am myself prefer RQ3 over RQ2 when it comes to combat (and more). I have no strong opinion about SR 12 or SR 10 (except that with SR 10 it is much easier to figure out when long actions will happen) but I always prefered to liberty of performing actions in any order each taking a certain amount of SR. I am not sure this is what you refer to when you talk about pseudo-impulses.

Clearly the design team had different play experiences than mine. My experience is the exact opposite and in our games, we have seen countless disarm attemps, specifically in duels or when the desired outcome of a combat was to capture or humiliate the opponent. So disarms, aimed blow, knockback, knock-out/stunning attacks are all important, and frankly fairly standard, maneuvers for my play experience. As it is currently, I find the combat options in RQG lacking. Hopefully the GM book will provide more meat. Not saying Chariot Combat and Phalanx Combat are not cool though. By the way, I appreciate the insight of your point of view on the matter.

And frankly, this is refreshing. I do not always agree with all the decisions made and might find some comments and answers irritating at time but in the grand scheme of things the level of communication and the marketing approach have generally been spotless. Well done!

That's a good way to look at it! Things I miss from RQ3: Skill category modifiers - if only because introducing breakpoints in charateristics is not a great design. Not has much as an issue when you randomly roll the characteristics but players will certainly train to get to 13 or 17. The formula for location HP) - RQ3 made a lot more sense as a % of HP Disarm attempts - This is such a basic maneuver, it deserved to be in the Core book more than say Phalanx formation. However, I am glad to say the GM book will give us more combat options (combat is my main/only disapointement in RQG) Melee rounds of 10 SR - if only it is easier to figure out when something taking 47 SR will occur (4 whole MR plus 7 SR). It also has the benefit of disconnecting SR and seconds (a 12 second MR divided into 12 SR) Things I don't miss from RQ3: Fatigue Points ENC penalties to spell-casting chances Sorcery skills as casting-chance limitations POW sacrifices for specific castings of divine/Rune spells One-use divine/Rune spells for initiates Things I might miss later but so far don't: knockback for attacks doing damage > SIZ in melee - mainly because I haven't paid attention yet to which one works/plays better The formula for Hit Points - mainly because I haven't paid attention yet to which one works/plays better The missile hit-location table - neat but not a real deal breaker Separate Attack and Parry skills for weapons - neat but not a real deal breaker Weapons having AP instead of HP - mainly because I haven't paid attention yet to which one works/plays better

Hmmm, there was a few good ideas in Rêves de Dragons. You just gave me the urge to crack open the book again...

Thanks for the insight Jeff. It pretty much aligns with my suspicions. My thinking was that RQ6 and AiG could have been used as the base for the new RQ but it would have meant sacrificing part of the vision Chaosium had for the new game. The decision was made to maintain the integrity of the vision. What is the Greg's material you are refering to? When you mention @too many of our changes", is it a reference to how character creation will be integrated with the background and how the runes will be integrated with characters? I expect these two features to be the highlight of the game (from a mechanic perspective, see below). I was quite happy to see an "advanced preview" of RQG and I hope the feedback you got guided you to make the game even better. My personal reaction to it was fairly positive with some "darn they kept that rules for RQ2/3 as is.." here and there. I am a bit surprised that you qualify the announced release dates as "arbitrary guess-timate". Although release dates are probably approximate at best, I would have believed publishers would announced said dates base on "informed planning" and "best available information". That being said, based on what was previewed so far, I expect production value, specifically art, to be the other highlight of the games and I certainly prefer the quality and content to be top notch over "being on time". It certainly is refreshing to know that Chaosium now has the financial resilience to delay a product in order to make it the best it can.

Strangely enough, RuneQuest is probably the game that I have house ruled the most but also, in the 90's, the game I was basing on my house rules to other games. Aside from that, I played many games by the book (Pendragon, Rolemaster, Talislanta, TDE, etc.) and have played both HERO and GURPS as is for decades. Of course it depends what house ruling means. I personally do not consider house ruling: 1) hand waving (making an executive decision during a game instead of chasing the exact rule in the book) 2) choosing an option in the game instead of another ('the velocity damage rule is made to be easy in play but can be unrealistic at high speed, if you want more realism, use this table instead...") 3) not enforcing a specific rule in a game ("guys don't bother about status/endurance/psionics/whatever, it won't be very important in this game") Examples of house ruling that I have done: 1) rewriting how the SR pacing works in RQ 3 to make it more tactical and blow-by-blow 2) changing modifiers for combat maneuvers in RQ3 to make them fit into the above 3) adding cultural characteristics modifiers in my Glorantha game (inspired by RQ Viking) 4) adding 3 attributes in MHR and also using d5, d7, d9 and d11

I would put it on the count of over optimism or over enthusiasm. Since the beginning announcements have been made and then reversed and dates and plans have shifted. "Pete Nash and Lawrence Whittaker are on the design team! Wait, no they're not, welcome Jason Durall. And the game will not be based of RQ6 but on RQ2/RQ3 like we have been saying all along. But the game will still be released for Christmas 2016. Actually no, Gen Con 2017. Well hang on, end of 2017 would be more realistic so let's release a quickstart mid 2017. Darn, finally our big release will be Gen Con 2018." I believe making the decision to use RQ2/3 as a base instead of RQ6 and the already written Adventure in Glorantha simply inflicted a lot more work on them and since then, they have been doing their best to produce and release as quickly as possible. Please note I do not say this decision was good or bad, I simply observe what I believe was the impact of that decision. The quickstart was released at a time when they still believed they could release the books (at least electronically) by the end of 2017 so in that context, it made sense. In my opinion they have made some strange decisions along the way and Jeff has made a few statements that rubbed me the wrong way (but again, I will put that on over enthusiasm on his part) but I applaud Chaosium's commitment to communicate through the process.

5th position is not bad. Sure I feel, RuneQuest and Glorantha back together should top the ten games listed but there was some tough competition. I suppose it doesn't help that we almost had Glorantha rejoin RuneQuest about 2 years ago (Pete Nash's manuscript) and then were suppose to see a pre-release version of the new RQ at Gen Con 2016 and that we are now hoping for the book to be released at Gen Con 2018. Still, I expect it will be worth the wait and that RQG to be the best Glorantha game ever.

Is there a reason the poll Is now closed?

I mostly ignored ducks and if I didn't, I definitely used the name Durulz and a visual that is more akin to the one we saw in Hero Wars rather than the Daffy Duck analogue. Another option could have been the barbarian Platypus that is floating around on the web (less the tail). Just search for barbarian platypus on Google. I mostly played Glorantha in RQ3 so my Glorantha was more down to earth and grittier, very much focused on politico-religious conflicts and searches for ancient mysteries. Magic was less gonzo (no Wind Lords were flying around) and there were no focus at all on the metaphysical. EDIT I should have added that my Uz are less big hungry savages and more big hungry creature of darkness. Secretive, patient, a bit more sophisticated, scary...

I didn't realised. I went with RQ, Paladin and Cortex.

Yikes! Not easy as there are quite a few good games. Aquelarre Cortex Prime Paladin RuneQuest Sentinel Comics RPG Warhammer It is NOT a no brainer!!

Ignoring setting, my favorire RQ so far is Mythras/RQ6. 1) Characterisrics influence skills in a non clunky way (char+char) and because they are divided between Common and Professional, only basic skills can be used without experience. 2) Better magic systems (different feels yet streamlined) 3) Combat with tactically meaningful choices where, depending on special effect chosen, other skills beside the combat skill influence the outcome. 4) The addition of traits if it floats your boat 5) Rules to support more than fantasy (Firearms, Luther Arkwright, M-Space, Spaceships). The scope of Mythras is simply larger than the other RQs Again ignoring setting I suspect RQG will be better on the Personality/Passion side and maybe magic but that's it.

Glad to hear. In the Quicstart the description of how strike ranks work while in and out of melee really smelled of clunkiness.

Based on previous comments and design notes, my confidence level in how combat will be handle remains very low but I am highly confident in how integrated to Glorantha the character creation will be. When I see Andrey's intrepretation of Glorantha, I am blown away. I now have very high expectations regarding the production value of this book!

Out of curiosity, does the progression stay the same or does it flatten after SIZE 90?

@Paid a bod yn dwp thank you for the link to Jason's post and subsequent explanation. From what I have read so far, it makes sense but will wait to see the final product before passing judgement. My biggest fear right now is that RQG will be a fantastic product from production value, character creation and setting integration perspectives but compared with more modern games, like say Mythras, its combat will feel outdated and clunky. While Jason alleviates some of my fears, I am still not 100% convinced especially in the light of how multiple attacks in melee will work. I thought it was clunky and artificial in the 80s and it still feels that way today. However, I do not want to jump the gun and maybe it will make sense within the whole ruleset.

@David Scott, thanks for the breakdown of character creation and subsequent clarifications. I still hope against all hope that the RQ2 skill modifiers won't be used as is (I am sure easily house ruled to something better) but everything else looks very very promising. Thanks again.

I personally do not care at all about the logo used for the Quickstart and prefer the new logo. I agree it would look good with some red.

Hmmm, good point. The 1 party per SR might not make sense. I'm sure dropping it won't break the game.

Just wow! If there is something I have very high confidence in, it's production quality. I'm very much looking forward for the book.