DreadDomain

LOL! It explains my concerns then! ? Even then, you don't consider any of the changes in RQ3 to be an improvement? Skill categories is an easy example. RQ3 avoids point break in characteristics and make characteristics more relevant to skills which are IMHO good things. I have no issue at all with using RQ2 as a foundation but sticking with RQ2 rules and not considering improvements from other editions just to stick to the 90%/10% mantra just seems wrong to me. I will reiterate. I will buy new RQ if only to show support. I can only hope I will be blown away by the new edition as opposed to "oh, this is a good game from the early 80's with 10% good stuff bolted to it".

Fair enough, we simply have different preferences. If I would have to rate RQ edition for its rules (that is ignoring physical quality of the publication, arts or flavour) from worst to best, it would look like this: RQ4 aka MRQ1 RQ1/RQ2 RQ3 RQ5 aka MRQ2 RQ6 So RQ2 would definitely be in my lower half. Again, make no mistake, I do not believe it is bad, not by a long shot but IMHO, in several areas, RQ3 did improve on RQ2.

No surprise at all. To be fully honest, I am a bit concerned that the decisions of the design team might be a bit too much driven by nostalgia. In my opinion, the unbroken things RQ3 fixed, were nonetheless improved compared to RQ2. However I do agree some new rules were less than good (fatigue, which I ignored). I have high hopes for new RQ if only because some new features (passions, runes, character creation) look very promising. However some decisions taken (like skill category bonuses) are just... concerning. I don't know, maybe I am just a minority here....

Good thing we have Mythras! I believe it can beautifully cover the ancient feel and the S&S feel.

Of course! Crosspollination from the broad BRP family is another good reason that I should have mentioned. What are Legend supplements that you consider a top notch resource for Legend or any BRP tupe game? Are the Xoth supplement worth it? From a rule perspective, do you believe Heroic Abilities are a definite plus compare to Mythras?

What a great advice. Mostly the same for me. Even when mechanics changed between edition, having the GUI mostly the same really does help backward compatibility. In actual play, no issue at all, only an aesthetics preference I suppose.

Guys, Participating to the bundle made me wonder about Legend and its appeal to the fans. Given that RQ6 and now Mythras is Pete and Loz direct refinement of their work on MRQII and Legend, what makes you choose Legend over RQ6/Mythras? Price (1$) might be a reason, or familiarity (already satisfied with Legend and didn't bother to switch) but I am more interested to know where you believe Legend is better than RQ6 from a rule perspectice? Thanks!

My first impression is very positive. I generally like CoC7 even if it is lighter than what I usually like but I think the level of crunch is adequate for the style of play. I simply can't get used to the % characteristics. I just don't like them.

To use Pulp Chtulhu, do you only require the Keepers book or do you also need the Investigator book?

Hmmm... nah. OQ is just too minimalistic for my taste. I'd prefer Mythras Imperative...

... and the drawback influencing skills insignificantly unless at very high characteristics value. I personally believe that looking at the tables in the books way more cumbersome than adding two CHAR. I would have preferred to have skill categories based on 2 CHAR.

Thanks very much Jeff. You are not kidding, the new RQ is really shaping up very closely to RQ2! So far I love the additions but I am a bit wary it's going to be too close to RQ2 for my taste (and yes, I believe RQ2 was great for its time). Anyway, waiting with a strange mix of wariness and anticipation. I suppose the worse that can happen is that I will buy the book despite the rules (buying is pretty much a foregone conclusion)...

That's the main issue. I have a strong suspicion that if Chaosium kept refering to it as RQ next, new RQ, Chaosium's RQ or RQ Glorantha, a number of acronyms might have seen the light of day but RQ7 would be prevalent and no one would have spontaneously thought as RQ4 as a logical moniker. But Jeff wants it called RQ4. He is the designer of the game so more power to him. The problem is he seems to insist. He explained a few times why it should be RQ4 and he even wrote a designer's note on it. The fact that he needs to explain against a strong logical alternative should be a strong clue that all of this is very unnecessary. BRP is already fragmented between many different options. One of these option, RQ, is fragmented by people wanting RQ and Glorantha joined at the hip, those who are against it, those who will prefer Mythras. Do we then really want to create 2 camps for the new RQ, those who believe RQ4 is a dumb/confusing/illogical acronym and those who don't care?

Thanks guys, I thought Jeff said the new RQ was built on the RQ2 chassis with maybe 10% new stuff ( keeping everything that wasn't broken). 2) RQ3 category modifiers are fine. I slighlty prefer CHAR+CHAR because influence on skills is greater. 4) I would have prefered the Resistance Table to dissappear but again, not a deal breaker. 5) I slightly prefer combat style over weapon skills. All of this is fairly minor compared to the addition of runes, personality, passions, background based character generation (all positive for me) but I'm still curious. Now combat... that part worries me...

Guys, I know the next RQ is supposed to be 90% based on RQ2 but I was wondering if the design choices regarding these topics were shared/known ? 1) In RQ2, INT AND SIZ are based on 3d6 for humans. Is it the case for new RQ ? 2) What about how the characteristics influence skills. RQ2 category bonus? RQ3 category bonus? RQ6 CHAR+CHAR ? 3) How will CHAR rolls work ? CHARx5% or with characteristic based skills like RQ6 (brawn, influence, etc.) 4) Will the Resistance Table be used ? 5) Will combat skills be weapon specific or combat style ? Thanks!

And that is my main concern about the new edition. Everything that I have seen or read so far implies the old combat experience (attack, parry, attack, parry, attacy, parry, crit, dead) will be retained but will be enhanced and made interesting at higher levels by having opponents thunderbolt and sever spirit one another. While I have no issue with these new possibilities (this is Glorantha after all), I'd like the game to provide for non-magical tactical combat maneuvers that other games provide (Mythras, GURPS, etc) to scratch the pseudo-historical hitch as well. There are reasons why I haven't played RQ2/3 in the last 20 years and while I generally like what I read about the new edition, the combat experience that it will provide makes me very nervous.

And providing combat rules without non-magical tactical options is like providing a chicken sandwich without bread ?. My point is even in a world infused with magic, fighters would still use tactics like disarm, feint, trip, etc... RQ, at least for me, was always a game where tactics mattered, at least compared to contemporary games (RQ was more tactical than AD&D for ex.) and RQ6 really epitomized that trend.

As much as I like what read so far, this is my real worry. Despite the drop of combat special effects and the focus on magic, I hope there will be interesting tactical options in combat (you know, disarm, bypas armor, compel surrender, feint, etc...)

You have the pdf? Did I miss the distribution of the pdf?

Stop stealing my words!

Oh, I am not expecting in to be just a cleaned-up RQ2 (actually I would be dumbfounded if it was) but it is still quite strange to state the new game will be based on an edition 30 years old when there is a live edition that is quite excellent. As for communication, they apparently haven't learned from last time and were not prepared with a timely press release especially when it was so obvious a "the few sentences" uttered would generate a massive traffic of speculation and outrage. For me, the jury is still out. I will wait and see what CRQ will be made of and I am more than willing to be pleasantly surprised by the new developments brought forward.

Personally I am very disappointed that : a) Chaosium RQ won't use RQ6 b) BRP won't benefit from the developments from RQ6 (IMHO RQ6 is better than RQ3 which is better than RQ2) c) Chaosium's decision will further split BRP d) RQ6 will lose the RuneQuest name On top if it, the RQ2 kickstarter becomes quite strange and awkward to me. I don't have any need or real desire for the reprint of RQ2 but pledged anyway based on nostalgia but above all to show support to Moon Design. Now I'm pledging for an old game that will 6 months later be republishing in a new format and simply cannot support the latest decision made by Chaosium. Before I saw the news today I was considering adding to my pledge to get the unlocked books but now I need to decide if I won't just withdraw my pledge altogether. I will take a few days before I decide and will probably decide to keep my support even though this KS doesn't make much sense for me anymore. So far I made no big deal of all the quick changes made at Chaosium because I assumed they where simply trying to get a better understanding of the hand they had being dealt. This last reversal makes me believe they are truly embracing their namesake and manage through randomness and chaos. The only silver lining is that Pete and Loz will retain control of their work.

Bought! Thanks for bringing Stupor Mundi back and thanks for bringing it to RQ6!

Voted but BRP is still second 20 votes behind FATE (61 to 41)

As alluded in my previous post, I'd favor a new edition using RQ6 mainly because I would trust Loz and Pete to produce the definite version of the game capable of delivering both worldshaking type of adventures as well as low powered sword and sorcery struggle in the YK. I am very pleased by what I have seen from DM so far and RQ6 is, in my opinion, the most polished BRP game out there. They would have my support... although I don't really believe it will happen...