• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Atgxtg last won the day on December 16 2016

Atgxtg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

299 Excellent

About Atgxtg

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Well, I sort of figured out after awhile that I could generally ignore hits of less than the locations HP value in play. I'd just track arm injured, disabled, etc. If a situation arose where a NPC got "nickeled and dimed down" in a particular hit location, the players would usually notice it and speak up, in which case I'd respond, "Oh, yeah, that right. He'd the guy that got hit already in that arm/leg/etc." and upgrade the injury It worked out remarkably well, and saved me a ton of bookkeeping-especially for those "thirty per-centers" that the PCs were going to overwhelm shortly, anyway.
  2. I don't believe it is really all that different. You still tracking the wounds but in a different way. much like how some AD&Ders used to add up damage taken rather than mark down hit points.
  3. No even the bookkeeping is the same, because you do need to know the total damage that a given location has taken. The "NOTES ON DAMAGE RESULTS" actually distinguishes between locations that a character is functionally incapacitated if a limb takes 2x it hit points in damage from a single blow, but not if it is accumulated over multiple blows. So you would still have to track those pesky 1 point hits.
  4. No there wasn't, but the way the RQ2 rules are worded in both the rules and the examples, it doesn't actually state that you do. Which is kinda interesting. Now, here's the thing- if you ticked off hit points per location, or tracked thresholds, the results appear to be exactly the same.
  5. In the section RESOLUTION OF MELEE (pages 13-14 old bood, page 19 Classic Edition PDF) it states : 1. If the attacker succeeds and the defender does not, the defender takes damage in the hit location rolled on D20 as above. Plus the tick off hip points on most of the RQ2 Character, Animal, NPC, Sqaud, etc. sheets wouldn't make any sense it you didn't tick off damage to a location. So I think you are supposed to tick off hit points )down or up_ to keep track of damage to specfic locations so they can be disabled, maimed, etc. For example, if someone with 3 hit points in his arm, keeps taking 1 point hits (past armor) he will lose the use of that arm after taking three hits there, but he can't take more than 6HP of damage to that arm.
  6. quicktstart

    I suspect that might be a bit of pandering to the crowd, though. One of the problems I've had with running RPGs over the years is that a lot of players who have played D&D come in with certain expectations and preconceptions, which causes difficulties when running something that isn't like D&D. Professor Barker probably ran high magic/high powered adventures becuase that was what would sell.
  7. quicktstart

    I think you went a bit overboard. There are quite a few RPGs out there that are more deadly than RQ now. It's not 1980.
  8. quicktstart

    It might. It would be a pretty huge change in the magic system that's been with the game since the beginning. Part of the appeal of the Battle MAgic system was that is was very simle and playable. Changing it to some sort of dialog with a NPC spirit that the GM has to keep track of would add some complexity to it. And, frankly, I'm not sure if it would make all that much of a difference in the long run. Eventually I'd think it just boil down to the PCs telling the GM they'd like a Bladesharp now, or some such. They are judged on more than just their trueness to Middle Earth. The are factors of fun and playability to consider as well. As far as "trueness to Middle Earth" actually goes, it's not all that cut and dried. There is a lot of gray areas where we don't know exactly how things "really" work in Middle Earth where various game designers try to fill things in as best they can. For example, are there only five Istari? Is Glorfindel really the same Glorfindel who died fighting a Balrog in an earlier age? We don't know for certain. Tolkien did change his mind on some things, and didn't explain or reveal other things. But all "skill-based simulationist systems" aren't the same. RQ and GURPS play very differently. Bladesharp 4 in GURPS is far more powerful than it is in RQ. It can turn a knife or dagger into a real threat in GURPS. GURP's parry mechanics also make a big difference, as does the way GURPS handes hit points and damage. Hits that would probably leave somebody dead in RQ are often quite survivable in GURPS.
  9. quicktstart

    Consider the other viewpoint, though. It they changed the game radically then it wouldn't be RuneQuest anymore, and a lot of people would feel cheated. RQ IV: Slayers and MRQ are good examples. Both made some major changes to the game mechanics that didn't fit with RQ. In the case of MRQ, they made some changes to runes and cult affinities that practically blew their Glorantha stuff out of the water before it began. For example, in MRQ Storms are chaotic, so Storm Gods have an affinity with the Chaos rune. That seems fine for a generic D&D style of game, but doesn't make any sort of sense in Glorantha. Orlanth with a Chaos Rune affinity is just wrong. Becuase two different games, especially when thier approach and game mechanics are so different will never work out quite the same. Best case scenario would be that we'd end up with a RQ that was mechanically closer to HQ or vice versa. But the "lens" we look through will distort our view of the world. Take a look at the several Lord of the Rings RPGs, Star Wars RPGs, Star Trek RPGs, the various incarnations of "RuneQuest", and so on. While all the LOTR games are set in the same world (Middle Earth), they each are different and do things differently in game mechanics terms. The same with all the Star Wars, Star Trek, and RQ games. It's unavoidable since they are not all the same game. And if you used GURPS you'd get a very different game world and feel than if you used RQ. Even though you were trying to model the same game world, the GURPS mechanics would influence the final result.
  10. quicktstart

    Yeah, that's got a big Y-rune on it. I think by now it's common knowledge that RQ didn't exactly mesh with how Glorantha works. That sounds like what they did with that Group Patron Spirit thing they did in HQ. When you formed the group the Spirit got a few abilities, depending on the size of the group.That wouldn't not be a bad thing to add to RQ, either. Or to expand upon so that it could cover other types of spirits. But I suspect that it would be considered too radial a departure from the existing rules.
  11. Somewhat. It's pretty much a given that after a point the Greeks no longer actually believed in their Gods and they were regarded as the stuff of a good story or allegory.
  12. Umm, I suspect that isn't quite true. It's pretty close, though. I think it is probably more along the lines of any GM/group can probably adapt any rule system (or genre) to their style of play. Some systems might be easier or harder to adapt to a given system, but that also depends on just what things a given GM and/or set of gamers consider to be important, and what they don't. In the end, it's the GM that is running the game, and the system is just a toll that aids them in doing so). I remember years ago I was running the first Doctor Demento adventure for D&D at a convetion and one guy brought in a character written up in Traveller, rather than AD&D. Since I was familiar with Traveller, and since the adventure is pretty much a total farce, I ran the adventure using Traveller rules for him, and AD&D for everyone else. It worked, partially because I could adapt things, but mostly because the group knew not to take things too seriously and just played things for laughs. Maybe. It depends on how much you have to add on or take off. For example, If I wanted to run a campaign set in Medieval Europe, I'd probably find it easier to start with RQ3 and tweak the background, magic, and equipment a bit to suit the setting, than to start with BRP and bolt on stuff. Then again, with the BGB, I would have to throw out a lot of stuff, too, so maybe that wasn't the best example. Okay, how about this, I used to use RQ3 to run a Young Kingdoms campaign, because RQ had a lot of stuff that Stormbringer lacked.
  13. I think the thing is that we thought that while the weapon would absorb some of the damage, the rest would continue on to hit the character. I'm pretty sure (i used to to positive, until a couple of posts ago) that is how it works in RQ3.
  14. Yeah, that's what I said, then I looked it up. Sure enough on the first page of IV: COMBAT SKILLS (actual page varies with edition. It's page 19 in my old dog-eared copy of RQ2, but page 21 in my "Classic Edtion" PDF) it states: A weapon which parries a critical hit will take twice the damage it would take normally. If the attacking weapon is a long-hafted weapon or an impaling weapon, the parrying weapon takes no damage, as described in Chapter III. Now in Chapter III it does mention the bit about long hafted weapons, the bit about impaling weapons seems to be unique to Chapter IV. And I'll admit I never noticed that before. As for the rest, well, I haven't played any RQ2 since RQ3 came out, so I suspect I've forgotten some of it (I never remembered the bit that a successful shield parry against a critical brought armor back into play).
  15. quicktstart

    Ah, so what you want is for the Shaman to persuade or coerce a spirit into casting a spell for them, right? If so, that would be an interesting take, but not the way things have worked. As it last stood (RQ3) the Shaman would summon a spirit that knew a desired spell, then use spirit combat to get knowledge of how to cast the spell from it.