nDervish

Seems somewhat limited in use. Especially if the Second Cousin of King Hottentot were to die. Which reminds me of an old April Fools issue of Dragon magazine which included the spell, "Drawmij's Instant Death: When this spell is cast, Drawmij, whoever and wherever he may be, instantly dies."

Indeed. In fact, he says so in this very article: "The first four editions of D&D are not roleplaying games. You can successfully play them without roleplaying." Which I rather strenuously object to because, by that standard, RPGs do not exist. There is no extant game which cannot be played "successfully" without roleplaying, unless you impose a definition of "successful" play which itself requires roleplaying, thus making the definition tautological. ("You cannot roleplay without roleplaying.") I can accept that his central premise is that you should look for rules which help you play the game you want to play and discard rules which don't. I agree with that premise. Aside from that, though, there is nothing of substance in the article that I agree with: I do not play RPGs to tell stories. Chess isn't inherently an RPG, but it can be an RPG, if both players choose to play it that way. His example of "trying to play chess as an RPG breaks the game" doesn't really prove that chess isn't an RPG, it proves that mismatched expectations break games. If both players want a tactical board game, everything is fine. If both want an RPG, everything is fine. It's only a problem when one wants a tactical board game and the other wants an RPG... which is a phenomenon I'm sure we've all observed many times over in games which are designed and sold as RPGs. Gun porn can contribute positively to some kinds of roleplaying experiences. For example, if the PCs are an elite counter-terrorism strike team, the differences between different submachineguns and ammunition calibers are things which some or all of the characters are likely to be quite concerned with, thus it can be useful to use rules which reflect those differences. (Note: I actually read the article some months ago and these are the specific things that stand out in my memory of it. I did not reread it today, beyond a quick scan to locate the "D&D is not an RPG" quote.)

RQ6 Luck Points can also be used to downgrade a Major Injury to a Serious Injury, essentially making it impossible to kill a character by way of normal damage if they have a Luck Point available. Of course, you'll still be pretty messed up, probably pass out, and require extended recovery time, but actual character death isn't on the table until the LP run out. Personally, I think that fits S&S quite well, but others may differ.

Skill gain is actually a certainty in RQ6, presumably because you have to spend IP to be able to roll at all. Roll high, and you gain d4+1% in the skill; roll low and gain a flat 1%. I expect this is to make players more willing to spend IP on skills that are already high, since there's no risk that it will be a complete waste. I prefer the way that the existing rules do this: Add INT (RQ6) or INT/2 (BGB) to your roll before comparing it to your current skill rating. High-INT characters don't get more rolls, but each roll is more likely to increase the skill. (In RQ6, the number of IP gained is affected by CHA, though.) In my house rules for introducing ticks to RQ6, I cover that by allowing players to tick one or more additional skills before they start rolling for skill advancement. (Before rather than after is to ensure that this is used to broaden their skill base, not to hyper-focus advancement of a specific skill.)

Agreed, but it goes both ways. I like to game in worlds that feel plausible. If other people at the table are constantly going off and doing things which would be implausible if the game setting were real, then it's no fun for me. And a lot of the stereotypical tick-hunting examples strike me as implausible.

Doesn't strike me as a problem. I'm usually taking enough notes during play that also noting when the PCs get skill ticks wouldn't be a significant additional burden. I'm currently prepping a campaign that will be mostly-RQ6 (which is an Improvement Point-based variant, rather than tick-based), with skill ticks as one of the things imported from other BRP flavors and I was already planning to track the ticks myself to avoid having to tell players when to tick their skills or risk getting into mid-game debates over it.

I guess that's my programmer-speak slipping out. By "how it will be implemented", I meant what exactly will be done to tie the system to the setting and vice-versa. For example, the generic default D&D setting dictates that armor interferes with the use of arcane magic, which is implemented in the rules via class restrictions and/or armor check penalties, depending on the edition. Of course, I don't expect you to even know things in that level of detail yet, much less to be able to share it at this point.

According to what the public has been told so far by Chaosium and Design Mechanism, the current plan is: TDM is losing the license to use the "RuneQuest" name next July, at which time it will pass to Chaosium. When this happens, the game currently known as RQ6 will be re-released under a new name. TDM has already decided on the new name, but have not yet announced it. The renamed version will be mechanically identical to the current RQ6, but the section on Runes and any other Glorantha references will be stripped out. Chaosium will release a new version of RuneQuest which they are referring to internally as RQ4, but its official name will most likely be just "RuneQuest" with no numbers or other qualifiers attached. The fan base will almost certainly refer to it as RQ7 regardless of its official name. While the original plan was for the new RQ(4/7) to use a Gloranthafied version of the RQ6 rules, it was announced about a month ago that they've changed direction and will instead use a new rules system based on RQ2, but incorporating many of the innovations found in more recent versions of BRP games, including a bunch of RQ6-like things. Some of the statements from Chaosium following this announcement sound like the new rule set will be very tightly coupled to the Glorantha setting, but they haven't said anything that directly states just how strong this connection will be or how it might be implemented.

I don't have extensive enough BRP experience to say whether it's true or not, but the complaint I usually hear is just the opposite, that, as the game progresses, characters become increasingly similar because of the way that skill progression works. You get to roll for improvement in every skill you use meaningfully, so carry a golf bag of weapons and you can roll to improve every weapon; look for opportunities to sneak, so you can roll to improve that; etc. But the roll to improve gets less likely as the skill gets higher, so the people who started out low will catch up with those who started high. Play long enough and (so the complaints claim) everyone will have all the same skills at roughly the same (high) level. I'm sure the complaints are exaggerated, of course. Having actually read the rules, I know about training for focused development and that the GM can shut down players who "tick hunt" too obviously and so on. But I can also see how BRP could be played in ways that make the complaints more-or-less accurate.

As I understand the term, it's not so much a matter of inflexible archetypes as of having special abilities that nobody else has access to. The abilities create your niche, and the exclusivity protects you from having anyone else threaten your hold on that niche. So you can have restrictive class-based systems without niche protection (everyone gets the same abilities, just in different proportions). Niche protection without classes is also possible, but I'd expect to see that as a style of play rather than something enforced by system, simply because no rulebook is likely to have a rule that, e.g., "Only one of the PCs may take Lockpicking and Stealth skills." While all the characters may face the same situations, they won't necessarily address them in the same way. Faced with a locked door, one character might choose to pick the lock, while another might bash the door down, so each of them would then (in BRP) develop their abilities differently, despite having faced the same situation. Note that this doesn't even rely on the first character starting with a superior Lockpicking skill and the second being stronger. I've frequently seen GMs reporting that they've run con games and given out identical character sheets to every player in the game, then watched as every player ran their character completely differently than any of the (mechanically identical) others.

There was a system early on, but, like the initial character creation, it was based on taking 4 years to increase a skill by one level. Something like pick a skill to work on (you can only be working on one skill at a time) and it immediately improves by 1, and then 4 years later the increase becomes permanent. If you stop training that skill for any reason (including, but not limited to, developing another skill), the bonus is lost and the 4-year clock resets to zero. I think there may have also been some kind of roll (vs. EDU, maybe?) at the end of the 4 years before it becomes permanent and, if you blow the roll, you have to wait another 4 years to try again. Obviously, this is from memory and I may have gotten some house rules mixed in with the real ones. I'm not sure whether that was in the original three LBBs, though. I think it may have been added in the next GDW release. (Traveller Compendium, I think it was called? A condensation of the 3 LBBs into a single 8.5x11 book.) This was all too many years ago for all the details to still stick...

Especially in the context of this discussion, I think I'd instead say the main difference is that an expert fighter in D&D is distinguished by his ability to absorb damage (massive HP total), while an expert fighter in BRP is distinguished by his ability to avoid damage (parrying or dodging most attacks from less-skilled foes). This reduces the importance of healing magic in BRP because you shouldn't be taking damage as frequently in the first place.

Although Dark Heresy does use percentile skills, it's not really a BRP-family game. So don't expect too much similarity there. Also, you specifically mentioned whiff-factor and, for whatever reason, my experience has been that that's primarily a complaint people have about WFRP-family games. Offhand, I don't think I can recall ever seeing anyone complain about it as a problem with BRP games. Not sure whether that's due to a difference in mechanics, GM technique, player expectation, or what... but I do know that it's not that hard to create an RQ6 character with one or two key skills in the 60% range, while Dark Heresy characters tend to start with everything in the 30s.

Their recent statements have included stray comments to the effect that, in Chaosium's mind, RQ == Glorantha and the setting and rules should reinforce each other. None of the previous RQ versions of the last decade fit that view, therefore they must create a new edition which does. Some of us consider the RQ6 engine to already be a generic system.

While there are certain cases in which use of a knowledge skill is purely a matter of "can you recall this specific fact?", I would say that description primarily fits things like playing Trivial Pursuit - someone asked you a question in isolation and you either knew the answer or you didn't. In such cases, I agree with you and would not award a tick. However, the more common real-world case is that you're using the knowledge skill to solve a problem with context around it, which means that, by examining the context, you can be exposed to things you didn't already know and establish connections between them. For example, I frequently learn new Swedish words by reading newspapers and seeing those words in context, where I can then deduce their meaning. I made my Language (Swedish) roll (understood the text) and, as a result, gained a tick on the skill (potentially increased my skill level by learning new words, grammatical structure, etc.).

I haven't really been following either company long enough to comment on its accuracy, but there are some people over on the DM forum who seem to be expecting that TDM will be cranking out new releases faster than Chaosium despite their small size. Just happy to be able to say "RQ7" without it annoying Loz?

Well, right, but General Panic was saying that he "do[es]n't really put a value on pdf's", so he presumably considers free PDFs to be meaningless/of no value.

My understanding is that it will be neither "similar to" nor "based on" AiG, but rather "essentially identical to RQ6", based on this post from Loz: "RuneQuest stays using RQ6's mechanics.... Tweaks, obviously, for Gloranthan specifics but we're not rewriting anything. We're too lazy, for one thing."

Except that, technically, the Change Range action only allows you to move to your weapon's optimal range or disengage entirely. If your opponent's weapon has the same reach as yours, you can't Change Range to avoid an attack while remaining engaged. I'd guess the math. I've played with several people over the years who are noticeably slower to determine a result when they have to do even single-digit subtraction.

Most likely just for reading. I've never played RQ2, don't think I've ever even looked inside the covers when it was current, so it doesn't hold any nostalgia value for me, just historical curiosity. I suppose it's possible that I might set down RQ6 for long enough to give it a try, but I have no interest in or affinity for Glorantha, so I don't think there's likely to be any reason for me to do that.

It's in RQ6 RAW that "Acrobatics can be substituted for Evade if the situation warrants it. The benefit of this is that if the roll is a success, the character automatically avoids ending up prone.", so I'd say that option is already covered, no ruling required (aside from how you want to define "if the situation warrants it").

What are the major sticking points with mixing the branches? I'm relatively new to BRP games (currently in the process of trying to set up my first campaign with other people involved, but I've messed around with it quite a bit solo) and finding that I really like the overall feel of MW and the support for a wide range of non-fantasy in BGB, but RQ6 combat is a "must" for me, given that it's the one thing that absolutely sold me on BRP the instant I saw it.

I suspect "went crazy" is referring to the sudden deluge of rampant speculation and concern for the fate of <insert favorite BRP-related title here> that was triggered by the news coming out of GenCon last summer (and occasionally flares back up as additional information has trickled out since then).

I've not seen it show only the old quote, but I have had it insert the new quote into the old one as if it were a reply to it. Edit: This is with a desktop browser (Firefox/Linux), not mobile.

That assumes you open one thread, go back to the list, open the next thread, go back to the list... I open the list once, then click down it opening each thread in a new tab and never go back to the list (until the next day). Using the back button or otherwise reloading the same page repeatedly is something I avoid whenever possible. Also, on my #1 (filtering out uninteresting forums), I tried doing the "follow forums, then set the Follow Status filter to 'only content I follow'" and it didn't work. It showed me nothing at all, even though the badge in the upper right corner of the forum page (e.g., http://basicroleplaying.org/forum/3-basic-roleplaying/) shows "Following". As a test, I also set the other filters to include all content (even if already read) from any time (not only since my last visit) and it still shows nothing if set to "only content I follow". Does "follow" perhaps mean something different in the filter definition than it does on the forum pages (e.g., only recognizing followed threads, not followed forums)? Or it could just be a bug, of course... Steve's suggestion of switching from "All Content" to "Topics" and filtering that way seems to work, though.