styopa

In 381 the nature of Sorcery consistently odd formatting?: It is the most conceptually flexible approach to Run eQuest magic and later a subject to be expanded upon in future Run eQuest supplements Missing s: Through the expenditure of magic point—often considerable amounts should be Through the expenditure of magic points—often considerable amounts p382 editorial comment: odd that you discuss Zzabur's Sigil, but don't illustrate it? Particularly when there's forgettable "filler" art on both this and subsequent pages? The whole Elemental Runes/Power Runes and their interrelationship could have been MUCH better illustrated by reference to the lovely art from the GtGV1 147-150? In fact, I'd offer those 4 pages as a downloadable pdf, they're SO much more useful than the text description... p383 Rule question: learning any technique lets the sorcerer cast its opposite (only) for 2x mp costs. But as the techniques Command or Tap instead instead open ALL other techniques for 2x mp, it seems that for maximum flexibility any fledgling sorcerer would have serious incentive to learn command or tap very early. Is this intended? p385 clarification: "The caster must be able to physically or magically perceive—or otherwise know—the precise location of a target" ... what does "or otherwise know" mean? If a human sized target was hiding, say, in a closed barrel, a caster could still target them even though they're not visible?

They're in the DL section too, but the download links don't really give you the visuals, which sucks. Here they are as direct uploads. Hopefully this gives you thumbnails on png's.

This thread is precisely why (I hope) it's a great idea to release the PDF early. Let your mob of slavering fans flush the typos for the final version you send to the actual printer. MOB is this going to be actual hardbound or perfect bound in the printed version?

P437 wealth reads:: . Divide RQ2 Lunars (L) by half. . Divide RQ3 silver pennies by one-third. This should read . Divide RQ2 Lunars (L) in half (or "by two"). . Divide RQ3 silver pennies by three. Dividing something by one third will triple it.

(moved to correct thread)

I've uploaded 3 desktop-wallpaper excerpts (1920x1280) in full resolution and colors from the preview drops: 1) is the latest Snakepipe fight. My favorite, you really see the detail the artist put into the work - the blood spatter, etc. 2) is exploring the ruins 3) are the trolls from exploring the ruins. Enjoy (or, MOB, if you're not ok with these being up, just delete)!

My favorite was the anecdote of the monk who was offered the holy skull of John the Baptist. When he said he'd already seen the skull of John the Baptist back in Europe, the seller assured him that was JtB as an adult, this was one of when he was a child.

Thanks MOB. Can I say that I love the art, while at the same time immediately feeling that anyone going into RQ combat (*ever*) without a helmet is an idiot? Sorry. Just like wearing pteruges, when there's no reason to do so, frankly.

I've often considered how well RQ would work in the Malazan setting. I thought they beautifully (and rather darkly) illustrated the intersection of normal people and astonishingly powerful heroes.

I'd almost argue it goes there naturally, the more you push toward realism and not magical Mary Sue heroes that solve the problems. RQ combat is brutal, and it wouldn't take much of a group of broo to turn your average bronze-age village - even one somewhat alert to the dangers - into a horror scene that would make HP Lovecraft or George Romero blush.

IMHO Roll20 would have been a better mechanism. Fantasy Ground has a CRAPTON of customization options ...but you have to put in the preptime, which didn't really seem to be in place for this.

Splitters! Respectfully, The Char-Un Peoples' Front

It's a big point. D&D elves and other nonhumans are little more than people with masks on. They still have completely human motivations etc. Gloranthan elves and dwarves I tend to run as more than a little menacing, alien creatures (much closer to Norse and old Celtic norms of the Fae). Trolls are easily presented as voracious, but it seems in particular with our background in Tolkien, the 'darkness' of elves can be particularly jarring for players new to the setting.

Single pages sure, but single column might be a pretty optimistic hope, considering that tables likely span multiple columns.

PDF in a matter of days, hardcover by GenCon, per Jeff tonight.

Not impossible, but unless it's really totally in the can and done, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I think they're being rightly cautious.

Yeah, I know. Never the twain shall meet. I know you're not really serious but I think that view is kind of common - particularly for older gamers. Personally, I think that's is regrettable. I've gotten some great adventure ideas, to say nothing of terrific screenshot graphics for setting, etc even abilities and magic items inspired by the various MMOs I play.

Remember that Rune Affinities are binary, summing to 100 so if A and B are paired, A might be 70 while B is 30. Generally, I can't imagine you're going to have less than 50 in any Runic Affinity your character cares about trying to augment with. Critical Success: On a critical success, the adventurer adds +50% to the chosen ability for an appropriate duration determined by the gamemaster. The Rune gets an experience check. Special Success: On a special success, the adventurer adds +30% to the chosen ability for an appropriate duration determined by the gamemaster. The Rune gets an experience check. Success: The adventurer adds +20% to the ability being augmented for an appropriate duration determined by the gamemaster. The Rune gets an experience check. Failure: On a failure, the adventurer subtracts –20% from all further rolls using that Rune until they can spend a day meditating on the Rune. Fumble: On a fumble, the adventurer immediately loses –1D10% from the Rune (which results in a corresponding increase in an opposed Power or Form Rune) and is overcome by psychic turmoil. This turmoil might last for a few minutes or a few days as determined by the gamemaster. Consult the Psychic Turmoil table for the duration. During this time, the adventurer cannot use that Rune at all (including Rune magic based on that Rune). The adventurer must even avoid acting in accordance with the Rune during that time (I presume a fumble is ALSO a failure, although it doesn't explicitly say so.) Mathematically, I'd guess the breakpoint for it to be "worth it" to try is actually somewhat UNDER 50%...42? 43? At 50% chance, you'd have a 50% of +20, a 10% of +30, and 3% of +50% for a net potential plus of around 14-15%, and a net potential negative of 50% chance of -20 or net of -10%, so +4-5%...the odds of something beneficial are clearly in your favor even at 50%. As one of my players already pointed out, if he really wanted to drive his favorite runic value up, on his 'off days' he'd try repeatedly to augment using its (low) opposite Rune in hopes of a fumble and a nifty +1d10% gain to his preferred rune.

Yep, I just meant toon as in the video game vernacular: a character.

"Casual Use of Runes" seems confusingly written and inconsistent? 1) the example seems like it was written for a single toon, and then expanded to 2 toons? "Vasana and Vishi are confronted when she tries to enter the Earth Temple in Prax. The priestess Varaneena asks her to demonstrate her loyalty to Earth..."? 2) more importantly, the example doesn't at all seem to represent the casual use of runes as previously described, ie to help choose what action the character pursues? Finally, personally, the entire section could be much more simply and concisely presented in a "Players unsure of what to do in a given situation may certainly roll against their highest rune affinities to help decide their character's course of action." - it really rates no more of a mention or explanation.

It's just a different place on the spectrum between realism and speed/convenience. I'm honestly not sure why so much effort is being made to try to insist that it is what it isn't. It seems like there's a lot of pain in admitting that RQG is a nod toward simplification and speed of resolution - that's NOT a bad thing! RQ-previous (where the attack and parry abilities were tracked independently) was a different place on that spectrum. A 76-location hit location table with a meticulous DEX-based impulse-sequential action table where each SR represents 0.1 seconds of actual time would be deep on the realism side...and it would take 4 hours to resolve a simple 1-on-1 combat. For some people the realism is literally the most important thing. For general playability though, even though I tend to be a realism buff, I recognize that's NOT going to be interesting for most people. Most people want to actually play an adventure, not spend all day Saturday resolving that one 6-person combat. RQ3 had a severe problem with that, particularly in large-number combats. I personally prefer the skills separated BUT if unifying them is the 'sacrifice' I personally have to accept to have a new living game system? I can cheerfully go with that.

Even sorcery? There you go, the most detailed rpg hit location table ever. Iirc it was d1000.

I do hope there's a fair bit more clarity on the whole iconic 'tatooing spells' thing. After all these years I never quite got it. Is that so it doesn't occupy INT but you have to use your MP? Is it an enchantment with its own MP? If it's skinned off someone, is it gone (or is it more mythically engraved on a person's being)? Could someone else use the skin? What if it's on an arm that's lopped off? Do you have to be able to see it? Could it be covered up and thus unusable if you wore a longsleeve turtleneck? Could one be on your back? In your mouth? Sole of your foot? Tattoos fade, do these eventually go away? How big do they have to be? Does the person casting the spell somehow give the tattooist the spell to implant? Is there a limit to how many tattoos one can have or where they can be?

I'm not sure it's fair to paint (today) Chaosium with (recent) Chaosium. All I can say from my experience is that they labored mightily to fulfill commitments made by their predecessors, but didn't really have to except to try to recover the name's reputation. That's laudable. I can certainly agree that former Chaosium had some serious problems. But I think we need to let this be their first big launch. I mean, perhaps they're being vague on release dates SPECIFICALLY to address your difficulty: not hitting released dates? I think it's going to come out as fast as they can get it out the door.

Meh. I get your point and agree with most of it. But as a practical approach to a game that's going to be sold to human beings with lives, I personally believe you HAVE to make some concessions vs canonical purity, if only because your players want to imagine as they play, they want to visualize. The consistency of that visualization between players and between the players and the dm goes a lot toward the verisimilitude of the setting. The more of the setting one can take as 'given' (or which can be painted in broad brushes anyway) the more time can be spent playing rather than describing. If the GM has to explain what every house looks like, every torch sconce, every nuance of social organization, or use different words for common things, I believe that builds a barrier that makes the game harder for the broad swathe of players to enjoy (no doubt some will actually prefer it because of the in-group tribalism such a learning curve provides). This is precisely, in my view, where Tekumel failed; an absolutely engrossing, fascinating deep-dive into a completely novel culture...that was really hard to relate to and thus remained unapproachable for many. (aka the "Jorune" effect).* Glorantha verges on it. I dunno, maybe Chaosium have long-since crunched the numbers and decided that serving a dedicated (profitable) niche market is better than trying to appeal to the RPG LCD? Leave D&D to the masses and RQG to those willing to put a little more effort in? It's certainly an approach. *tbh I don't think it's fair to say Tekumel failed precisely; I don't think MAR Barker's goal was commercial success. I think he did precisely what he wanted - serving a niche that satisfied him personally was enough.