styopa

Wow, I like that a lot.

It's an FRPG. Zombies are a thing.

Funny, I'd say "just as definitely" that it takes 1sr. We're talking about a divine spell = 1 sr. What's used to fuel it implies nothing about changing that, whether it's MP, blood, or the souls of virgins. Otherwise, it sucks pretty bad as a divine spell.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Imagine, say, a 12 year old trying to swing a mattock. They're barely usefully going to be able to move it, much less harm someone with it.

OTOH, in an absolutely realistic system, I could see it entirely the opposite: strength being the PRIMARY creator of damage dice, with only a relatively smaller proportion coming from (or being capped by) the tool being used. Let's not forget that to some degree (I assume) DM was at least rudimentarily trying to stay aligned with RQ canon - they weren't writing a new rule system on a clean sheet of paper. Ie a lightweight, quick weapon could really only passthrough maybe up to d4 of a strength mod, while a heavy 2h weapon would allow you more leverage and strength applicable, might be able to passthrough up to a 2d6 or 3d6 damage mod.

Olskool, when people succeed at a skill check, is there any learning modifier then for the difficulty? Ie if I pass a formidable scan test, is my later skill check just against my normal scan or is that modified'

Meh, I thought so too for years, but finally recognized that most electronic purchases from reliable vendors will allow you re-downloads or store it in the cloud. If the world is so generally screwed that the internet goes down permanently, I guarantee you'll have bigger problems than "crap, I lost my $20 copy of Cults of Prax!"

Sorry, but I found that surprisingly hilarious. That's always the sense I got from the Chaosium team; afaik they've never disparaged what RQ6 accomplished, and in fact were fairly complimentary of it as a mechanical system, just that in their view it didn't fit where they wanted to go. Honestly that had never occurred to me but was a really good idea. I doubt it was that easy? Certainly I'd agree it was the right decision, but it can't have been easy pushing out production on a flagship product that people are anticipating, missing GenCon, missing that Christmas, etc. I think it's a strong idea to include a lot of art, even though that adds costs and delay; you're putting out something that is the antithesis of the bog-standard, classic quasi-medieval-European setting; that's one of its charms. Concomitant with that is a rather greater necessity to provide whatever visualization assistance you can. In parallel with that, I've always wondered if we could take the utility of the AA Atlas and have glorantha.com host image links people find real-world images that illustrate particular places in Glorantha, for example this could be looking NE along shore of the Sweet Sea (Ssar On Gror), NE of Varkarunan.

IMO "house ruling" is just when the hand-waving happens enough that you write it down so you make sure you're consistent in application later.

In the classical programming universe, "alpha" means some stuff works, some stuff doesn't, and we're still adding features. "Beta" means features are complete, but not wholly functional. An "alpha" version can certainly be playable as long as you stay away from the bits under-construction or not-yet-added. I'd still say the January Draft was likely an alpha- with features still being added. I think my point wasn't that it was unplayable, but the (pretty lengthy) threads in which there were substantial clarifications to the RQG rules as presented showed that it was definitely still "under construction". And parts weren't even present: Sorcery, for example, wasn't even kludged into the quickstart. I'll say it: I'm not sure why they shot their bolt like that? First, it's HARD ENOUGH to boil 128 pp of rules (or whatever) to a 32 page packet; having semi-baked mechanics just makes the 'summary' version a weaker product and less impressive. Second, I'd think (I'm not in the RPG business) the whole point of a free RPG day thing would be to gin up buzz about your game ahead of Gen Con and that year's Christmas season. You get people playing/talking about it, you get reviewers talking about it, you get FLGS interested...and then "BAM" you drop the for-sale version out to fulfill the public interest. In the game I ran I had a lot of interest from the players and quite a few spectators enjoying it (it seemed). There was a palpable drop in interest when I'd said (what we thought at the time) it would be out by Christmas. What I didn't realize then is that we were talking Christmas 2018...next free RPG day, if anything is offered, is it going to be an ACTUAL distillation of the final rules? (ie another different version, at least slightly)? And unless there's tangible copies sitting on the shelves for sale, the question is going to be: will it really be for sale this year? Third, I believe everyone would agree that we already have enough brand-confusion in the "RUNEQUEST" space. Now we're added a half-step of another sort-of rule set* that has to be offered with the caveat that "note that it's not necessarily precisely the same as what you're going to get when RQG finally comes out". *still not clearly available as a free PDF until you get a few clicks into the site, BTW. Odd. Are they deliberately trying to get people to pay for a print copy of incomplete beta rules instead of download it?

I certainly hope so, but haven't seen any official comment to confirm that the zero-to-hero will even be an option - I was expecting to have to houserule that. I personally find the 'starting as heroes' fairly odious. It's the climb that's the interesting bit for my players and I. What's the point of a Skinner box without the reward of growing more powerful? (I recognize that plenty of gamers DO want to just step into a role and play that; it's just not what we want from our game.)

Depends what you mean by 'limb'? Fingers/Toes? Almost certainly, if your life is in jeopardy. Hand/Foot, again, if you're otherwise dead if you stop fighting? Probably. Half arm/leg or more? No, I don't think anyone could expect to continue fighting in that case (I'd maybe give heroic PCs a CONx1 roll each round to do so). And we're talking about melee, really. There are ample stories about men in modern combat fighting (continuing to shoot) heroically after losing a limb. I mean, it's recognized as an extraordinarily heroic thing, but it's possible. But that's just hominids. I could certainly see an 'enrageable' animal like a badger (or honey badger!) continuing to fight missing an entire limb, probably even serious predators if motivated (ie protecting young) like lions, tigers, etc. I couldn't imagine a Tyrannosaur would much care if it lost a forelimb.

...and then just make skill gain above those points quite hard - effectively stat-squishing RQ into its sweet-spot, instead of making the goal of getting your character to a skill level the game doesn't comfortably represent? I can see that. You could even smooth the whole thing into quartile tiers of 'how fast' those skills go up: 01-25 skill, you get a skill check for ANY use of the skill that's not a fumble. 26-50 you get a skill check for any success (as current RAW) 51-75 you get a skill check only for specials or crits 76-00 you get a skill check only for crits 101-125 you get a skill check only for crits, and a gain only if you fumble Of course, this would mean that people would cluster at 50 and again pretty hard around 75. Not sure that's so great?

Yes, I absolutely will be house ruling things in RQG, I guarantee it.

I heard that WFRP completely crapped on their universe/IP in some sort of massive retcon? I'm not a fan (although I've used some of their adventure materials for RQ adventures, certainly) so my knowledge is peripheral. VtM5 I get that - first, I actually thought VtM was a pretty decent RPG, story heavy, with a fairly unique universe. Not the same pedestrian dragons and elves and such. Let's recall that this "vote" was less a survey of everyone playing RPGs, more of a 'who can mobilize their fan base to vote early and vote often' exercise. I wish RQG were higher, truly. Certainly you'd think with name recognition alone we'd be ahead of Kult and Forbidden Lands or whatever it is.

Result http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4763-Here-Are-Your-Official-Top-10-Most-Anticipated-Tabletop-RPGs-Of-2018 Vampire masquerade 5, wfrp4, kult, and something called forbidden lands were ahead.

How do you handle hit locations that have been badly-damaged or severed? Again, my main background is RQ3, but I'd appreciate any input from alternative systems. If the target has, for example, an arm that has 3hp, and has taken 6 (so no further damage can be taken by that limb), we recognized that sort of provided an inadvertent 'hit location armor' to the target - that nasty killer-critical could, if one was lucky (?) land on the mangled limb for ultimately no effect, 'wasting' that crit. In a game with hit-locations and where magical 'props' to durability and pain are frankly common, we recognized this as a flaw. For creatures with many limbs (particularly trivial limbs that don't affect body hp like centipedes) this could ultimately mean a good 40%+ chance of any given strike landing on a meaningless location. So we houseruled this into two categories: - where the limb is disabled but still present: it still 'exists' on the hit location table, and can take strikes. After the limb is disabled, later strikes (whether they penetrate armor or not) do 1hp damage to body hp. Yes, this could result in the faintly-ridiculous possibility that a centipede could conceivably die after like 12 hits on the same limb, but we accept that if the combat is THAT DULL we probably all want it to end anyway. - where the limb is actually SEVERED (in our game, 3x limb hp damage in a single blow, after 2x armor value...so relatively rare), then any hit on that location is re-rolled. I'm curious what other GMs do in this case?

I can only picture the emotional rollercoaster of the player who rolled a 10s dice of 0....and then was disappointed that they rolled a 1 because a special would have been a better hit against that 1-point armor target. EDIT: I was going to put a followup tangential question here about hit locations but started a new thread instead.

The survey's about what I thought it would be, proportionally. I rather suspect that there are at least some RQ6/Mythras devotees that haven't found their way here or seen this, as RQ6 really *did* resurrect the moribund franchise quite handily and has some very enthusiastic fans (hell, some might say overenthusiastic as their tendentiousness prevents them even coming here). Sorry, but the RQG votes are IMO just cheerleading. We don't HAVE a real "game" to consider, just a stunted one-off cobbled quickly together from what, alpha 0.5 edition rules? I'd agree that it's promising but the same guarded optimism that I have for RQG is simultaneously a brake on seriously reviewing it as a product.

Yes, all crits are impales as well (RQ3, at least). Otherwise critical hits are actually WORSE than impales against a target with very low/no armor, and that doesn't make much sense.

That's actually why my first reaction was to reduce the skills but NOT change the special/crit %....because once someone starts getting over 100%, those start to become the only meaningful results.

It specifically refers to "opposed resolution" - t doesn't just mean actions that are opposed by someone else. This is a specific method, which isn't used for combat.

Sounds to me like combat WAS supposed to be an opposed roll, that was revised out and this wasn't caught in the edit. There's your chance of success, from which your special and crit are derived. This percentage can and often does go over 100. Nevertheless, when rolling, a 96-00 is ALWAYS a failure, regardless of your chance of success. That doesn't mean your chance of success drops to 95 (even though it effectively is). Your chance of success remains what it is (and special/crit continue to be derived from that). In the resolution of opposed rolls, if a success chance is over 100, the excess above 100 for the highest participant is deducted from everyone. Here's how I'd rule that. We have Able, Baker, and Charlie. Able has a skill of 140%, meaning special of 28% and crit of 7%. Baker has 120% (S: 24%, C 6%) Charlie 70% (S: 14%, C: 3% I think) If they're just fighting it out, both Able and Baker have skills > 100 so they BOTH only fail on 96-00. The only difference in their combat rolls, really, is the respective differences in their special/crit values. Charlie just has his values as normal. If they're in an OPPOSED roll, then we look and see that Able is the highest skill at 140. So we reduce his by 40% to 100. Then we apply that same -40 to Baker (whose success is now 80%) and Charlie (who's left with a woeful 30%). I don't think this next bit is clear, but here's how I'd rule it: I would NOT change anyone's special/crit values. Able would now be 100/28/7, Baker would be 80/24/6, and Charlie would be 30/14/3. (I think it would probably be more accurate to recalc their special/crit, and I personally would have no issue doing it on the fly, but some might and it would just be faster to leave them as-is. Yes...it means Charlie's special value is nearly 1/2 his success chance, which is...wonky. Anyway, assuming we DON'T recalc values, then in the opposed resolution: Able will get a failure 96-00, a success 29-95, a special 08-28, and a crit 01-07. Baker will get a failure 81-00, a success 25-80, a special 07-24, and a crit 01-06. Charlie will get a failure 31-00, a success 15-30, a special 04-14, and a crit 01-03. At least, that's how I'd see it.

http://www.seiyuu.com/okamoto/writing/campaign_log_2_0.pdf Print it, grab yourself a drink, and sit down for a while; it's a long go...230 pp or so.

EN World is possibly one of the largest non-corporate D&D sites out there. They were huge starting with D&D3 & d20 really, and have relatively recently been trying to re-brand themselves as really more of a general gaming portal. PS MOB looks like you 2x posted this.