styopa

Phht. Just a lack of imagination there. aka the "German Wheel"

Curious that the conversation is about $75 for the basic campaign setting being too high a price point. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe it was economically reasonable considering what they were going to include, but - if that was the case - as the lowest-tier-that-you-get-something-physical then they just wanted to try to include too much. Of course, you might even be able to charge that for a finished product, but people backing a KS product expect to be getting a discount for a product because there's an implied risk-investment in the format. So my real reason for even bothering to comment on this...do we know what the price-point for RQG is going to be yet? I admit, I'm slightly concerned. (Not for me, I'm one of the guys that's going to buy it pretty much regardless.) For those keeping track, IIRC DMG was $18? $20? in 1980, I think RQ3 boxed set from AH was $24? $24 in 1981 is about $60 today. Damn, I feel old.

I think it's pretty clear (at least by implication) that the wands are always at the corners of the protected area? Increasing the area by stacking would, I think, only allow the setup to cover a larger space (ie by moving the wands further apart), not allow the protected area to span beyond the wands physical locations. I think the fact that it's always 4 runes (granted, nothing says that they have to be a square) would suggest it's primarily an Earth thing. Earth + Stasis would be a nice symbology suggesting a protective box with a dome atop. Or, one could of course flavor the spell to taste: A Yelmic warding might be a single rune-stick, that casts its 'fence of protection' out in a (light/fire/sky) circle. A warding that might be especially effective against chaos might use 3 sticks in a triangle (Law) shape.

So his protection could be obviated by someone leaning briefly against one of the wheels (giving the cart a little wiggle)? Seems like a bit of a glaring loophole in his protective expectations.

I did say "...that could be comfortably revised to usefulness...". ...or so says the current retcon, anyway. (shrug) Since sorcery was introduced in RQ3, it was always presented as an entirely different worldview from that of the 'spirit/divine' magic paradigm. Setting aside the volumes of metaphysics it would take to reconcile the explicitly a-theistic approaches of sorcery to theism in the first place, the section of Strangers in Prax regarding Arlaten made it pretty clear that non-sorcerous society views any such 'atheists' with rancor and suspicion, to say the least. Yet we now have LM's having cheerfully been using sorcery with abandon? Perhaps someone heroquested successfully to make that "having been always so"? Sounds like a pretty God Learner-y move to me. Obviously you're going to write (have written) the rules the way you want them to be. And I do look forward to seeing it. Stepping out to the meta-layer, I found that there was a very nice set of costs/benefits (which all required player choices) provided by the exclusive separation of methods. Spirit/Divine had its convenient, easy hedge-magic feel, backed then by extremely potent, quick divine spells which were expensive to get from a player perspective. Sorcery was an entirely different approach that provided much more flexibility at the price of speed and MP cost. It'll be interesting to see how you guys have reimagined that in this version.

What's leaving me so conflicted on the new Sorcery is that: - I liked RQ3's sorcery system default version (warts and all, I felt it was a very solid structure that could be comfortably revised to usefulness - it may have been an ugly house but it was firmly built with a good foundation), and - I disliked very much the 'Saints' thing it turned into (for me, that just got too deep into a sort of Glorantha-Digest-y navel-contemplating lore-frenzy), and - I'm even *less* enthused about the current retconning of sorcerous societies and particularly the concatenation of sorcery into LM...that's just wrong to me (I find it curious that Loskalm and Snodal were, AFAIK, the very *roots* of Greg's writings on Glorantha, but seeing them implemented in-game has been such a painful flip-flopping Odyssey) , but - looking forward to the mechanics very much. How messed up is that?

I think that's a bit harsh, given how little info we have on it (unless you have a copy of the draft rules)? I think all we've gotten so far are sketches and summaries and IMO particularly with Sorcery (actually typed Sourcery....been playing too much Divinity 2), the devil's very much in the mechanical details.

The funny thing was - and I've never, ever seen this mentioned - that THAC0 didn't actually represent the AD&D to hit tables mathemetically. Sure, the AD&D tables do increment one step per AC until you get to 20, which is repeated 6 times. THAC0 as a concept made lower ACs *much* harder to hit. Thank God for %-based systems.

Fwiw, your two statements quoted above aren't mutually exclusive although it feels like you meant them to be? Not sure what you have against the term compromise? Of course it's a compromise between all the varying needs the new game has in its title: "Gloranthan role playing game rules" accurate, but pretty dry and doesn't connect at all to the runequest ancestry "Runequest": well that would be the simplest, and as I understood from the earlier conversation, what will actually be printed on the book(s)? But considering there are 6 other games with that title, that would be confusing to new buyers. "Runequest 2.5" is probably the most precisely correct, but is pretty unwieldy and frankly a little grognardly-off-putting. Not sure if that is even a term. "Runequest 7" while it is technically the seventh version, for all the many good reasons mentioned here and previously, this wouldn't serve. "Runequest Glorantha, abbreviated RQG" is a great name, marking this as a clear NEW edition, not simply an outgrowth of a much iterated series, it simultaneously emphasizes the intrinsic connection with Glorantha. So yes, of COURSE it's a compromise between all the compelling needs a games name has to satisfy. One might even be so bold as to call it... a Great Compromise.....eh?

At least we finally get a peek at the new Dr Who?

I'm going with that. We don't have to pay you a residual, do we?

On the internet, you can link to pictures to show people what you're talking about.

Not precisely true? Nobody called it RQ4 afaik except Chaosium, and they did so until it was rightly called out as arbitrary and worse, confusing. Hell, these forums contain a fair degree of denial from certain quarters that the rules needed to be called anything but "Runequest" in the first place. RQG is a great compromise, illustrating that it's a new fork better than just calling it a rather dull RQ2.5 (which is probably the most claddistically accurate), and identifying it as a newer "more perfect union" between runequest the mechanics and Glorantha the setting. Of course, historically, when we inevitably move on to the next iteration, it WILL likely be serialized with its cousins: "well, MRQ was really RQ4, MRQ2 was five, RQ6 was actually six, and RQG which was actually seven" but by then we'll be at RQ-infinity (get it, a stylized sideways 8?) and nobody will care about G/7 except hoary old grognards unable to move forward with the times.

Yes, the $1.50 or whatever for a pdf is certainly fair.

"Pledge $38 - the full set of models for the Broken Tower Adventure, this is a 25% savings over the full price." So...full price for the figures for Broken Tower (a "free" adventure) is basically $50? Er. OK. They're damned pretty, but no wonder I don't buy figures. FWIW standups for Broken Tower print beautifully on cardstock (I use the big binder paper clips as bases) https://basicroleplaying.org/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=1557

It's called RQG (for RuneQuest Glorantha). In a sort of Byzantine (or Lancastrian, depending on your preference) set of twists, while is it in fact the SEVENTH recognized descendant of the family line, MRQ, MRQ2, and RQ6 have all been declared ignoble bastards not eligible to inherit the throne, and thus the new Runequest has been baptised as "the Fourth," RQ4 or, due to a fair amount of grumbling about nomenclature and de jure rules of succession, settled on RQG. The rules you link to there for the quickstart will give you a taste, but were a rather quickly-cobbled presentation of the rules AS THEY EXISTED IN BETA FORM around Jan 2017. They are supposed to be released Nov 2017 as pdf, Dec as book (we all fervently hope) in a likely significantly-polished form with some relatively substantial changes from the January version, I expect. But it will give you a feel for where they're going, the role of passions and runes, and a taste of some of the truly outstanding artwork being deployed to make this RQ a solid reconnection with Glorantha the Setting.

Different settings, different systems. Makes perfect sense to me. It's just a different tack than the trail Chaosium used to blaze. The former Chaosium paradigm was that BRP was a simplified version of RQ, and the other systems (CoC, Stormbringer, Superworld, etc.) then were outgrowths from that but obviously effort was spent trying to keep them relatively close to the root system. The intent, evidently, was to have as common a set of rules as possible. Commercially, it doesn't seem a bad idea to give your customers a very low barrier-to-entry to your other product lines, I'd guess? Then again, while it sounded logical, maybe that was fundamentally a stupid idea - after all, capitalism didn't smile Darwinistically on former-Chaosium? The license-your-rules-out ecosystem did work pretty well for WoTC and d20. Hell, that alone could arguably be the seed-idea (their doing it, not Chaosium's) for the entire modern RPG Renaissance. Curious, that.

Aside from the fact that whips really were never used as an actual weapon, of course. Sure, they're used in crowd control, as an intimidation tool, and maybe occasionally (mainly due to nothing else being available) as a tangler attack on limbs - but actual weapon? Really, never. Take a guy with a knife and a guy with a bullwhip 50' apart, and I'd lay 100:1 that the knife guy destroys the whip guy, almost regardless of expertise. Sure, the knife guy might get some nasty whip-cracks and 'burns' but that's hardly even lethal damage unless on the odd chance he happens to catch an eye.

Agreed about the disparity, but GENERALLY RQ has disregarded the inherent variation in vulnerabilities for wood vs metal weapons, or wood-hafted. It has pretty much completely disregarded type of weapon too - for that matter, a thrusting weapon parrying ANYTHING shouldn't really do much of any damage to the attacker, ever. RQ2 *did* recognize and account for it, but since then it's been largely ignored.

That's the sort of thing that's ripe for houseruling to-taste, frankly, but could lead to additional complication for a rule set for groups that don't really want that crunch. For example, one might houserule that simply wielding a weapon (vs fists) is about enough distinction up to 33%. I mean, at that level there's no finesse, no art, it's just the basics of swinging something at a target that doesn't want to be hit. From 34-66%% that skill might perhaps be narrowed to a specific family of weapons - 1h swords, 2h blunt, etc. From 67%+ that skill might be narrowed further to a specific type of weapon - 1h gladius, or 2h long spear. Thus if you were 76% in 2h greatsword and picked up a 2h katana, being of the same family, that katana skill would start at 67%. If you knew no other weapons and picked up a 1h mace, you'd be at 33% to start instead.

As much as I look forward to this and would be/have been the first to fight for mechanics I like, imo this is a big issue with RQG, and with the primary goal of a "new rule set" being 90% Rq2 (or rq3, or any previous version). I know the goal was to not invalidate old stuff, but then again any really new rules set requires that, we live with it and move on. But to firmly set one's stance as looking backward instead of forward (and meanwhile missing an opportunity to harmonize as much as possible with other brp-family rules) will, eventually, be a cause for regret.

Lots of groups do this. For a while we did it by character INT order: statement of intent was from stupidest character to smartest.

(shrug) I personally will miss it, and will likely HR it back. I happen to already have tools that make generating NPC/Monsters with different HL tables for melee missile easy to use. That system will be what I tweak to work with whatever RQG ends up being, most of the HR probably being anti-reversions to the new rules. That said, for new players who aren't those of us committed to decades-old habits and practices, I doubt they'll miss that particular baby thrown out with other RQ3 bathwater. Hell, CoC is a successful game system and doesn't even have hit locations at all. D&D5e players will be stunned enough at just HAVING hit locations.

^ fair point. I stand corrected. Given the number of people that play a game, and the % that actually comment on message boards or feedback to devs, if MMOs are any measure, 100 in the wild = maybe 4 generating comments. :|

IIRC what, 50 copies of the rules isn't much of a cross section of samples? There was a fair amount pretty fundamentally amiss with the QS rules, to the point that Jason delurked in here to mention that it was based on January-beta text and had much changed even by the point of release of the QS....