styopa

Curiously, the link on his page to SPQR is a 404 error. IIRC SPQR simply used DEX as your initiative (or if you preferred it randomized, 2d6+DEX). You counted down from that. Doing "something" generally took 10 Dex, so you could act again at your Dex-10. For spell casting Sorcery cost 1 point per mp, spirit magic 3 points per, and divine 5 points per. That's about all I recall. I didn't ever buy it myself.

Let's be clear, I'd pay my $ right now in advance for a published copy, if that means getting on a list to get the draft ones as pdfs until the final one is printed and shipped. Pretty sure nearly everyone here would do that.

Oh I'd entirely disagree. There was a rather significant difference in results possible. We used that hit loc table for missiles, thrusting weapons, and spells (where needed) making the choice of such weapons/attacks a more tactically interesting one... /unsurprised it was dropped, however.

#1 I don't know what that version of the rules say, but Crit parry vs Crit hit (or Special vs Special) should be treated the exact same way as normal parry vs normal attack. #2 Contrary to the "Glorantha is Bronze Age in every way" folks, I only believe that applies culturally; YGMV. IMG warriors don't wade into combat with plethora of weapons on the expectation that every couple of parries their sword will be junked. IMG (generally) a parry 1 success level better than the attack can do 1AP damage to the attacking weapon if parrying weapon damage exceeds attacking weapon AP. A parry 2 success levels above will do 1AP always, plus 1AP per attackers damage mod dice (min 2AP); A parry 3+ success levels over the attack means parry weapon damage is done as AP to the attacker's weapon, minimum 3AP. #3 I like either of your alternatives. If SR really aren't time-ticks as everyone seems to insist they aren't meant to be (but pretty much they end up being that), then it doesn't really matter. If the SR is the same, the higher dex attacks first, and they both get to parry anyway whenever they get attacked. If SR & Dex are the same, I'd let them both attack and parry at the same time and apply all results simultaneously as a rare coincidence result. (Then again, if you use fixed SR as per RAW, I guess these same 2 combatants are likely to get that same result over and over until one's dead so not so rare, once it happens.) #4 you're exactly right. The RAW RQ2 rules make shields far too weak & hard to use. Personally, I believe it basically impossible for any arrow to penetrate a sturdy shield and do material harm to the shieldbearer. Carrhae wasn't a failure of the testudo, it was a failure of tactics and a nearly-impregnable formation proving that you never ultimately win on defence (the 'nearly' being the key word there). Shield failure has more to do with not blocking the arrow, than being too flimsy to stop it (unless you're going on about wicker shields, which had more to do with compromises around weight/fatigue than protective value). Your point about the unification of attack/defense skills (and the in-play consequences) is absolutely valid as well. #5 SR0 problem: frankly, I find the entire SR system RAW backwards as hell. I know they're not going to change it for me, but the "SR get smaller as you get faster and larger" capping at 0 at relatively puny values is just dumb. Sorry Steve Perrin, I love the game deeply but think you totally boned the math on that one. The idea that a SIZ 22 has the same reach as a SIZ50 is silly. Dex 19 is the same as DEX35? A 2m greatsword has the same reach as a 40' pine tree? This would be the chance to really fix it, but because of a desire for backwards compatibility, it'll never will be officially. This is our first and most prevalent HR, and we count DOWN through the SR of the round. #6 parrying damage does to "adjacent" location: logic dictates, but I tend to assume shield arm for a shield. For a weapon, parry I'd say it realistically could be anywhere but for simplicity's sake, we use parrying weapon arm. It does sound like the rules still need a fair amount of testing/clarification for a product only 3 months from publishing? Considering the melee combat rules are about the most time-tested and easily understood systems of RQ in general (we've had some of these nearly-same discussions on the Glorantha digest what, nearly 3 decades ago?), that honestly makes me a little nervous about other less-well-tested mechanics that are being introduced in RQG for the first time or nearly first time.

It would actually be a fairly interesting, and useful adjunct to the rules to have a place here where DMs and/or players could upload in some sort of standard format (I'm rather confident that once the game comes out, if Chaosium doesn't immediately release fillable PDF charsheets, someone will) their NPC or PC characters of all levels of power as examples to new players (I'd use interesting ones myself as nicely fleshed-out NPCs personally, although likely the names would be changed to protect this innocent).

Jeff just mentioned in the other thread that he expects people will "play it as written" - maybe stasis is appropriate? Or EDIT: that's a lot bigger Eurmal than I intended.

Slightly edited to make it more correct. I'm almost certain that my group will initially substantially prefer the rules we've been playing with for a decade or more. I'd wager that's going to be most groups' experiences, it's just human nature. HOWEVER, I've already been clear with them that we will be porting to RQG* as our base rule set simply because I personally want our group to be open and welcome new members. Part of that is running a living game system, not a 34-year-old rule set that has been houseruled to infinity. We want new players, and part of that is - if they enjoy what we're doing - that they can go to their FLGS and buy a copy of the rules for themselves. I'm an unabashed evangelist for RQ. This is much harder if the basic rules aren't available to everyone. That is in a nutshell my fundamental motivation for supporting RQG. We'll try to absorb and adapt to the new paradigms as best we can. Nevertheless I expect that I'll still have gobs of houserules. Still, that's far better than where we (my group) are today.

I was actually going to post that picture.

Easier doesn't mean it's only important 'on the fly'. It means it's easier. So if I'm populating an adventure with 50 different humanoid creatures of varying size/toughness, knowing their arms are all 0.25 their hp and legs, abdomen, head are 0.33 their hp, etc is going to make that (let's be honest) painful monster-generation process a *tiny* bit simpler. That's a bad goal? RQ2 resulted in too few body HP, and too many limb HP on large creatures. I don't believe it's absurd to think that a 7 ton giant should be a TPK machine to people dumb enough to melee him. RQ2: 28 hp total, chest 11, arms 9, everything else 10. RQ3 (IIRC): 42 hp, chest 17, arms 10-11, everything else 14. Bigclub is THREE STORIES TALL (9m) He's SIZ 69. On a human proportions (yes, setting aside physics) he's 15,000 lbs. Firstly, the idea that he's got body hp (28) double that of a decent adventurer is...well, sorry it's silly. The only reason he's tough in SPH is because he (conveniently) has +10 AP skin. Without it? A single good special arrowshot to the head kills him. Secondly, (and more importantly) because the RQ2 location hp mechanics go up linearly after a point, the damage proportions between limbs/core get all whacky making limbs intuitively too tough relatively. For a normal 10-12hp human, chest is 5, legs/abd are 80% of that (4), and arms are 60%. For a Bigclub, his legs are 90%, arms are 80%...and he's not even that big of a giant. But what that does mean in RQ2 he can be nearly dead from one completely-mangled limb, where in RQ3 he'd be at about half...like a human. And sorry, the "well there are magic dragons so why bother about realism?" response is ...weak. Why do we have bigger weapons do more damage than smaller? Why is a STR 18 toon able to lift more than a STR 6? Why is there gravity at all since characters can fly?

We DO have a different character sheet that we use, but without it, we use X as skill checks, and ' as ticks. Works simply enough. Lot of words there above for what amounts to a pretty simple concept: players can possibly keep learning how to do something even though they've done it once already.

If the Yelm cult in Dragon Pass has one set of runes, and the one in Dara Happa has all the same but one is different (because of theistic interpretive differences), what happens when a worshipper from the former tries to recover a spell that is tied to that missing rune at a temple of the latter? Sounds like a Judean Peoples Front vs People's Front of Judea situation to me.

Absolutely yes. Each 1h implement could perform an action, with the toon constrained to 2 in total. So a 2h wielder could attack & parry, or attack & dodge A 1h wielder could (attack OR parry) and dodge. A dual-wielder could attack with both, parry with both, attack and parry, attack and dodge, or parry and dodge. We saw that, but disregarded it. Yes, I recognize that beat-riposte is a rather common thing in fencing, but we (not just my choice, but my players' as well) felt that removing that constraint took away some tactically interesting choices. If a player made a big deal out of wanting to be a duellist with rapier (asserting a Renaissance-style rapier, not the bronze-age-only-recognized-by-sword-claddistics-nerds "rapier") I'd have been easily swayed to the idea, just not allowed parry and attack in the same SR. Looking at them from the RQ3 unamended pov, dual wielding gives them the ability to use that 2nd action as an attack if they forego any self-protective action. The cost, of course, is that as a parrying implement IRL that small offhand weapon is pretty crappy compared to a good shield.* *setting aside entirely RQ2's truly baffling assignment of 20AP to a shortsword, nearly double that of a medium shield...

Ha ha, I find it amusing how many similar house rules we seem to have adopted. Here's the section from our houserules on checks, "ticks" and improving skills. (Checks, Ticks, and improving skills): If you succeed at an ability, put 1 check by it; if you get a fumble or special success, 2 checks; if critical success, 3 checks. These checks will be used later for one experience roll on that skill, for each check. Further successes/fumbles/specials/criticals (s/f/s/c) add checks only if it’s an increase to what you had already. Otherwise, if you roll a (s/f/s/c) and already have checks to the appropriate quantity, you get the number of ‘ticks’ instead. Ticks will be used to enhance your experience rolls, so there is always a good reason to keep using a skill, even if you already have checks. All checks and ticks are cleared after the 'experience check' process; you cannot save them for later. (Improving Skills) When the GM determines you’ve had enough rest to contemplate what lessons you may have learned, he may declare that it’s time to perform experience rolls. For each skill that you have a “check”, you get an experience roll. An experience roll is a % roll vs your current skill (base+modifiers, but NOT including your category modifier, such as Agility). Add your category modifier to the roll, if it exceeds your (base+modifiers), you have learned something and you may choose to add 1d6% (or 3%, your choice before rolling) to that skill. If you have multiple “checks” in a skill, you may perform multiple rolls sequentially. TICKS are used to improve your experience roll. Accumulated ticks may be spent: Tick Cost Benefit 1 tick +1% to a specific designated experience roll (i.e. to make failure more likely) allocated before any rolls are made 4 ticks +1 to a single d6 skill-gain roll, allocated after any experience rolls are made. (You may buy as many of each as you can afford with the ticks you have in that skill; note that all unspent ticks are cleared anyway…) For example: Rurik has an attack modifier of +8%, and a sword skill of 82% for a cumulative 90% chance to hit with a sword. In combat he succeeds, and notes a check on his character sheet next to his Sword skill. Later, he manages a special success, which would give him two checks, but since he already has one he only gets one additional check (now he has two), the other unapplied check is recorded instead as a tick. In a subsequent combat, he succeeds two times. Since he already has two checks, he cannot gain more from ‘simple’ success, so he gets two ticks instead. Finally, he fumbles – this again would give him two checks (yes, you hopefully learn something from huge mistakes….if you survive) but he already has two checks, so he gets two more ticks. Finally, when he gets back to town and is enjoying a celebratory ale, the GM rules he’s entitled to take his experience rolls. He has two checks, so he’ll get to roll twice. He has five ticks, so he needs to decide how to spend them. He chooses to spend them all (since he can’t keep them): one as a +1% to fail on his first roll (he must designate which when he spends the ticks, before he rolls), and four as +1 to the d6 for a skill gain roll. He rolls his first experience check. He needs to fail against 82% (note his attack modifier is excluded). He rolls a 76 adds his attack modifier of +8%, and another +1% for the tick spent = 85%, a failure! When rolling the +d6, he adds that tick skill modifier he bought, and rolls d6+1 for skill gain, rolling a 4+1 = 5. His Sword skill is now 87. He rolls a 12 for his second experience check, which is not a failure, and gets no skill gain. His checks and ticks are all cleared from his character sheet and he’s ready for the next adventure.

We play based on RQ3, where if you have a 1h item, it can EITHER be used to attack or parry that round. So no, if 1h weapon is used to parry, it can't be also used to attack in that round. A 2h item can be used for both. What I was curious about was your comment about riposte, ie it sounded an attack following up a parry as sort of a special maneuver, particularly the limitation of such a maneuver to a specific subset of weapons.

Seconded. Sorcery is the only magic system that wasn't in RQ2, the RQ3 version was "much reviled" by the powers that be, and we've seen only the vaguest hints about it. Very much looking forward to seeing the new implementation.

Pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere that the rules PDF will come out in Nov, the book(s) in Dec.

Nicely put. Again, I'd say that while this makes for a fascinating Campbellian exploration of the variability of the monomyth, and an insightful setting for the poly-cultural heroes journey... ...it's going to be confusing as hell to anyone who isn't already invested in exploring it. Frankly, while some people may find such metaphysics exhilarating and challenging, others find it exhausting, pointlessly complicated, and irrelevant. Some people just want a fresh setting where they can play an RPG with their friends. I'm not saying Chaosium should water down Glorantha to make it some insipid flavorless Greyhawk clone, but I do feel that for commercial viability there has to be some place for a newbie to find a conceptual footing amongst the quicksand. I feel a little bit like some (not implying you) prefer a Byzantine-flavored Glorantha, where every grubby fishmonger has a violently defended opinion on the triune nature of God. Will there be a shallow end to the Gloranthan pool where new explorers can splash about and simply have fun without worrying about drowning?

Agreed; essentially you're just saying YGMV at a metaphysical level and that makes perfect sense. Even more if you've ever actually met Greg. THAT SAID, and not to get too deep into game-theory weeds, what we're scratching at here is the fundamental dichotomy that is not only yet unresolved, but highlighted in a new edition of RQ that more than ever intends to embrace/internalize Glorantha: Runequest, as a game, is widely regarded historically as a more mechanistic, 'crunchy' (I know that has a lot of meanings, not all of which apply), reality-based set of rules. (Particularly if you're using D&D as the normative centerpoint.) % to hit, hit locations, skills instead of classes etc. all combine to suggest a mechanics-heavy game. OTOH Glorantha conceptually is fluffy, nebulous, relativistic, dynamic, and indeterminate. It's Schroedinger's role playing setting. How one bolts those two things MORE TIGHTLY together than before? That's asking a lot. This specific discussion is a perfect example. I understand your point, I understand Jeff's point about even nailing this stuff down being a sort of God-Learnery exercise in the first place. But if one is putting out a GAME, and a SETTING, there have to be some constants. This isn't FATE CORE rules, this is Runequest. I'd argue that the critically-important Runes of the head of one of the core pantheons is fairly significant. If a customer grabs RQG and says "sweet, this is cool; I hear there's this MASSIVE sourcebook out there, greatest thing ever I should buy that too?" and then is told "well, yeah, but because Glorantha is wibbly-wobbly changey-stuff, some bits of it don't really apply" what does that say to that consumer? Really, now's the time to lock that stuff up wherever if can be found, and make the "new RQ" as tight and cohesive and consistent as possible.

Where is that? Not arguing with you, I'm just not that familiar with that rule. Now you have me very curious. I don't remember anything like that granularity about that, specifically the comment about "how the parry occurred" - not even sure what that means? As Jason explained elsewhere (hell, maybe in this thread), the QS rules were based on the draft rules that were available January; they have been seriously polished/revised since then. Some revisions seem to have even come from the course of debates here, which is gratifying that Jason has proved that Chaosium welcomes general discussion and doesn't just stonewall issues of real concern "that's the way it is, tough noogies". Not that they should listen to *all * the blather here; it's a message board meaning 95% of the consumers don't even see it, and those 5% who are here can be pretty fractious.

...which I'd rather hand to Chaosium for more actual game materials. Not to discourage vendors making such stuff, but that's why I'm not their market, either.

cf either a copy of the draft rules from Gen Con, but even that's a "draft". Otherwise, you find out in November when the rest of us do (unless Jason jumps in, as is his wont occasionally), but even that doesn't necessarily mean it's graven in stone until the rules are published.

Not to mention that we, as players of an RPG, sort of mechanically REQUIRE that the gods be 'assigned' runes for play....at least from the QS, the runes are pretty fundamental now to spell casting, etc? In fact, I believe that was one of the key goals of the new design. Besides, while it's the general consensus in Gloranthan culture that what the GL's did was wrong (in a moral sense), I'm not sure I've seen anything that identified what they did as actually, factually mistaken...in fact some might point out that it largely worked was validation of their theories, hmm? Inconsistencies do hurt the Guide's claim to infallible authority in all things Gloranthan, but it's probably humanly impossible to make sure everything is exactly consistent in a work of that size and a setting that (we hope) will continue to grow and thrive.

I think you're misinterpreting it? Note that the Orient Express was the (IIRC) last in-process publication of the 'old' Chaosium. So it may well have been started with desperation in mind. However, when the new (old) crew took over, it was AFAIK an unfulfilled kickstarter - authors hadn't been paid, the project was way behind and in a shambles. So the new(old) guys stepped in, they put in their OWN $ to push it out the door and fulfill all those kickstarter backer's expectations. They paid the authors. And they made a marquee product that said "we're not screwing around". Nice writeup at http://geekandsundry.com/cthulhu-company-kickstarted-itself-to-death-then-this-happened/ And it is a magnificent product. The gimmicks weren't included in lieu of content; I don't know that I've ever had a single RPG product that had MORE content? 1100 pages. Something like 9 LBS of books? Nah, I really think it's not at all how you're perceiving it. Do I think the current management would commit to such a project? I'd have said no, but with the Guide and (I think?) they're associated with Sandy's Gods' War kickstarter, I don't think they'll shy away from high price-point products. I don't think there's any doubt people are getting what they pay for, either.

From passports to luggage tags, it is amazing; http://diehardgamefan.com/2014/01/10/tabletop-preview-a-look-at-horror-on-the-orient-express-ancillary-and-add-on-items-call-of-cthulhu/ Hopefully they're priced competitively; Iirc you can buy "random assorted foreign coins" on eBay for about $5/lb.

So you're saying a weapon *should* be able to strike and parry in the same round?