styopa

Conceptually, I'm not sure I agree with the premise that restricted and gradual increase in power (the premise of character advancement in pretty much all role playing games) is equivalent to 'occasional access to great powers'? (Hell, that was very specifically one of the complaints about RQ3 sorcery for much of the span of a sorcerer's advancement - that a small chance to do huge effects didn't play nicely or balance fairly with other toons with graduated ability to do moderate effects. Either the sorcerer was useless "click, nothing. click, nothing. click, nothing" or they had too great an effect "click, BOOM BBEG dead, rest of party's contribution nil".) At the very least, I'd believe that makes scenario balancing nearly impossible. Is it a scenario where you believe the toons are going to spend their mighty RPs? Then you better brace the BBEG for all sorts of nasty effects (meaning they're impossible if you DON'T spend/have the RP). Or if they're saving them for the big fight, you have to make it much easier meaning it's trivial if they DO spend the points. Ick. If RP restoration is that rare anyway, aren't we (essentially) back to the point where nobody's going to waste precious rune points (on the lesser-used spells that the rune-pool mechanic was supposed to encourage them to be able to use more often/ever? (Count me as one of the ones who believe the "one adventure a season" concept as fundamentally dull & silly anyway.)

1) note that most decent sized weapons (ie d8+STR damage, etc) are doing a fair bit more damage than a shield (which do a d6, and could very justifiably be reduced to a d4...) so in an exchange of parry damage, it's pretty much more likely that a weapon will cause a -1 AP to defending parry weapon than a shield would in return. (Although I'd say you have an argument when we observe that the AP of a med shield is the same as a broadsword...not sure I'd agree with that intuitively) 2) I'd entirely agree that impaling weapons can be...well, impaled on things (for which I'm certain there are rules in the full version) but you're right that intuitively they shouldn't do more than -1AP ever to a parrying thing...*eventually* they might break something, but not for a long while. I've seen many houserules over the years that get down into the weeds of 'wood and woodhafted weapons take full AP damage from metal, but metal ones take none from wood, or limited from wood-hafted, etc...' but honestly, that adds a TON of crunchy bits for not a lot of gameplay value - even for my deeply simulationist heart.

Exactly the point of my questions...started to do it, then ran into some question spaces. Ie it seems normal att vs normal parry should intuitively be the same as special vs special (implied, but not stated) and crit vs crit (which is explicitly stated to be totally different). So yes, with a few clarifications I'll re-issue the matrix (made with a little clearer consistent nomenclature) here as cutnpaste, excel file, and pdf. It maybe just me, but I find matrices like that much easier to comprehend. But very happy to provide stuff I'm making for myself anyway.

Truly, thanks for taking the time to make that clarification. That really helps. A few questions for me still: 1) so special damage (ie 2x) is the WEAPON damage rolled 2x, and then add the STR mod? The STR mod isn't doubled? That seems to be what you wrote, I just want to make sure I'm reading it right 2) a crit does the special damage AND ignores armor? That seems to be a change from previously? Am I understanding that right? 3) a crit ignores worn armor (it's somewhat blocked by a successful parry), does it ignore magical protection (Protection or Shield) as well or no? 3) I know things were simplified for the QS: Currently in the QS, a dodge fumble only gives the attacker a hit if they missed (ie a att special vs a fumble is still just a special). , Will there be a Dodge Fumble table? Or some other consequence/value to the attacker ie max weapon damage or something? 4) in line with #3, a dodge fumble currently lets the attacker hit if they missed; does this include if the attacker fumbles? 5) one thing that stands out on the dodge results is that a dodge really only succeeds or fails. For example, a critical attack vs special dodge still results in a critical attack - the attack is completely unaffected by the very-good-but-ultimately-not-good-enough? Is that as intended? 6) does a crit/special parry do double rolled parrying weapon damage to attacker's, or just normal rolled (+STR if applicable)? 7) "A critical parry vs. a critical attack avoids all damage altogether." - just to be clear, this seems to be inconsistent with (normal att vs normal parry). As intended? 8) QS rule: "Successful Parry: If the attack is a failure, the parrying weapon or shield does its full damage against the attacking weapon, breaking it if damage exceeds its weapon’s current hit points" - am I right to infer that this has been changed to "Defender rolls damage vs att weapon AP, if exceeded attacker weapon -1 AP"? 9) From above: "When parrying an attack that rolled a special success, the excess damage above the parrying weapon/shield goes to an adjacent hit location on the defender (see page @@) and the parrying weapon/shield loses the same amount of hit points." - even if the parry is a special? Or does it then become like a normal hit vs normal parry? Thanks!

It's really a good scenario. Feels "Gloranthan" while not bogging the players down in too much expository fluff. It's a railroad (which is fine for a demo game), but doesn't feel too much like one. There's a little bit of combat, and a fair amount of opportunity for the players to use their magic. Nice job.

Right. The only way you get that third shot would be to have a SR0 dex or use Mobility (which reduces your SR by 1)

Except Glorantha is bronze age CULTURALLY, not metallurgically. And even then, only limited parts of it are. I mean, if the mechanic works for you, that's fine but I think the RQ3 model felt much better, and people didn't have to tow a cartload of 'backup weapons' to every adventure.

Agree. One could use a hybrid mechanic by saying that a sacrifice of POW for Rune Points would also allow the toon to add that many points of spells to their "list of castable spells" So it's not like 1 rune point adds every available spell for that cult, but one would accumulate a 'toolbox' of available spells.

It's just a demo game, not like the extra toon has to be perfectly rules-consistent anyway, just equitable.

Again: FIRING INTO MELEE ISN"T THE POINT AT ALL. I'm agreeing that an archer can fire several times in 12 seconds, that's obvious. Ask your expert wife if you disagree? I'm disagreeing that somehow melee attacks be ~penalized~ based on a bunch of rationalized actions that aren't simulated AT ALL (and which I suspect, let's be honest, has more to do with 'that's how we've always done it' NIH inertia than rational evaluation..) and wouldn't apply to the conveniently-ignored examples of combatants for whom footwork, self-preservation, and such wouldn't even faintly apply? As I've said before: I'm not trying to change YOUR mind. Chaosium will publish the rules it'll publish. (shrug)

Since the RQG rules are supposed to be about simplifying things, I would expect the logical answer is simply: 1 per round, across the board, unless one can split attacks. PERSONALLY, I don't like blanket prohibitions, and the 'rolling SR' is a nice mechanic in its place. I'd rule that if you declare during statement of intent*: - all-out attack: if a toon is all-out attacking, they can use the 'rolling SR' in a round. During that round, they cannot move more than a single step, nor dodge, nor parry. - balanced action: attack once on your SR, allows you to move up to half, and parry/dodge once vs any opponent at full, subsequent parry/dodges at -20%, cumulative <- this is the 'normal action' - all-out defense: move half but no attacks at all, can parry/dodge 2x in the round at full, subsequent at -10% per, cumulative - mostly move: can move full, but can only attack once or defend once (this allows charging as a thing, - all-out move: can move 3x, no attack or dodge ...but that may be too complicated for where we want to go with RQG. *(These sorts of things tend to metagame advantage NPCs more than PCs, since NPCs "don't care about tomorrow"...so I'd say NPCs could only do balanced, mostly move, or all-out move unless they have some special ability like berserking, etc.)

EXACTLY my belief too. I simply don't buy it based on "tradition in RPGs says so" or worse "we had to do it because in D&D people shot 2 arrows a round and nobody wanted to be an archer in RQ if we didn't let them do it here too". Sure, firing 2-3 arrows in 12 seconds is reasonable, I'd totally agree. Then again a competent swordsman can stab 12+ times in that same span. "Feints ducks and lunges" are mechanically subsumed in your DODGE roll to avoid their attack. Even if we grant that somehow that dancing around would eat all but one meaningful attack, it wouldn't even faintly apply if one was, say, attacking someone from behind? From a blind direction? What if I'm wearing heavy plate armor (or am heavily magically buffed) and would rather get a bunch of attacks a round instead of wasting it on the postulated feints, ducks, and lunges? What about a host of creatures/monsters that don't feint, duck, or lunch: zombies, skeletons (pretty much any undead), werewolves who don't believe you have anything that can hurt them, mindless chaos nasties, etc ad infinitum? (Heck, charge a character a SR every time they dodge or parry - that's even pretty reasonable, considering a shower of blows really would prevent you doing anything else, unless you ignored at least one.) I don't believe there's anything justifying that trope (of missile fire faster than melee strikes) OTHER than rpg tradition.

Again, that sort of misses the point? Your skill isn't adjusted nor is your speed of attacks based on whether you're in danger or not. Mary is shooting a target with a missile weapon. Bill is stabbing a target with a melee weapon. In any span of time, why does Mary get (at least) usually 2x the chances to hit the target as Bill? For every video you show me of some archery expert firing arrows really quickly, I'll point out that simply stabbing is still faster. Claiming Bill should intrinsically get less attacks because he's prancing around with footwork and stance and grip etc is a pretty hand-wavy rationalization; fine, charge him an extra SR per opponent he's facing, if he wants the option to be able to dodge or parry that opponent in melee. Personally, it seems simplest to me to simply treat missiles (and spells, for that matter) the same way we treat any other weapon/action - you can do it, once per round, when your SR comes up. Missile weapons will still have an advantage over melee at range, since they'll get to fire earlier (since they don't have to spend SR moving), and during every round the melee are closing, realistically. If you're an expert (over 100% skill) then you can split attacks and get 2 attacks, because you're an expert.

QS RAW: Parry Success (vs successful attack) [or special vs special, or crit vs crit]: The attack is parried, but the parrying shield or weapon loses 1 hit point. So it doesn't appear to matter how much damage the attacking weapon would cause - 1 point or 40 points, a successful parry means the attack is parried and the parrying item takes 1ap. Note that the text highlights the difference between a parrying WEAPON and a parrying SHIELD. They are treated differently. A parrying weapon only blocks as many AP as it has, excess goes on to the defender. A shield is different: "...When a shield successfully parries a successful attack, the shield loses 1 hit point and the damage of the attack is absorbed entirely....".

But doesn't really address why missile weapons are so astonishingly more lethal, ie 2x the strikes (or more) in the span of a round, all else being equal. (Firing into or during melee is sort of a canard, needlessly complicating the basic question.) I'm not trying to change your mind, you and I simply differ on this.

Again, quick-start rules were very chopped to fit.

As I see it, your choices are 1) roll up an RQ2 character, and just GIVE them a distribution of runes/passions that are comparable to the ones the current PCs have, or 2) simply write one up that's comparable to the current ones, winging it with the numbers. Nobody but Chaosium has chargen info.

Yeah, there was nothing about character progression in RQG, and that's a good point. Although I really, really don't like DM's 'taking over' a character. "Your character wouldn't do that"....yuk.

Going to suck to have to wait until Christmas!

OK so that IS the RQ2 model. The QS may not have stated it, but the being able to split attacks above 100% is a thing. So ostensibly having missile attack over 100 means you could ALSO split those individual attacks which...I don't even know where one would go with that.

Certainly we have to remember too that we're looking at the QS rules, Jason had to do might shoehorning to get a workable package of rules in 24pages for this. A lot of this may be already clarified in the actual product, 6 months away from being available.... However the questions raised here will almost certainly be used to inform the design team about points worth reviewing and make sure they are clear in the full text.

FWIW we'd dispensed with that in our RQ3 game as making missile weapons way too powerful. (Cops set the 'threat distance' of a person with a knife at 7m for a *very* good reason.) Now we use missile weapon SR as simply when their shot goes like every other weapon. It's much more consistent than giving missile weapons a unique ability to roll SR and get multiple attacks. I'm pretty sure RQG is going to follow RQ2 in that practice, though.

Props are so underrated. I love props. I provide portraits for all important NPCs (and a fair few unimportant ones to prevent the players from meta-gaming the pictures = important). I provide setting shots for the geography, places, etc. I have a digital projector, so have the 'setting' up on the wall behind me as I run the adventure - sometime just atmospheric countryside, sometimes specific locations. Now, with widespread digital tools and the sort of picture archives of the 1920s available at places like http://twistedsifter.com/2011/05/vintage-mugshots-from-1920s-black-white/ (one of my favorites) and http://sites.mnhs.org/library/content/photograph-collection you don't even have to get out of your chair to make pro-looking materials for semi-modern and modern games like CoC. My only sadface is that my local players really only want to be in fantasy games, so photos only work in certain contexts and handouts almost never (unless I draw maps by hand, etc). For portraits, I have to use stuff like https://www.google.com/search?q=15th+century+portraits&rlz=1C1PRFC_enUS644US644&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo1fPAtcrUAhUI3YMKHUMUCUUQsAQIIw&biw=1920&bih=960 just to 'keep it in the context' for what they're wearing, etc Pinterest is a good source, but lots of chaff to the wheat: https://www.pinterest.com/tah223/npc-portraits/. Stuff like this makes good other handouts: https://www.jrrvf.com/glaemscrafu/english/glaemscribe.html Then again, google translate kicks ass too: "This is something that is not a clue for the adventure" is এই কিছু যে সাহসিক জন্য একটি সূত্র হয় না Ē'i kichu yē sāhasika jan'ya ēkaṭi sūtra haẏa nā (in Bangla), or ఇది సాహసం కోసం ఒక క్లూ కాదు. Idi sāhasaṁ kōsaṁ oka klū kādu. (in Telugu) I almost always have decent speakers on my laptop runnning ambient sounds for where they are, sometimes barely even audible (I don't TELL them when I'm playing it, just bring it up slowly) such as the magnificent http://other-atmospheres.ambient-mixer.com/ominous-jungle-drums or http://tabletopaudio.com/# Ambient sound is tremendously underrated as a DM tool if you have a way to play it unobtrusively and a quiet gaming area. This one can be great too: http://waterandwoods.net/2008/09/wild-animal-sound-bytes/ - so few people today have heard most of these, you can do great things mixing/combining them too. Nice job on those materials, they really are beautifully done.

This was my conclusion, after trying several times to parse the QS rules: (it's easier for me to see it on a matrix) Attack vs DODGE Dodge Critical Dodge Special Dodge Success Dodge Fail Dodge Fumb Att Critical Att Miss Att Crit Att Crit Att Crit Att Crit Hit Att Special Att Miss Att Miss Att Special Att Special Att Spec Hit Att Success Att Miss Att Miss Att Miss Att Norm Hit Att Norm Hit Att Fail Att Miss Att Miss Att Miss Att Miss Att Norm Hit Att Fumble Att Miss & Fumble Att Miss &Fumble Att Miss & Fumble Att Miss & Fumble Att Norm Hit Dodge: may dodge all attacks from one source, roll dodge vs each attack. Attack vs PARRY Parry Critical Parry Special Parry Success Parry Fail Parry Fumble Att Critical Att blocked, Parr -1AP Att Spec, dmg to Parr AP, excess to target Att Crit, dmg to Parr AP, excess to target Att Crit Att Crit, Parry Fumb Att Special Att blocked completely Att blocked, Parr -1AP Att Spec, dmg to Parr AP, excess to target Att Special Att Special, Parry Fumb Att Success Parry Dmg Att Att blocked completely Att blocked, Parr -1AP Att Norm Hit Att Norm Hit, Parry Fumb Att Fail Parry Dmg Att Parry Dmg Att Parry Dmg Att Att Miss Att Miss, Parry Fumb Att Fumble Att Miss & Fumb, Parry Dmg Att Att Miss & Fumb, Parry Dmg Att Att Miss & Fumb, Parry Dmg Att Att Miss & Fumb Att Miss & Fumb, Parry Fumb Att Crit: attacker does maximum possible damage, ignoring armor Att Spec: attacker rolls damage twice Att/Parry Fumble: drops weapon/shield 1d3m away, random direction Parry Damage Att: Parrying weapon does rolled damage (incl STR) vs Att weapon; if exceeds AP Att weapon broken; else 1 AP damage to Att weapon. If I seem to have markedly misunderstood something, let me know so I can revise my matrix.

I ruled that it took no time, and could be effectively used as an interrupt. If we look at passions, for example, if you Hate(Lunars) and you're fighting one, you *already* hate them, it's literally part of you. While it's certainly more cinematic to say you have to muster rage somehow, imo realistically, you'd just let the hate come as fast as thought. And runes, being as elemental (no pun intended) to the threads of existence, I'd guess would be the same. You don't have to 'cast' an augment, it just IS. Now, I *would* handle skill augments differently, that they would take time to apply in logical sense; if you're using orate to augment someone else's bargain skill, it's going to take a few rounds of talking before it impacts.