styopa

All entirely fair points. It's just on us as Gloranthan literati to run the games at our FLGS conveying the texture behind whatever you can cram into 48pp. Good luck!

In short, while this is a great site, the analysis is really more of an inverse of the Abraham Wald effect. https://medium.com/@penguinpress/an-excerpt-from-how-not-to-be-wrong-by-jordan-ellenberg-664e708cfc3d In short, Abraham Wald was asked where to put armor on bomber aircraft. He studied the planes coming back from bombing runs and had the eureka-insight that they didn't need to armor the places with flak/bullet holes, but the areas without - intuiting that if they made it home for him to study, the bullet holes he could see were therefore ignorable. So what we're seeing is the reverse: the lethal injuries (either because that location is particularly vulnerable, OR because it was hard to protect). From the analysis: "...Interestingly, these strikes were weighted appreciably toward the right-hand side..." I'd guess that most non-duelling sword users would have had a shield primarily covering their left side, so successful strikes would likely show a right-side bias, despite most opponents likewise being right handed.

I thought this WAS RQ3's original rule? Maybe I changed it so long ago I forgot the original. Anyway, same here, except in the case of a clearly softer material parrying a harder one, then the excess damage goes straight to the AP, not just reducing it by 1. Wood shield vs axe, eventually wood shield WILL be flinders.

I liked the idea of choosing effects based on your success level enough that I toyed with it a long time...but (aside from very particular circumstances) like in RQ6 (IMO) there the 'optimal' choices are pretty nearly always the same, which really then takes away the value of the variety anyway? Where (in RQ6) there were options that were good that weren't ignore armor and extra damage, they were - to me specifically - gamey and disproportionally overpowered. So I eventually gave up monkeying with it as excessive detail for too little reward....a path I tread fairly often. :|

A good warrior is always CERTAIN they're going to win. Until they don't, that is. EDIT I just happened to see a clip on liveleak of a (huge) guy fighting a number of bouncers at once. I swear at 30 seconds in he was was smiling, enjoying it.

IIRC he said he did have 48pp. And just to be clear, I'm NOT second-guessing him. He's the editor, it's his baby. My suggestions are merely that - as a player of a quickstart, I'm sitting down for a ready-made adventure, and need nothing of (what he's mostly already omitted) strategic considerations, character advancement, etc. I'm sitting down to PLAY. Pregen toons, so they should be ready to run, with all the details and mods right there on the sheet. Don't need price lists, don't need encumbrance, it should already be there. As a consumer, unfamiliar with RQ but hearing this is one of those 'foundational' RPG rule sets with a significant facelift, I look at the cover and go "ooh, that's pretty good. I like that". Then I flip through the TOC and see the basic stuff about combat, etc (every game has that) and then hit RUNES. Hm, that sounds interesting. Then CULTS. WTF? Cults? Like creepy religious things? What's that about? ...mm...this is pretty cool. No other game I've ever played has made faith so intrinsic to gameplay...when you think about it, what IF gods were real? Of course religion would be HUGE...."

Oh I understand the constraints of a page count. I'm not in your position, but I would certainly speculate that cults - even just a single teaser example, and abbreviated as well - would be more important for a quick-start session (and essentially to sell the concepts of the game) than: - reputation & ransom - abilities above 100% - gaining a passion - travel time - encumberance - (spirit and rune magic lists should even be curtailed to those available with the pregen toons and enemies in the adventure)

I'd say that most of what you're talking about is changing the original's more "campy, pulpy" tone to a rougher, more realistic feel. I agree with the point previously about it being more rock-colored in fact, but my $0.02 would be that we want to keep a gut-connection with Louise Perrin's original iconic cover art, where the lizard was green. Color and gross shape composition are the very first-recognized elements to art, and (imo) changing the lizard to grey would disconnect that. IF realistic is what we're going for, then this is better. FWIW I'd go back to the campier version. I think it ages better over time. Also, I think it delivers a lighter tone which IMO might be more broadly appealing.

Just tell him to work faster, so we can get the real rules out sooner.

Let's remember too that this is a cover composition, and not every corner of the picture needs to be highly detailed and perfectly finished. Cover art needs to be integrated WITH the text with which it's going to share visual space. It's sad when I see a beautiful piece of cover art that nobody dares sacrifice any portion to go under text, so they shrink the art excessively/needlessly and leave it hanging independently in space. Looks totally disjointed, particularly when the art COULD HAVE been much larger if better integrated with the wording.

Wow, thanks for posting. Clearly, you have enough material for the page count already...but my $0.02 would be that including a half page? single cult writeup (Orlanth?) example under Gloranthan gods and cults would be a really useful 'teaser' since cults are such a *fundamental* element of the gameplay.

I believe that is already more generous and conscientious than some other companies that 'give away' pdfs of things. Thanks Rick!

...and printable, if we so choose?

FWIW the more I think about it, at least in my conception, I could see Spirit Magic being inconsistent and wonky - ie a "weapon buff" spell from a local cult that uses warhammers might just work on both the pointy and bludgy bits...but not on a sword or a mace. Bladesharp for any bladed thing (whether or not the sharpness of the blade) bludgeon for blunt (unless it flies through the air like a sling bullet) etc....spirit magic is, by its essential nature, inconsistent from place to place, and from cult to cult. Divine spells are easy, they only work for whatever weapons that cult uses, end of story. I could see a cult where the favored weapons are broadsword and bow have a single buff spell that works on both, and only those. Or maybe only those if wielded by a cultist, etc. SORCERY, on the other hand, *has* to be about runic relationships and a logical underpinning. The sort of rune = weapon relationship you were talking about before.

It does require more work, but I think it nicely supports and sustains the runes that suffuse Gloranthan existence. Of course, we also have to be willing to set aside precepts from a nearly 40-year-old game that - let's be honest - wasn't nearly as deeply dissected (like this) as we're able to do collaboratively today. I almost guarantee you that if we set, for example, a key rune to each weapon group (spears, swords, axes, bows, etc) we will find incongruous cults whose favorite weapon doesn't match metamythically...That's a place for a retcon, imo, in pursuit of an OVERALL better rq4.

I'm fine with that, just make the full set of associations with (as you say) Death Rune solely and uniquely for swords - nothing else buffs swords, and the Death rune can't buff anything else. It makes a very nice sense, I like it.

Yeah, but does disrupt ignore NATURAL armor?

Maybe a simpler solution is just to have a SINGLE spell that enhances "a weapon's" to hit and damage, instead of having particular flavors for 'edged' and 'blunt'? It's magic. Besides (for example) the bulk of the damage a 2h sword is doing has nothing to do with the keenness of its blade. In fact, many historical 2h sword techniques would be impossible with a razor-sharp edge. Which spell are you using for a morningstar? Or a garrotte (there's no 'blade')? What about a shovel? I know, it's against the sacred canon but whatever.

By gut I'd have said bludgeon but I see your point.

Then he's dead, IMO. Pretty sure armor enchanting doesn't give you magic defenses, it simply raises the AP of the armor in that location. You know, that armor that's ignored by disrupt.

So she's fighting a kobold, or maybe a bugbear?

We call it the zombie defense....if you're fighting something with lots of legs that isn't discomfited by losing them, it can amount to substantial immunity from otherwise-devastating hits.

Brithini are to Mostali as machines are to repair techs.

As long as he's editing, note that the "*Strengthening Enchantment" at the bottom of the stat sheet is misspelled.