styopa

Understood. I'd grabbed 3 random examples and they were all in the 600-word range. None particularly blew me away as being of particular depth (obviously; it's still a work in progress). Far more substantive communication and discussion has been found in these forums, certainly - which, despite the context, is ALSO 'official' communication, no? That said, podcasts are ALSO company-to-customer and artist-to-patron communication, and a while it seems more off-the-cuff it should be scrutinized, scripted (to some degree) and message-crafted at LEAST as carefully (particularly as IIRC it's not an EXTERNAL interview but an in-house production...) as a a written post. If your wife's firm is that careful about blog posts, I have to imagine they'd take the same care with a podcast? For 10+ years I wrote computer game reviews for publication both on the web and freelance for a number of monthly print publications. I understand very much how carefully one has to measure one's words in 'official' sorts of commentary. And we all understand about being pulled in 12 different directions on too many projects for our time.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/169926/strongest Board Game Geek rating 8.2 which is pretty high. Most of the minifig rules that I've enjoyed over the years only rate 5.5-7.2. :/

If a 600-word blog post is taking 2 hours to write/edit/proof/post, someone needs typing lessons. Re the ready-date for RQ, I'm as anxious as anyone, but Jeff/Rick have made it clear that the "launch date" of RQ-new isn't just the finish-date for the RULES, it's going to be (as I understand) rules plus substantial campaign and supplemental materials. Unfortunately, I'd presume that the "supplemental materials" of substance - ie actual adventures with stats etc - all has to wait to start until the rules themselves are done: you can't do much toward making the whole pie until you've finished the crust. Which pushes out the day we can all get our grubby hands on the new system that much further.

Yeah, it's pretty horrendous. (shrug) IMO Just another reason to hate podcasts. They're so flippin LINEAR.

Here's the machine-processed transcript. Again, please Jeff - if you don't want this up, blow it away. And everyone that reads this, please consider going to the link above and dl'ing the actual podcast, in case it gives them any revenue/metrics. Again, this is a machine translation. "room Quest" lol

It seems that the RQ Blog updates have moved to audio format this time. http://www.glorantha.com/tales-of-mythic-adventure-episode-25-jeff-richard/ " In this episode of ToMA, MOB and Jeff go through what you can expect to find in each of the core books in the forthcoming RuneQuest! " Personally, I really hate podcasts as a format so I'm punching that 40 min podcast through voicebase (it should be amusing to see how they transcribe some Gloranthan terms...) and will post it here, unless Jeff objects?

Of course. I just thought it was funny because I saw your post at the exact moment where I was thinking "hm, maybe I should just post some innocuous question just to see if they're still alive out there"....

g33k was actually just trolling to politely see if there were still live humans at Chaosium, lacking other updates on RQ. :\ But yeah, we can all guess what the action was like in the Age of Aquarius if chicks got the sense that that you're going to be a shaman. Don't hate the playa!

Dare I reference the informal 1d4chan entry on RQ, and the iconic picture they chose to use to reference RQ thematically? NSFW language, nor for those whose sensibilities are easily offended. https://1d4chan.org/wiki/RuneQuest

or rather

While I understand the point of your post, I think as a basic rule one is on pretty thin ice telling someone how to present their campaign. Some people *want* an historical feel as much as possible. And by the by, I've never really understood the response: "well there are (fantastical) dragons so why not X?" - by that logic why not let characters wear 14 layers of armor or change their skin color every day? Obviously - and the 800+ pages of the guide to glorantha are relevant here - different people want different levels of verisimilitude* to help in their suspension of disbelief. *note that I didn't say realism Personally, I *do* use ducks very sparingly because I feel their absurdity IS useful ... in very, very tiny doses. Oh, and murderous sociopathically bad-tempered waterfowl are a thing in IRL: https://www.wired.com/2014/10/absurd-creature-week-vicious-duck-beats-crap-anything-moves/

Nice write-up(s), thanks!

I'm pretty sure that they were originally included as a sort of comic relief. I use ducks, but it's not hard to understand how some people find that a little jarring?

While I appreciate your view, I have to admit that of all the people I've introduced to Glorantha, all the times I've explained the world, I've also heard "is that the game world with those silly ducks?" many, many times. Some people feel their presence is breaking the 4th wall a little too hard.

I *assume* you're going to be calling it the "RQ Quickstarter"? Or Kwickstarter?

Rick Meints - there's your next project. 1) find someone at LEGO who's a long time RQ grognard 2) leverage them to pitch the idea of a Gloranthan line of LEGO 3) ... 4) profit

Nobody wants to wait, but IMO it's a smart move businesswise to hit the market with the rules AND AMPLE STUFF TO PLAY even if that delays release.

Also explaining some of the distinction between keets and ducks, and why it matters so much to both of them.

Why not just actually post the link?

Oh god please don't start THAT argument again...

Basically, D&D3+ simply made the design decision that they were going to try to make every stat equally meaningful, as AD&D originally had a very narrow stat-applicability depending on class, so everyone had at least one or two (always including CHA) dump stats that they could use for crappy rolled values in chargen systems that allowed arranging-to-suit. Whether it's realistic or not wasn't really relevant, it was a game-mechanic decision. Personally, I like in the current version how they've boiled the point-buy system down to non-extreme stat-distribution choices: you can take the standard array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. Point buy IMO invites extreme optimization, it's one reason I don't like point buy systems generally.* *I find it a curious but pretty clear gulf between OSR rpg'ers and modern gamers: OSR systems tended to say 'roll the stats and make the best character you can out of the results' where modern-generation systems are almost always about picking what you want to play, and then finessing the character to fit. Now, I'm not going to say OSR players didn't do the latter (ie, the "how are there so many paladins?" issue with AD&D (https://muleabides.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/you-must-be-this-lucky-to-play/) but they certainly seemed more willing to live with what they got. Of course, we did play in a D&D campaign in the early 80s where the DM was going strictly RAW, 3d6 in order for stats, and my g/f at the time, in front of us, rolled 3 18s for a single toon. Made her a legend.

Agreed. Largely they're programmed. I wouldn't ever kill a toon based on a rationalized, oversimplified, impersonal wargame mechanic. Too little agency. I don't tell them that though.

Damn I hate Invision commenting mechanics. To respond to the point above, I'd say yes, THEORETICALLY. However, - an axe doesn't care *at all* if it's raining or if it gets wet - something ASTONISHINGLY important in everyday use in northern climes (that is often disregarded in RPGs, and particularly Glorantha, where it's almost always sunny and clear) - an axe is basically durable, and is unlikely to be unusable because it warped, got too dry, got stepped on by a horse, or was packed incorrectly. - an axe has no moving parts; an axe is easier/quicker to manufacture, (an arrow *may* be cheaper than an axe, but a bow CERTAINLY should be many multiples of an axe's price) and doesn't need carefully-selected/-worked raw materials. - an axe doesn't care much about wind, or even light brush - pretty nearly everyone has hatchets, and is likely to be familiar with handling/using them. Heck, in some places IRL the simple OWNERSHIP of a bow was proscribed, much less would someone get a chance to practice with one ...all of these more than mitigate the theoretical advantages of archery over tossing an axe in REAL LIFE circumstances. Hopefully you're trying to be funny, but this comes off as needlessly being a jerk. Then the rules are flawed, always a possibility, particularly with 1st-gen RPG rules. As you can plainly see, an axe CAN be used as a missile weapon, particularly against drummers: I don't disagree with you, but this is one of the mechanical failures of a SR system that lets you have a (DEX) SR of 0, and then says you can shoot every (SR+penalty span). By RAW, if you have an arrow nocked, and several others ready (ie not quivered, but actually ready ala the picture below) you should be able to loose the first on SR1, fire the second on (0+3) 4, and the third on (0+3) 7, and finally a fourth on (0+3) 10. Agreed; who would possibly care how MANY weapon skills a character has? (or knowledge skills, or spells, or whatever)?

I found this: http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/nrq4/1993.06/0060.html " under RQ2 first aid would not restore hit points lost, though it would stop bleeding. "

IIRC RQ2 didn't even have a first aid skill? In RQ 2 I believe it was - healing potion - healing spell - natural healing (1 point per week in all locations with rest).