styopa

For a while we tried a fatigue system based around that: roll %doubles and at that moment we check your encumbrance. Depending on your load, you got 1+ "fatigue" tokens that each gave you a flat -5% on any roll until you rested. The logic being, the more times you rolled %ile dice, the more "stuff" you were doing, and in abstraction, the more likely you were to get tired. Ultimately, it just became another fatigue system dropped by the wayside. I've come to the final conclusion that mechanical encumbrance systems are either too trivial for the bookkeeping (most of the time) or too punitive. Now, I just say at the start of a session, to each player "so, what are you wearing/carrying?". First, them going over what's where, and ending up with "and the rest of the stuff is in my pack" actually helps everyone at the table visualize each other. Second, then, if it's enough to burden them to some degree, I mention it and they either amend it or accept it. Then, 3 hours later when something happens when I think fatigue/enc would be relevant, I just mention it and tell them that they're growing really tired, so at this point you're -10% on physical skills, -5% on mental ones until they take a substantial rest. (That's the same penalty I put in place if people have hiked all day, and are attacked at night before they are rested, too.) It's arbitrary, I admit, but people seem to agree so far.

As the RQ3 rules assumed you started at age 16 and gave them experience per year of age, I let players pick their age, up to 10 years older than 16. For each year they didn't use, they got a one-use luck point. Typically they'd start around 22-23, so they had a few luck points to absorb that unfortunate roll. (Using luck points was one point for themselves, or if they wanted to save someone else in the party, it cost a cumulative donation of 2 from other members.) I think there was one who started a character at age 17, but his or her luck points ended up getting burned pretty quickly anyway.

"We got us here the ultimate sort of God Learner, folks. He don't just say this is all just fanciful makin's up, but that the very EXISTENCE of a race ain't nuthin more than a commercial pat-on-the-back 'tween friends." "Well, then BURN HIM?" That would explain the pretty-much-permanent bad attitude.

Well that would explain the whole bizarre universality of the metric system in Glorantha, no?

Probably the healthiest view point. I've never understood the "I have to take a side!" tribalism, whether it's between RPG rule sets, favorite MMO, or local sports team.

So you're saying that there needs to be even a tree for the genealogy of BRP. What a freakishly incestuous line. It's like the Habsburgs of RPGs?

I thought Strangers in Prax actually did a fantastic job of creating credible heroic characters in the RQ3 rules. The coders and Arlaten both are well done. I did think that they were geared a little too light, magically, but considering their roles they could be easily justified to have nearly any magic item needed.

I'd agree too that BRP came from RQ2, and spawned from there, but RQ3 did come from RQ2, not BRP.

Maybe it's a difference in definition, but I meant specifically for someone who is NEW to the system.

As Atgxtc alluded, I don't believe it's exaggerating at all to say that RQ combats are TREMENDOUSLY harder to 'balance' as well. D&D provides a neat shorthand that yes, can sometimes be misleading, but RQ combats have so many interdependent variables, they are (if I understand my nomenclature correctly) NP-Hard. Is one character of 75% combat value good enough to beat one character of 65% but better armor? 2x 45%'s (I think we're all acquainted with how much impact the number of combatants have in RQ)? 4x 25%? Personally, I hope the new game has some room for advice for DMs on this because it IS so much harder and even a few unbalanced encounters can quickly disenchant new players with a game. When I start people in RQ, I start them 2 or 3 vs 1 enemy, because even if they stink, they can usually overcome the wolf or weak bear. But they get a good feel for how the system works, and understand that they can trust the mechanics to portray IRL-reasonable results and real-life logic/expectations do functionally apply in RQ systems.

Re the guide: Just going to chime in that while the book(s) and information is magnificent, the artwork is where it really brings Glorantha ALIVE for me despite me mulling over this world regularly for 30+ years. I can't express how fantastic a job the artists did, and that Jeff did in really engaging with them to ensure every detail is addressed. There's a few things out there at http://www.glorantha.com/docs/art-of-the-guide-to-glorantha/ and more if you simply google image-search 'guide to glorantha' From the representational, "real looking" stuff, to the highly stylized iconography...it all *works*. Having the Guides as coffee-table books that people can browse through while they're sitting has gotten some terrific comments.

I believe Jeff's said that there's a teeter-totter link between some of the runes, but the main, element runes, no real comment? I'd agree, there should also be a relationship between them somehow, as the GtG and lore definitely presents them as a rock/paper/scissors circular hierarchy, albeit it's not going to be as simple as the binary ones. Given how fundamental the runes are supposed to be to this version, I wouldn't mind that relationship being a little more complex.

Honestly, you lost me at point one. Imo, heroes are defined by what they do, not their stats. Moreover, some might say that journey - from nothing to hero - is why they play; starting "heroic" feels like shortcut. It used to be in rpgs that you rolled up characters (maybe using a bias system that gave you slightly-better-than-average numbers) and then just played the best character you could out of what you got. After all, you have no choice IRL, right? Now, gamers have gotten used to systems where their wish is catered to from moment one and while it's not my personal choice, it seems to be popular. Frankly, I think you could have a campaign where all players start with absolutely average stats and still have a great time.

What makes me so excited about this Runequest is the timing. There is genuinely a FRPG tabletop Renaissance going on: I'll credit our friends at Wizards for much of that, starting with a very creditable 3e, 3.5e (in particular releasing that as d20 SRD) and then 5e which is really quite a good system. That, coupled with the internet and the maturation of public-use tools like Roll20 has given us actual pop-culture things like Critical Role (http://geekandsundry.com/shows/critical-role/). For the tabletop RPG world generally, it's a good time. However...I suspect now that D&D 5e has been around the block a little, some of the polish might be starting to wear off. I believe (hope?) that there's a market of people like most of us were at one time: sick of a system based on rationalizations and odd constructs/constraints like levels, sick of game worlds that are little more than a pastiche of (a ren-fest view of) Medieval Western Europe with a thick goopy coat of "Magick" that nevertheless hasn't *really* impacted anything in terms of societies or norms. Societies where the gods are REAL, demonstrable, and immanent yet religion is just something for clerics and paladins to care about (and barely then). I expect that as a result we could soon see a crop of relatively fresh players looking for something more substantial, more realized. Gosh I hope this comes out soon.

I prefer the mods because RQ6's mechanics only meant 'natural ability' impacted you precisely once: in the determination of the starting level of skill. IIRC (and I could be wrong, I only dabbled in RQ6 before going back to RQ3) later stat changes didn't then change a skill already advanced through experience? In RQ3 (and I realize this is a houserule, and probably gets down into weeds that most people wouldn't bother with) I actually had my players keep skill and mod separate, and NOT add-in the stat modifier when they wrote it down on their sheet. So what was written in on the skill line next to the skill was ONLY their skill (ie base plus whatever they'd learned from experience/training). When I asked them "what's your chance with the skill" they'd be expected to add that number to their mod and tell me the result. When they rolled for skill checks however, they'd roll vs their actual skill only (not including mod) MINUS their mod. It always bothered me that it was mathematically harder for people with high natural talent (ie they started with a higher net skill because of high stats) to get better at something. And, this meant that everyone advanced in skills a little bit faster. (MGF) Peripherally, my last campaign started with elementary school kids and we played all the way until they've left for college. Making perform/practice basic math skills without realizing it wasn't a bad thing either.

Goodness, I wouldn't say I'm more than 20% competent, and I can manage.

Cool ty, thanks. EDIT: yep, looks like I did get it, was in spam but address was right anyway. THANKS

99% chance that if you're a reasonably competent DM you can use most of the adventure stuff just winging the changes. For example, no player ever said "wait a second, he had 15 hp but his arm had 4hp instead of 3! We've been robbed - this is a different version!" Yeah the spells take some creativity but as long as your monsters are reasonably equipped according to expectations, it's all good. Hell, you can wing most D&D adventures, subbing trollkin for goblins, troll stats for orcs, etc and none will be the wiser. The only thing there is that there's a complete absence of spirits, which are so fundamental to the 'feel' of RQ.

From what I understand from the designer's notes and comments here, runic affinities and passions will be characteristics that can be leveraged to give you short term buffs: if you "Hate(Lunars)" at a certain level, if you're ACTUALLY fighting lunars you can check against it to give you a temporary buff for that combat. I'd expect there has to be some sort of cost in fatigue or mp or something, otherwise you'd be doing it every combat. Or maybe you're intended to? Probably like the Geas/Gift mechanic already present in some cults, the more narrowly you define it, the more potent/reliable it is? I.e. hating a specific individual would give you more benefit than something more vague against a whole culture. I'd expect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendragon_(role-playing_game) that there's a downside in that these things at too high a level can be used as hooks by the DM. If you have Hate(Lunars) 90, and you need to not kill that lunar to take him prisoner, the DM can make you check against your hate to restrain yourself? That's how passions worked in Pendragon, not sure if the Runes are intrinsically different or just another 'flavor' of passion?

Were we supposed to have received our classic source books yet? I'm pretty sure I bought the actual books, not pdfs, but haven't seen anything...?

I think the other key factor in the essential realism of RQ combat is its inherent fog of war. In D&D, characters have levels. A 5th level character is, pretty consistently, tougher than a 3rd level character regardless of class. A 5th level character should be able to handily beat a 3HD (3rd "lvl" monster: current D&D uses Challenge ratings), no matter whether that creature is a giant snake or a humanoid swinging a bec-de-corbin. Even more, creatures are predictable: a tiger is CR1: ie an easy challenge for a party of 4 lvl 1 toons. RQ denies players that clarity, and that's far more realistic (and terrifiying - we all fear uncertainty at some level) than other RPG systems. That scorpion man could be ANYTHING - from a 25% attack feeble bungler to a 140% attack Chaos hero - very little will reveal the difference until you're fighting him. One of the reasons I truly love RQ.

We have a sorcerer in our campaign whose interests have definitely been growing darker as the campaign goes on. Everyone else was complaining that they've got to dump 90% of their time & effort to their cult while he just sits on a growing pile of silver, they don't realize that he dumped 40,000p to a shady character for a book that essentially contained those articles. He still thinks its the best thing he ever bought.

Considering the limited bandwidth that Chaosium has to push stuff through the pipeline, I guess as much as WF would be wonderful, I can see other higher-priority (quicker payoff both for the players and Chaosium) sorts of targets that should probably come first.

It's indeed the 7th version of RQ out there. As Jeff already mentioned, it's the 4th edition that had direct Chaosium involvement (3rd actual Chaosium-only edition, but RQ3 while AH published, I believe had heavy Chaosium input). But AFAIK *every* published version of RQ is simply titled "RUNEQUEST" (ie not actually "Runequest 2" or somesuch), so this one too will likely be titled only "RUNEQUEST". I would say that sorting through RQ's provenance is a Knowledge Skill, base 00%. Rick Meints and Jeff are probably the only ones that have 100% skill. I doubt even Greg has that.

If you play RQ3, RQ2 materials are quite easy (almost effortless) to use. If you play RQ2, some RQ3 are harder to use for all the reasons Joerg laid out. As I understand it, the new RQ coming out will be largely based on the RQ2 system, but with more stuff (ie with Sorcery, for example). So if you were running a game today, starting it with the RQ2 system would *probably* mean a smaller speed-bump to switch into the new game and materials when it comes out.