styopa

On 5/8/2016 at 6:39 PM, Atgxtg said:

Sorry to let you down. I don't believe that RQ combats are tremendously harder to balance. At least not if a GM is familiar with the system. The thing to keep in mind is that most "balanced" fights in D&D are anything but "balanced".  They are set up in such a way that heavily favors the PCs. Opponents will be roughly 1/4th the strength of the party. That isn't all that hard to do in RQ. . 

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.

9 hours ago, Vile said:

It's RQ7.

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.

For someone artistically inclined, and considering the Guide calls out specific body-areas that have to do with the various runes, I could certainly see a Gloranthan art-piece like Leonardo's Vitruvian Man, but with the runic associations diagrammed.  That's sort of a map, no?

And would the map be appreciably different if it was a female than a male?

@Trifletraxor I'm cool with that.  My only comment is that it's all a moot point; Jeff's already amply shown us how he wants to illustrate Glorantha in the guide:

where even 'fairly' mannikin-y poses are at least given some life and energy: 

...to which I don't think anyone has a beef at all?

It's one of the mixed blessings of the lifespan of an ancient game (whose survival in its Dark Ages was very much about 1) fan-produced stuff and 2) the nascent interwebs) that there's ancient stuff all over the web.

In this case, it's ancient fan-rants about something long since repaired, in my view.

I don't mind a heated conversation.  I don't have delicate sensibilities, so I tend to tread heavily on others sacred cows...perhaps sometimes a little bit on purpose, I admit  I don't expect my comments to be taken as personal insults for anyone to cry into their pillow over, either.

FWIW, I know very well that g33k would react even more inflammatorily to the dismissal than the picture.  He/she wildly overreacted to the OP's post (well, actually to what he/she THOUGHT the OP was saying), and nothing enrages a SJW more than disregard for their righteously-inspired opinion.  My apologies to the list for that - no need to do my sportfishing here; that's what Reddit's for. 

g33k: you might not want to strike so hard at any bait that flashes in front of you.  When you take a calming breath, you might *even* notice that you & I entirely agree on your main points.

Pro tip: insisting you're not histrionic by repeating HELL NO four times is...unconvincing.

There's a reason stereotypes are a thing.  And they're not evil, either.

We've all been heavily conditioned in the postmodern era that stereotypes are bad, but the reality is that we don't have room in our head to hold the entirety of nuance and detail of every single person we've ever met as individuals.  Hell, I have trouble remembering where I am some mornings.  Stereotypes are mental shorthand; in a modern cultural context they're seen as inarguably bad, because they are equated with prejudgement and we recognize (reasonably) that individual variation within a group can make such pre-assumptions ridiculous.  But the fact is that they persist because they do predict "well enough" much of the time.

And to drag this back on-topic: for some - I'd daresay most - gaming, yes, that too is usually good enough.  I personally am about DMing and playing adventure games.  I (and the players who enjoy my games) don't have the time nor inclination to care about the nuances of difference between Orlanthi and Cherusci and Celts and Vikings.  If the players have a rough idea that the steading they've just arrived at looks *roughly* like a town from the Vikings TV show last night, we have enough shared visualization to let the action proceed.  They and I truly don't care if the lead priestess bares her left boob because of an ancient mythic reason - if it's not unusual in their characters' context, I wouldn't even mention it.  If the God Learner ruins they've just spotted on that deserted (?) coast ahead looks like that Mycenaen Citadel (nice finds, Mancam), again: good enough!

On 4/5/2016 at 3:17 PM, g33k said:

On the one hand, there is just the one single picture under discussion.  It's hardly worth going nuclear about it!

On the other hand, people have spoken up about it as a style they prefer, and want to see; THAT needs addressing.

Were I to see this one pic in a RPG book, I'd most-likely have an "omg what were they thinking!?" reaction, and I'd move on; I wouldn't "rail against it."   A book where the art was overwhelmingly in that 1st-pic "bland" style?  I'd think the art-director / editor were steeped in academia, and probably not the best choice to produce an RPG book.  But if the content impressed, I'd buy it (including a piece or two of cheesecake).

If that general SORT of pic (the "cool" example), were common within the book, I wouldn't wonder "what were they thinking:"  I'd presume they were showing EXACTLY what they were thinking... and I'd speak out against it.  I'd do more than "make jokes" about it.  I'd think they were severely sexist and a problem in the industry, and I wouldn't give them a single dime, no matter the content.

Unless, of course, the entire product were intentionally/overtly about titillation (as a few are), rather than overtly about heroic RP'ing in a largely non-genderbiased way (and slipping problem tropes in covertly... as the hobby (unconsciously, I think) used to do A LOT, and alas still does enough (even intentionally, q.v. GamerGate) that it merits being wary, and speaking up).

And I would be HIGHLY dubious about where people were drawing their own personal "witch hunt" lines:  it's a facile way to try to excuse the inexcusable, as well as being a legitimate way to rein in the overly-critical.

RE "impracticality" -- most of what passes for "religious garb" and associated regalia is "impractical" from an explorer/adventurer POV  Usually not titillating (carefully does not notice Uleria-priestess regalia), but lots of spare straps and trim to catch on the underbrush, spare folds of fabric foes can grab/bind the wearer, etc.  OTOH, it's VERY practical from the standpoint of polished marble floors, visiting dignitaries to impress, etc!

RE appearing attractive/fashionable/powerful, and how Gloranthan warriors would approach the matter -- generally, I expect, by gilt and paint and other shallow decor atop FULLY FUNCTIONAL ARMOR (unless their culture forgoes armor, of course!), just as has always been done by warriors 'round the world, throughout history.  First, take care of the basics of survival/function/etc; THEN, worry about how it looks.  "Does this armor make my butt look too big" is *NEVER* a consideration.

 

I'm curious who precisely has "spoken up about it as a style they prefer"?  I couldn't find any.  You refer probably to the scantily-cladness "style"...but that wasn't even nearly the point.

I skimmed back through the thread and one person - the OP of the picture - mentioned that it was more interesting stylistically than the placid mannikin-style figures he/she was comparing it to.  They didn't say "I can't wait to hypersexualize women!", they didn't slaver breathlessly over the sideboob potential.  They didn't really even say the picture itself was "cool", the point was that the active pose made even the silly, simple, trope-ish costume more interesting.  

But hey, if one's already worked up their frothing indignation, who bothers reading for content?

One vague reference to a pose pretty clearly chosen not for it's sexualization but for it's more dynamic, active-person presentation - resulting in not one but two 400+ word nigh-histrionic rants?   That would be the 'delicate sensibilities' I wouldn't bother catering to.  

I agree with Jeff and goldwheeldancer: the image in question wouldn't be suitable for a Gloranthan game because it's uncontextual and frankly dull.  It says nothing.  When art has costs in both $ and column-inches, it needs to deliver something more than tits in a rulebook.  Yet I also AGREE with Kranted Powers (who's probably been intimidated out of the thread, frankly) that the dynamic, action pose IS fundamentally more interesting.  I even agree with g33k in the sense that gratuitous sexualization of women in FRP, while it was delightful to my early-teen self, is not acceptable in a hobby which has thankfully, finally begun to draw more distaff players.  That said, as the Guide and Prince of Sartar have both gloriously shown (and everyone here seems to agree), Glorantha is a place with a LOT fewer Puritanical hangups than 21st century US and doesn't need to be freighted with that baggage either: if we're going to have barbarian men covered only in woad hurling themselves at the dirty Lunars, there's ALSO no reason we have to fear having an informative, interesting, DYNAMIC picture of some topless Babeester Rune Lord kickin' ass too - even if all she's wearing is a belt to hang her prizes on (even Thanatari shudder at *that*)...

Yeah, not a great deal of attention really paid to the production value here.  Plus, obsess over ducks a little.  Glorantha's albatross, basically.  AD&D had a decent complement of stupid & silly creatures, but man, this one has stuck to Glorantha.

I think there's quite a bit of distance between the two drawings (mannikin-like display dolls vs scantily-clad bikini warrior) for some common-ground to be available.

(http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/post/21173010945/by-bob-giadrosich)

Female AND somewhat more engaging than a mannikin.

That said, to be 'actively offended' by the second example in the OP...well...I'm not sure any art design needs to try to cater to that level of delicate sensibilities.

"Female armor sucks" - be sure to watch to the very end.