styopa

In my view, that chart is missing Steve Perrin's Quest Rules?

Good overview from Jeff covering the 'guiding principles' of the rewrite.  While he focused primarily on the filtering process as it applies to RQ3 (taking what was good, abandoning what was bad), I hope that principle is in play drawing from other subsequent rules sets as well; AiG (the first one, unpublished) had some very good ideas in there that were essentially doing the same thing - keeping the good from RQ3 and rejiggering the bad.  Off the top of my head some of the Shaman mechanics worked neatly.

What I missed from his explanation, and maybe it's implied in a way I simply didn't get, was where RQ6 meets the road here?  As we all know, RQ:G or whatever we're calling it, was born of RQ6, yet the discussion centers primarily around RQ2 and the 90/10 principle focused there?  So is RQ:G going to be fundamentally Glorantha-fied RQ6 with a flavoring of RQ2, or will it be RQ2, modernized and updated with learnings from RQ3, (4), MRQ, MRQ2, and RQ6?

I'm a little sad to see Jeff's scourging of RQ3 Sorcery again.  I know dislike of it was widespread, but I actually liked it and felt it really worked as a credible anathematic alternative to the Spirit and Divine magic systems, and it seemed relatively true to the Western metaphysics of everything resulting from manipulation/combination of vanilla 'core' techniques.  Not to say it was perfect; Sandy's rewrite made it much better, and I ended up using much of the (excellent) RQ Tekumel material as my campaign's "western" credo.  Nevertheless, It's probably not a coincidence that the person that played our long-running sorcerer was a math major in college...

When Rick's title here is "AVATAR OF CHAOS" is anyone particularly expecting him to hew to a meticulously-planned release schedule?

That's fantastic!

I admit I haven't followed it very closely, but I thought it was only going to be 'rough previewed' at Gen Con in August?  

I'd be delighted to run game(s) in the Minneapolis/St Paul area once we have enough of (even beta-grade) rules to do so.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Thank you for that! Its actually the perfect balance (IMHO). RQ7 Combat styles are somewhat broad, though configurable to this, and individual skills seems a bit clunky these days. One thing to consider in a combined skill like this though is what happens if you loose one part of the pair.

SDLeary

Using a RQ6 (is it "a" RQ or "an" RQ?  Does it depend whether you're speaking King's English or Vulgate American?) approach, I'd suggest that losing a 'part' of your style like that would just knock your skill down by a difficulty step or 2, depending on how drastic you want to be.  (I wouldn't be too drastic, as I'd submit that part of learning a 2-weapon style would be at least a basic instruction in use of only one of them.)

Then again, my RQ6 housemod had a lot more steps to provide just this granularity:

x2

x1.75

x1.67

x1.5

x1.3

x1.25

1.0 (standard)

x0.75

x0.67

x0.5

x0.33

x0.25

x0.1

Would love to volunteer to run RQ Glorantha games, but AFAIK it's not releasing this year?

I've run RQ3 campaigns since the 1980s, and the SR mechanic has always been something needing houserules.  MAINLY I didn't like the predictability of the original SR system; where the players could reliably tell what order events would happen in any given round.  In particular, I didn't like how having a crappy SR means called-shots 'cost' you less than other people; if a called-shot just bumps you to SR10, and you're already going on SR9 or 10, all you lose is half your to-hit.

We are simulationists, but ESSENTIALLY we use an init system that only determines who MOVES first; attacks are almost an incidental by-product of whoever is acting.

Here's what we've done:

Each round d10* is rolled for init, add your Dex SRM (* in fact, we use variable init dies depending on the circumstances; normally a d10, but it might be a d8 or even a d6 for a very tight/constricted space, where Dex should be REALLY important; d12 or even d20 in a wide-open space where an individual's dex isn't going to make that big a difference in who goes first)

Count down from the highest.

(These rules are predicated on the use of a hex map; not all combats will need to be played out on a hexmap.  If we don’t use the hex grid, it’s simply init+quickness goes first, with the principle that meeting-combats first-strike goes to the longer weapon.)

Starting on your init, you may move freely 1m/SR to a maximum of 2x your species Move Rate (subject to fatigue limits).

    (Moving backwards, 2x; Moving Prone 2x, Moving from enemy ZOC 3x; always can move at least 1/turn.)

If there’s a question about who should move “first” in a SR, NPCs move first.

You and all active, aware opponents (i.e. got to roll init this round) have ‘threat zones’ in the frontal ½ arc:  i.e. the area that can be hit with the equipped melee weapon – on a hex map this would be the 3 adjacent frontal hexes for an opponent with a medium-or-smaller weapon.  Larger weapons may reach more.

If you move into a ‘threatened’ zone but your arc doesn’t reach, that opponent MAY spend action for this round to interrupt & attack.  If you suffer a serious/major injury, you must immediately stop moving. 

If you move so that your ‘threat zone’ touches an enemy, you may attack.

If your and an opponent’s threat zones meet at roughly the same time, highest REACH gets the ‘opportunity’ attack first.  If weapons are same length, higher DEX goes first.  If DEX is also the same, attacks are resolved simultaneously.

If you move in a (more or less) straight line you gain your hexes moved this round/2 (until contact) as a +damage modifier for melee

Called shot means you strike at half-skill, that's all.

Delighted to hear Steve is back in the fold.

RQ had/has some of the most innovative, simulationist mechanics in RPGs, and it will only be better for some of the 'refreshing' concepts that have come up over the last 30 years of RPGs.

Mike & Jeff, Delighted to see this is moving forward.

All I can say is that PLEASE use beta testers that try to break/game/exploit the system.

Having game-testers that idolize the system and play it the way you 'intend' it to be played is good for what it's worth.  But to really build a durable rules-set that works, you need people that don't hold it sacred.