styopa

In its simplest terms, it's the combat. D&D you roll against a single number, if you exceed that, you hit. When you hit, you deduct an amount of points from the target, when they run out, they die. RQ complicates that by allowing the defender an active chance to defend (with varying mechanical consequence), as well as segmenting the target into hit locations. Each location further has an armor value that reduces the amount of damage applied. If the attack succeeds to a degree that it penetrates armor and does damage, each location has varying consequences for disablement (as well as the target having a collective health total, like d&d). There are other subjects, but I think combat is the main point.

I'd use it as written: the skill is 1d6+magic skill modifier as a base. That's the skill %; so in play, the chance to succeed would be that PLUS the magic skill modifier. Yes, you're double-dipping a bit on the magic modifier but it makes sense that someone innately better at something would start better at it than a complete schlub. (And I would also put the profession bonuses atop that, not in replacement for that.) You might ask if that's consistent, as weapon skills don't get a similar innate-ness bump when they're learned, but: - you could add it, sure, or - you could recognize that they DO get it: weapon skills already have a base skill level. Personally, I prefer the idea that an ability score category bumps that for the same reasons it makes sense for spells.

Wasn't meant to be a SPECIFIC example, just an example of why sorcery and spirit magic and divine magic and dragon magic and whatever magic DO need to have some sort of meta balance to result in a world where none of them have essentially 'taken over'.

Meh, I agree with you in objectivist principle, but while RQ makes an effort at simulationism, it is still a GAME (and I'd argue that RQG deliberately tries to retreat from 3's simulationism toward the playable-game end of the spectrum) in which balance, or at least rational power-costing needs to make some sort of sense. To say nothing of the fact that it's an entirely fictional world; to have any semblance of credibility supporting the fictional-extant of various powers, they HAVE to have some balance. If a divine or spirit magician can cause 1.5 points of damage at 25m for 1mp, and (all else being equal) sorcerers can do 5 points of damage at 100m for the same 1mp, why wouldn't sorcery have trounced the world? (The only place where I can see breaking this deliberately is Lunar magic. The above posits a sort of static equilibrium, and the Lunars are BOTH 'fresh' and 'kicking ass' suggesting that their stuff is intrinsically more powerful...now there may be larger, contextual, meta-limits in the background, but I believe there's a strong argument for giving Lunars better magical kit PARTICULARLY if they're intended generally to be dramatic foils.)

Peace, 3 pt Rune Spell This spell causes all persons not of Rune Master status within a 1-kilometer radius to lay down their weapons and forget all violence and war. For the duration of the spell, they prefer rather to listen to the wonders of peace and love which the spirits send ringing through their minds. Doesn't say anything about a resist, so essentially 1 rune point can defeat an army (except it's Rune masters). 3 points of extension mean it works for a week. Unclear what it does to sorcerers and shamans.

As you seem to suspect, the very idea is anathema to the premise of RQ. RQ is founded on the premise that everything is mechanically equal.

If by "the rules" you mean RQG, maybe so. But not RQ 3, as I'd quoted the pow gain rule previously.

Nope, not really even close. RQ3, Book 1, page 38: "When a spell using adventurer matches magic points against a target's magic points on the resistance table, then the Attackers POW (the source of the active influence) has a chance to increase if the attack succeeds." That's conclusively different, eg the 'fighting off' bit. ACTIVE ACTION. Saying that POW can increase because something attacked you is like saying you actually get to be a better fighter because someone punches you ...provably not true. Even sillier. You get POW from being stressed? What if you fall off a cliff? Your house is on fire? Have to take a really hard test? Aren't sure your date's going to show up? Your dog is lost?

Wait, you get a POW check for resisting? Checking, and yeah, that seems to be the implied intent of the paragraph: There are two assertions: - you get a POW gain check for successfully attacking "or parrying" in spirit combat. - as far as I understand it, Spirit combat is now resolved with a single opposed roll, so I'm not sure what 'parrying' in Spirit Combat means? I assume it means 'winning' even if you're not on the attack? But considering you could get that result with both actually failing ...that seems odd. Anyway... - you get a POW gain check with a success in any POW/POW resistance contest So for the latter, yes, @Kloster seems to be correct....although I'd submit there's room for interpretation here? I'd probably interpret that you have to be the active party on the resistance check - ie the aggressor - to get the check. It just seems odd to me that Bumble the Useless, luckily somehow avoiding being prey to the spirits he's CONSTANTLY accidentally running into and managing to survive, somehow could gain a godly level of POW for it.

Understand that RQ before RQG had nearly nothing to do with Runes mechanically anyway. So the system before RQG *was* almost exclusively defined by: - crunchy combat - skills not classes - MP for spells, not Vancian magic. - mostly played in a weird non Tolkienesque fantasy world with ducks ....none of these having anything to do with Runes in the slightest. In fact, the pre-RQG approach to Divine Spells was...basically Vancian magic. (the horror!)

I'm not saying it's impossible to have rolled that, but it's below 1/100th of 1 percent chance. https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/

No, but sometimes my players make me think that they might be...

Well, no, it's not an osprey book certainly, I mean it's covering two massive continents, history, mythology, so it's general at that level. But it talks to some degree about the various cultures (mostly cnp from the RQ3 Glorantha books).

IMVHO the Bestiary cover is still way too dark.

Honestly, much of what you're talking about is in the Guide to Glorantha - really, a Gloranthan encyclopedia.

Their community is sadly nearly moribund, while RQ's is, dare I say it, thriving. I will say of Arneson, Barker, and Stafford (all of whom I was fortunate enough to meet or get to know), Stafford was by far the nicest!

Sorry to be that guy but: 1) if one doesn't have 58 min to watch the video, could anyone recap meaningful announcements? 2) if this is full of interesting bits, wouldn't this be be a thing that should be mentioned on the chaosium blog and/or in the email blast?

10? She'll crush it without batting an eye.

Good list - my only question is ....Snakepipe Hollow? Considering they're starting a campaign (even with RQG's ramped up character starting) that's a little deep-end-of-the-pool difficulty wise, no? Or...it's going to be ages of campaign play before they get to the point where they're headed in there (or should be)..?

Didn't stop them from releasing RQ2 and RQ3 (and MRQ and MRQ2) and RQ6....all without much to do in regard to "runes" specifically, either... /snark

At the gaming table, physical copy 100%. "Looking up some obscure crap, random rule I forget the details of, or creature stats when I'm sitting at work doing non-work things" - PDF 100%.

I will even venture back onto my nearly abandoned FB and twitter accounts for Chaosium. Posted.

Oh Steve's here now and again. He may chime in. RAI for us has always been: No body part can 'pass on' to body hp anything over 2x that part.** Parts are ACTUALLY severed by a non impaling, non blunt weapon doing 3x AT A SINGLE BLOW* ...otherwise, after they reach that 2x cap, you're just grinding hamburger. ** except falling/knockback damage *recognizing that yes, people could eventually hack through an arm with a jackknife (it's been done irl https://www.foxnews.com/story/farmer-cuts-off-right-arm-with-pocket-knife-to-save-life) I'd probably rule that if the target isn't resisting the effort, you could probably do it with a cumulative 3x...? Yes, one could go far, far down the rabbit hole of simulationism making specific exceptions and detailed effects but this is a compromise between playability and reasonable realism.

Your daughter might find these delightful pictures appealing. So yes...absolutely it CAN be child friendly and (if I may say so) also rather woman-empowering in a way no other game I've encountered, is: (these girls seem to have been nearly celebrities at Gen Con ) And a great one with Greg himself: