trystero

On a quick skim, I've so far only observed some very minor glitches, mostly to do with numeric punctuation. page 37, col 2, para 7, line 2: "10-feet across" - incorrect hyphenation (not a compound adjective) - change to "10 feet across" page 43, col 1, para 7, line 2: "a Hard Dodge roll for each 10-feet" - incorrect hyphenation (not a compound adjective) - change to "a Hard Dodge roll for each 10 feet" page 43, col 2, para 2, line 1: "Four-feet across" - incorrect hyphenation (not a compound adjective) - change to "Four feet across" page 43, col 2, para 2, line 1: "100-feet long" - incorrect hyphenation (not a compound adjective) - change to "100 feet long" (See http://www.whitesmoke.com/janestraus_17 for a brief discussion of hyphenation of numeric values in text. The short version: only include a hyphen when forming a compound adjective, such as the "10-foot cube" in the final paragraph on p. 142.) page 47, col 1, para 5, line 3: "30oC" - "o" used in place of degree symbol - change to "30°C" page 182, col 1, para 4, line 1: "damage 1D10+ 5" - extra space before "5" - change to "1D10+5" (should all be on first line) page 203, col 1, para 4, line 1: "1-3" - hyphen used in place of en dash - change to "1–3" page 203, col 1, para 5, line 1: "4-6" - hyphen used in place of en dash - change to "4–6" page 203, col 1, para 6, line 1: "7-9" - hyphen used in place of en dash - change to "7–9" page 213, col 1, para 3, line 5: "52-55" - hyphen used in place of en dash - change to "52–55" page 228, col 1, para 9, line 1: "5-10" - hyphen used in place of en dash - change to "5–10" page 256, col 1, para 3, line 1: "1928-1933" - hyphen used in place of en dash - change to "1928–1933"

There were licensed Wild Cards supplements for GURPS back in the late '80s and early '90s. I'm guessing the license has expired by now, though.

Ooooh. I don't see it listed on the chaosium.com website, but I'm certainly interested if the OP isn't.

This looks really cool. I'd back the KS campaign if I hadn't just blown my discretionary budget on "fixing the hole in my house". I hope the book and extras will be available later when my balance recovers.

Hunh. I had never realised that RQ2 allowed for "after-the-fact" stacking, but you're right that it does. Thanks for bringing this up; I learned something. :-)

Not per the rules: a subsequent casting is a different stack. Stackable (in RQ3, anyway) doesn't mean you can add multiple levels of spell cast in different rounds; it means you can add multiple levels of spell in a single casting (in one round). From the Magic Book, p. 28, second paragraph under "Stacking Limits" heading: (emphasis added) So if you cast Shield 1 in round 1, then cast Shield 2 in round 2, you get Shield 2, not Shield 3. You'd have to cast Shield 3 all at once if you wanted Shield 3.

In the errata, the entry for p. 305 of the Keeper Rulebook reads "Insect from Shaggy"; this should read "Insects from Shaggai" (or "Shaggai, Insects from" to match the actual format of the creature entry). Similarly, the entries for p. 403 in the Keeper Rulebook and for p. 252 in the Investigator Handbook should both read "12-gauge Shotgun" rather than "12-guage Shotgun". (Yes, we're on to meta-errata. I look forward to the meta-meta-errata pointing out my own mistakes.)

I'll throw in a minor one: p. 37, “What the Numbers Mean” sidebar: Under “Size”, the entry for "60" entry should be "65", since this is the average roll for the SIZ characteristic. (Or are investigators meant to be fatter than average?)

They're very nice. I do wish (echoing a comment I saw on G+) that they were a little bigger when printed on shirts and hoodies. And I also wish we could get custom combinations for specific cults: I wouldn't wear a shirt with the Death rune because it'd probably be mistaken for the Christian cross icon, but I might wear one with the Death and Truth runes for Humakt. :-)

Congratulations on running your first CoC game; it sounds like you had a good time, and I hope there are more sessions to come!

Mostly theatre-of-the-mind. For some complex action scenes, I'll sketch a rough map to ensure that the players and I have the same understanding of the locale, and may even put down pawns to show where investigators and foes are, but we don't use any sort of grid or measurement; it's more "you're at the front door, you're climbing in the back window, this creature is in the living room", etc.

Did you buy the PDF edition of the Keeper Screen pack as well as the print? That edition includes the Missed Dues & Blackwater Creek adventure book, so you could easily print off copies of the pages with the pregenerated investigators. If you bought the print edition of the Keeper Screen pack at a store that participates in the Bits and Mortar program, you should be able to get the PDF version for free: see http://www.chaosium.com/blog/chaosium-joins-bits-and-mortar/ for more on this.

The rule that MJ Sadique refers to wasn't included in the 1984 Avalon Hill RQ3 sets; it was added in the official errata, which I first encountered in the Avalon Hill single-volume softcover edition of 1993: This did give some benefit to blunt weapon-users, but didn't provide any advantage for using blunt/flanged weapons against rigid armour types, which is what they were historically used for.

pp.. 401, 406: The Hand-to-Hand Weapons table entry for Spear (cavalry lance) on p. 401 has an asterisk indicating a note at the bottom of the table, but no such note is present on p. 406. I assume the missing note says something about use of the lance at the charge; I'd hope the new edition sticks with the RuneQuest rule about letting the lancer use the mount's damage bonus in place of their own (e.g., +3D6 damage for a horseman) when charging.

Dodging and running away—pretty much the tactics you should use in real life if you meet a bear in the woods—seem like the best options, frankly. As in real life, you could try to use Stealth to hide from the bear or Climb to get out of its reach... and as in real life, these are bad ideas because bears have sensitive noses and are better climbers than you are. :-) It's worth remembering that most animals—including bears—don't attack humans unless they're starving, threatened, or protecting their young, and that they may start with a threat display (roaring, rearing up, etc.) to frighten off intruders before actually attacking. Not every "monster" will fight, or fight to the death, and this is a change from the combat assumptions embedded in Pathfinder and many versions of D&D. In general, Call of Cthulhu being what it is, running away is very often the best way out of a potentially-violent situation. Combat is always a risk, and (again as in real life), the best way to avoid losing a fight is to avoid having it. I'm especially entertained to hear about the situation arising in your game because "starting character(s) vs. a pissed-off bear" has been, for decades now, my way of gauging the combat system in any new RPG. The characters should be in danger, but should, with luck and determination, be capable of driving off or killing the bear. My experience is that many games favour the PCs over the bear: RuneQuest and its scion Call of Cthulhu, however, come out of this test pretty well.

I assume you read RQ2 first? I read RQ3 first, and found RQ2 hard going as a result, despite enjoying its more heavily-Gloranthan flavour.

I always found the RQ3 books to be models of clear presentation and useful organisation, myself; that game is my gold standard.

I'd love to see a Glorantha map shower curtain. Why not? Warner Bros. sells a shower curtain with Daniel Reeve's map of Middle-earth; I don't know what the resolution of the image is (and at US$59.46, I'm certainly not buying it to find out), but if you wanted a reeeally big map for your The One Ring campaign...

I found that disparity confusing, too. We play that Extreme successes do maximum damage, and just add special goodness for Critical successes.

I'm not being polite; I like 7th edition better than 6th edition, and will recommend it accordingly. Though I guess I will be polite in saying that I understand why other folks prefer some of the pre-6th editions as the classic, more old-school version of the game. (And impolite in saying that 6th edition is a good game wrapped in an unreadable hot mess of a layout: if you don't want 7th edition, get edition 5.6 or 5.6.1, which are the exact same content, as far as I can tell, but in a readable layout.) Belgath, my advice would be to download the free Seventh Edition Quick-Start Rules PDF (which includes the classic starter scenario "The Haunting") and the free solo adventure Alone Against the Flames, and to buy either the 7th-edition Investigator Handbook (if you're going to be a player) or the Keeper Rulebook and Keeper Screen pack (if you're going to GM), and to digest all that material before you pick up anything else. If you're GMing, I'd concur with Mike Mason's suggestion of the upcoming 7th-edition scenario pack Doors to Darkness, which includes adventures set in the game's "classic" locations and era (Lovecraft Country in the 1920s) plus advice for new GMs. Nameless Horrors, Dead Light, and Pulp Cthulhu can wait until you've gotten comfortable; all are worthwhile IMO, but you don't need them, and certainly not as part of your initial embrace of the game. The rulebooks are plenty of reading on their own. :-) Edit: The reprints of the 7th-edition books are on the boat(s) from China, per this G+ post by Chaosium's Michael O'Brien.

Should this thread be in the Glorantha forum?

The original PDF edition didn't have any title other than Call of Cthulhu on its cover or title page, so folks called it the Call of Cthulhu 7th edition rulebook. But the final corrected PDF release, and the print editions, all say Keeper Rulebook on the cover, and so I think that's the least-ambiguous name for it.

Which is to say, the Keeper Rulebook. :-)

The article is on Monte Cook Games' site, but is actually written by Charles Ryan.

One thing I've always liked about Call of Cthulhu is that scenarios often include NPC skills that aren't listed on the investigator sheet; Masks of Nyarlathotep, just to pick one example, includes NPC skills like "Belly Dance", "Be Tempted", "Act Before Thinking", and (relevant here) "Cook and Clean". These are great for giving the Keeper a vivid picture of the NPC; their existence implies that the skills on the investigator sheet are just the most commonly-used ones, and that any skill is possible. That said, I agree that these specialized/descriptive skills are generally better used for NPCs; unless one of them is really important to the player's character conception, I wouldn't bother adding them, as they (a) take points away from the listed skills, and (b) won't ever be called for in a scenario. (Though they might be usable even if not called for...)