trystero

17 minutes ago, Al. said:

I never had a player (lucky!) enough to own character with the wear no armour on X geas...

One of my players took "Wear no armour on your head" as his Humakti geas. Hooray for called shot rules!

7 hours ago, styopa said:

Curiously, no, I just skimmed the RQ2 rulebook pretty closely, and didn't see ANYTHING explicitly mentioning the 1h thing=attack or parry, 2h thing=attack AND parry rule.  Been using that one myself for 30 years, maybe it was clarified in RQ3?  Don't have those books handy.

It's called out very explicitly in RQ3's Player Book, p. 48, "How to Parry" section:

Quote

If a weapon can be used to parry (see weapons lists), it can parry one attack. If the adventurer has two parrying weapons, and is being attacked more than once in the melee round, he can parry one attack with each weapon. In either case he may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two-handed weapons, however, can be used to attack once and parry once.

I prefer having 10 SR per round just because that makes it easier to track casting time for long spells (25 MP = 25 strike ranks = 2 full rounds + 5 SR). But then, I started on RQ3, so I may just be preferring the version I first learned.

You can get a used ("like new") hardcover copy off Amazon US for the low, low price of $200.44 plus shipping...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1568823479/

1 hour ago, Archivist said:

I like it, and my player's are happier, when each character has their "thing" (this is just a preference). In an OSR RPG, every character has a class; in Savage Worlds, characters have all sorts of Edges that give them very different abilities); in the world of darkness game, each character has a splat that gives them completely different powers. However, it seems like in D100 systems (I happen to be using Renissance D100 and Pirates and Dragons), you end up with very similar characters - just a handful of % points difference. I'm sure I must be missing something. How do you differentiate characters?

When you can't rely on the game mechanics to make your character unique, sometimes you end up doing more of that work yourself.

The best RuneQuest game I ever ran was one where I dictated that all PCs must be the same species and gender and come from the same culture, tribe, clan, village, and social class; then I told the players to pick the stats they wanted and see how different they could make characters with those constraints. We ended up with a smug, charismatic fight-picking Orlanth worshipper, his quiet, thoughtful Elmali hunter/outdoorsman brother, and their fierce honour-driven Humakti comrade (plus a Gustbran-worshipping smith who joined later); all of them were basically "fighter" types in D&D terms, but we never had any issues distinguishing those PCs from one another.

1 hour ago, fmitchell said:

...from what I understand there will be five in-print heirs to the original RuneQuest. . . . not including other scions of Mongoose including Legend or the Renaissance line (SRD, Clockwork & Chivalry, Dark Streets, Pirates & Dragons).  Nor does that include the to-be-republished RuneQuest 2, nor the tons of Call of Cthulhu 2-6 material still out there, nor the lovingly preserved Big Gold Books and Magic Worlds, nor the silent legions of homebrew d100 systems, nor the upcoming Revolution D100 inspired partly (I suspect) by the aforementioned state of affairs.

Of course, back in the day, there was only RuneQuest 1st/2nd edition... and then BRP, and Call of Cthulhu 1st edition, and Stormbringer 1st edition, and the three-game Worlds of Wonder set... and then Superworld and CoC 2nd edition and Ringworld and ElfQuest and RQ3 and (arguably) Pendragon and (definitely) Stormbringer 2nd edition and Hawkmoon... and that's all material published by Chaosium, not by third parties.

There have always been a variety of BRP games/flavours out there. Now there will be three, it sounds like: one for Lovecraftian horror (CoC 7th edition), one for Gloranthan fantasy (the new RuneQuest), and one generic (the BRP Essentials book). The others -- OpenQuest and Legend and whatever RQ6 ends up being called after its license expires and all of the other d100 games you mention -- aren't Chaosium's games, and I don't think their existence should prevent Chaosium from publishing the games they want to publish.

I guess I see that variety as a strength, rather than a weakness.

12 minutes ago, Akrasia said:

What has yet to be explained is why anyone at Chaosium thinks that there is a real demand for a fourth version of RuneQuest in less than a decade.  Especially given all the positive reviews and support for RQ6.

Well, there's certainly demand from me. While I liked RQ6 better than MRQ II, and liked MRQ II better than original MRQ, I'm still very excited by the idea of a Chaosium-published edition with input from members of the RQ2 and RQ3 teams; I'm hoping the new game will combine the simpler and more-systemic elements of RQ2 and 3 with some of the innovations from RQ6.

On 12/6/2015, 5:41:18, Vile said:

Just on the topic of alternate covers, I'm not sure whether Chaosium is planning to release any books as PoD but if they do - why not have a choice of covers? Some mad individuals might even buy a copy of each! Some crazy, mad individuals, none of whom reside on these boards I'm sure.

I suggested this approach to Jeff via the Kickstarter update comments. :-)

1 hour ago, K Peterson said:

Sorry to take this off-topic... but, is CDA 2nd edition available anywhere? Doesn't seem to be listed on Chaosium's site or Drive-Thru Rpg.

Also, how does CDA-2 compare with CDA-1 in terms of content? I own a pdf of CDA-1 so I'm curious if there's any value to "upgrading".

Chaosium were briefly selling a print edition (which is a pre-release "ashcan" apparently created for NecronomiCon 2015 in Providence); that's not the final print/PDF release, which I'm hoping to see next year.

I got a copy from NecronomiCon, but not with me, so I'll include the back-cover and introduction summaries from the book's RPGGeek database entry:

Quote

From the back cover:

Cthulhu Dark Ages has been updated for Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition, completely revised and with a wealth of new setting material. Included are a player’s guide to the Dark Ages, an optional Sanity mechanic which mirrors the medieval mindset, rules for the oral tradition of story telling, rules for mounted combat, a grimoire of Dark Age spells and optional rules for folk magic, a bestiary of monsters, as well as a fully detailed setting - the Anglo-Saxon community of Totburh in England’s Severn Valley which includes interesting characters, dwelling descriptions, and a multitude of plot hooks for Keepers to use and develop. In addition, three scenarios introduce players to the Dark Age Severn Valley.

Quote

From the introduction (by revision co-author Chad Bowser):

The first Cthulhu Dark Ages was a success, spawning several monographs. Unfortunately, it never received official support in the form of released-to-distribution books. Rather than reprint the original Cthulhu Dark Ages, Chaosium decided to produce an updated version, with an increased page count. Andi and I were handed the task of building upon Stephane’s original masterpiece. As a fan of the first edition, and somebody with an advanced degree in 10th century history, I was thrilled. Deciding how to update it and increase its value as a game proved a monumental challenge. One of the most important changes is that the new Cthulhu Dark Ages is a supplement, not a standalone product. While most of the rules you need to play are contained within, the book does reference some spells and creatures from the core Call of Cthulhu rulebook.

As you read through the book, you will undoubtedly see many changes. Some changes were minor. First and foremost, Cthulhu Dark Ages has been updated for the 7th edition of Call of Cthulhu. There are some changes to the combat system to make it more deadly, a new, optional Sanity mechanic to better situate the rules within the early medieval mindset, and rules for the oral tradition—something to take the place of Mythos tomes in an illiterate world.

Some other changes are more grandiose in scope. The original Cthulhu Dark Ages was a toolkit but lacked a defined world for players and their Keeper to tackle. There were hints of the Dark Ages world here and there, but nothing to tell the players what made the Dark Ages unique and different from the High Middle Ages or the ancient world. Now, there’s the village of Totburh, a fully developed Anglo-Saxon burh (fortified dwelling) nestled snuggly within the Severn Valley; filled with interesting characters and more plot hooks than a Keeper can shake a shoggoth at. Granted, not everybody is going to be excited by Anglo-Saxon England, so there’s also a player’s guide to life in the Dark Ages that explains many of the concepts that were fairly widespread, but by no means universal, across the continent during the 10th century, which aims to illustrate exactly how alien the 10th century can be to modern players.

I hope that's some help.

9 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

...it's a matter of time and resources...those aren't as easy to recreate as you might think. Creating something like the Gloranthan Classic Griffin Mountain takes hundreds of hours.

Could we fan-source the text-entry part? I'd be happy to type in a couple of pages of RQ3; I know that won't help with the layout, but it would at least help get lots of eyes on the text to catch errors...

5 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

I've just finished the GM screen that will be available for RuneQuest Classic. It's two 11"x17" double-sided panels, and somewhat similar to what the Judges Guild did for RQ back in the late 70's. The player handouts, which were originally an eight page (no page numbers) pullout section in the middle of the book (useful if you had the stapled rulebook) are now 20 pages in total.

Need... to pre-order... intensifying...

30 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

RuneQuest Companion? No, that was RQ2.

I think Nick meant the Thieves' World Companion, which added RQ3 stats.

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

RQ6...._does_ have plenty of tables to reference during play, while RQ3 had basically no table that could not be reconstructed mat[h]ematically with a simple computation. Depending on how much maths scare you, you might find one version more elegant than the other, or vice versa.

This is what I meant by "systemic design" above. I could keep almost all the information I needed for RQ3 in my head, or find it on a character sheet or in the 8-page Game Aids booklet, which made the game play very quickly and smoothly. The equivalent of that booklet for RQ6 is the "Charts and Sheets" section of the Games Master's Pack, which (even omitting tables used only during character creation) takes up about 30 pages.

A specific example: hit points per body location in RQ3 are computed from formulae, with the results summarized in a table, while in RQ6 they're given in a table, from which you can derive the formulae with some effort. Having the formulae made it much faster for me to write up (or improv) stats for enemies.

Again, I like a lot of the RQ6 changes; I just miss the clean simplicity of the RQ3 rules.

And we should probably spin off a new thread for this, rather than continue to derail discussion of the eagerly-awaited RQ2 reprint.

Fantastic news.

12 hours ago, Simlasa said:

I've seen that mentioned in the rulebooks, but where does the name 'Byakhee' and their relation to Hastur come from? I seem to recall that the weird creatures in The Festival are considered to be Byakhee but I don't remember that name being used in that story.

You're correct; the creatures in "The Festival" are not named. Wikipedia says:

Quote

Byakhee appear in Anders Fager's short stories "Miss Witts' great work of art" and "The Queen in Yellow". They are described as huge bat-like birds somehow associated with the city of Carcosa.

I haven't read these stories, but it appears that they're the source of the Hastur linkage: byakhee <-> Carcosa, Carcosa <-> Hastur, therefore byakhee <-> Hastur by the transitive principle.

6 hours ago, bturner said:

RQ6 is a cleaner game than the original, considering only mundane issues of rules design, physical layout, and the like. Where it cannot stand against RQ2 (at least for an aging grognard like me) is the sheer sense of wonder and discovery. Sure, I may be trying to recapture lost youth, but there are worse motivations. :-)

I agree on rules design, though I think RQ6 lacks a little of the clean, systemic design that I associate with RQ3; there are more tables and fewer computations in the newer version.

However, while I like RQ6's layout, I do wish it used a slightly sturdier typeface; I'd honestly rather have RQ2's plain look or RQ3's layout than the small, thin Warnock Pro type used in RQ6. I find the PDF nearly impossible to read without doing a lot of zooming, and even the printed book is a bit more strain on my old eyes than I like.

(Some of Moon Design's books have similar issues for me; the spidery Adobe Garamond type in HeroQuest Glorantha, for instance, makes that book harder to read than I think it needs to be. Perhaps it's just me.)

I don't pray, but I'll second your hopes that folks are out of danger. (Except for the 120 or so, at last count, who no longer need fear it.)

Wow. That's a long but very solid write-up; I liked it a lot. I think you've integrated the abilities demonstrated in the films nicely into the game mechanics. Well done.

I'll be old-fashioned and suggest Chaosium Forums so we can discuss the upcoming Chaosium boardgames without triggering flamewars about whether they're off-topic. :-)

But I'd love for the BRP section of the forum to be BRP Central.

1 hour ago, Baulderstone said:

It's complicated. My issue with percentile characteristics is that it sets the expectation that they are on the same scale as skills, but that sets all kinds of issues in motion. An average characteristic sits at 50%, which is actually better than average for a skill. You have both skills and characteristics measured as percentiles, but with different meanings on the scale.

Fully agreed. To its credit, CoC 7 provides different scales to illustrate this distinction (characteristic scale on p. 37 of the core book, skill scale on p. 54, special Credit Rating scale on p. 46) and specifically suggests taking the disparity into account for opposed rolls on p. 90:

Quote

The Keeper should be aware that characteristics are usually higher than skills, so where one side uses a characteristic the other side should be given the choice of whether to use a characteristic or a skill.

For me, the big benefit of having characteristics on the percentile scale is that they can directly oppose one another instead of requiring Resistance Table lookups (or brief calculation); I also like that this approach lets both sides roll, just as in combat or any other opposed situation, instead of only the "active" participant rolling.

I do still need to do quick division by 5 when assessing an Investigator's (or creature's) scores, since I've had so long to get used to the 3-18 scale, but it's not a problem for me during play.

You may want to take a look at Cthulhu Wars...

https://petersengames.com/downloads/

...which similarly organises Great Old Ones and other critters into "factions" for game play. Specifically, the faction listing on p. 6 of the main rulebook gives you the run-down on who's associated with whom in that game. (But note that not all of these associations are canonical by any means.)

Some of the creature/god associations are from non-HPL stories, like the chthonians and Shudde M'ell from Brian Lumley's The Burrowers Beneath, or the fire vampires and Cthugha from August Derleth's "The Dweller in Darkness".

And some creatures are associated only with other creatures, such as the Old Ones (Elder Things) creating the shoggoths, or the conflict between the Great Race of Yith and the flying polyps.

(Oh, and I left out another reference from The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath, in which "hunting-horrors" appear to serve Nyarlathotep. They're described as "formless", though, so I'm not sure they're really the same as CoC's Hunting Horrors.)

I think it's difficult to establish firm connections, since Lovecraft didn't usually take a systematic approach, but the associations that come to mind for me include:

• "The Whisperer in Darkness" shows the Mi-go associating with (or worshipping?) Nyarlathotep.
• "The Shadow over Innsmouth" states that the Deep Ones worship Cthulhu, and also mentions Mother Hydra and Father Dagon, possibly as ancestor deities (?).
• The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath mentions that the night-gaunts' ruler is Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss, and also notes that Nyarlathotep is the "soul and messenger" of the Other gods which surround Azathoth.
• At the Mountains of Madness mentions Tsathoggua's "formless star spawn", and also the "fabulous prehuman spawn of Cthulhu" ("a land race of beings shaped like octopi").

I'm sure I'm missing some, but that's a start.

13 hours ago, Aycorn said:

I deeply regret, however, that the latest CoC is no longer, effectively, a BRP-based game.

That hasn't really been my finding, but I guess it depends on what you consider to be the requirements for a game to be "BRP-based". For me, the similarities greatly outweigh the differences; CoC 7 still feels very much like CoC to me.

Jeff, I'm glad to hear that you're going to push Doors to Darkness, as I think a good collection of starter scenarios is just what the new edition needs. I liked the copy I got from NecronomiCon, but will be happy to pick up the improved version when it's available.