Jump to content

trystero

Members
  • Content Count

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by trystero

  1. For those of us who purchased the PDF through Chaosium.com, how will we know when there are updated/corrected versions available? OneBookShelf (DriveThruRPG, RPGNow!, _etc._) sends e-mail when a purchased title has been updated; does Chaosium do the same thing? Thanks!
  2. On p. 199, the wording in the Attack & Parry Results table entries is inconsistent (e.g., the attacker "does" damage in some entries, "rolls" or "causes" it in others), which I think will lead to confusion. I've attached an Excel spreadsheet with my suggested revisions, which attempt to keep the wordings of the entries as consistent as possible. More importantly, the table doesn't always agree with the text on pp. 197–8 and 200. For instance, the "Parrying a Critical Hit" section on p. 200 says that a weapon or shield parrying a critical hit suffers double normal damage (i.e., 2 HP if its current HP are exceeded) unless it's a weapon parrying an impaling or long-hafted weapon (in which case it suffers no damage), but the Critical Attack vs. Normal Parry table entry just says, "Defender's parrying weapon HP reduced by the damage rolled", with no mention of any of this. I've followed the p. 200 rule in my suggested revision. Similarly, the Summary of Combat Results sidebar on p. 200 says that a critical success on an attack roll "ignores armor and does maximum special damage plus damage bonus", but the Critical Attack vs. Special Parry and Critical Attack vs. Normal Parry table entries both say that the attacker rolls special damage, rather than inflicting maximum special damage. No damage-reducing effect is described in the text for special or normal parries against critical hits, so I've again followed the p. 200 rule in my suggested revisions. As these examples make clear, it would be helpful to specify whether the text or the table takes precedence in the event of a contradiction. I realise that it's hard to summarise a 25-entry table in the text, but the attack/parry results need to be clear and consistent. (MRQ suffered from exactly this problem in its first edition, and I don't want to see RQ:G have the same issue.) Here are my suggested revisions in text format, just in case the spreadsheet isn't helpful: Critical Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to random hit location. Critical Attack vs. Special Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to adjacent hit location (usually arm), with no armor protection. Critical Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 2 HP if damage exceeds its current HP (0 HP if parrying impaling or long-hafted weapon with a weapon). Defender suffers unblocked damage to adjacent hit location (usually arm), with no armor protection. Critical Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location, with no armor protection. Critical Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location, with no armor protection, and rolls on Fumbles table. Special Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Special Attack vs. Special Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to random hit location. Special Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP per point of excess damage. Defender suffers unblocked damage to adjacent hit location (usually arm). Special Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location. Special Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location and rolls on Fumbles table. Normal Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage in excess of its current HP. Normal Attack vs. Special Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Normal Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to random hit location. Normal Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location. Normal Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location and rolls on Fumbles table. Failed Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage. Failed Attack vs. Special Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage in excess of its current HP. Failed Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Failed Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker misses. Defender misses. Failed Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location and rolls on Fumbles table. Fumbled Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage. Fumbled Attack vs. Special Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage in excess of its current HP. Fumbled Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Fumbled Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender misses. Fumbled Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls on Fumbles table. Attack & Parry Results, revised.xlsx
  3. Very minor layout issue: pp. 432–437 passim: In all the tables in the Conversion Guide appendix, the em-dash cell entries are not indented, while all other text cell entries are. This results in a ragged appearance; it would look better if the em-dashes were indented to match the other text.
  4. The book is beautiful; lovely work, Chaosium folks. I'm just skimming, because I don't think my employer will accept "new RQ edition!" as a reason for me to miss work tomorrow, but so far I'm drooling and wishing I could sit up all night reading.
  5. trystero

    Pre-Gens

    It was, indeed. I loved that game (for what it was). For those who don't recognise it, the left and right images in that graphic are from the Advanced Damage Tables supplement for a 1980s game called Phoenix Command, which wasn't so much an RPG as a gun-combat rules system with tons and tons of detail, written by a literal rocket scientist. It's complete overkill (pun intended) at the rules level, but remarkably satisfying as a way to scratch the "crunch" itch… but so completely focused on its one area of specialty as to be useless at anything else. (Try attacking a horse or indeed making a hand-to-hand attack without having purchased the appropriate supplements.) I adore RQ for feeling gritty and crunchy without actually descending into sanity-blasting Phoenix Command-like levels of detail. (See? Brought it back 'round on topic by the end.)
  6. I hardly ever used the table; "5% of success chance", "20% of success chance", and "5% of failure chance" always sufficed for my group.
  7. I don't use miniatures or terrain; some plastic tokens on a quickly-sketched map on paper is about as much tactical representation as my games ever need. So I think I'm not your target audience. I'll be interested to hear whether other folks use minis or terrain for Call of Cthulhu, though.
  8. Can I play? Here are my colour and black-and-white versions, re-created in the spirit of the original but with some customizations (check box for tracking POW gains, lots of new skills, coin types/values/weights and hit-location HP fractions). Human Adventurer Sheet (2).pdf Human Adventurer Sheet (old, greyscale).pdf
  9. Honestly, that hadn't even occurred to me; I'm assuming all copies of BIG RUBBLE and RINGWORLD have the same logo orientation. I just wondered whether there was a story behind these two reversed-logo releases.
  10. I've just noticed, glancing up at my shelf of RQ2 and other Chaosium "big box" releases, that while the Chaosium dragon logo typically faces to the left, BIG RUBBLE and RINGWORLD both have it facing to the right instead. Wondering whether this was intended to mean something or whether it's just a random production glitch or oddity.
  11. My first reaction to the cover art is that it's a lovely piece which would be great on a HeroQuest book. Its tone doesn't really match the tone of most of my RuneQuest games; it's larger-than-life and heroic and doesn't provide much focus on the gritty details which are (IMO) so important in RQ. But I'm trying to keep an open mind and will see whether the art grows on me.
  12. I've been waiting to complete my collection and snapped this up yesterday as soon as I saw it was available. It's lovely. (BTW, is it correct that both issues 1 and 2 were originally from November 2013, as noted on their revised editions' title pages?)
  13. https://rpggeek.com/wiki/page/Call_of_Cthulhu_7th_edition_upcoming_releases has everything that I know about. No mention of Malleus Monstrorum, though.
  14. pp. 62, 63: The description of Siren on the sheets for Jason Kernicky and Isaac Klein should say that her star is "in the ascendant" rather than "in the ascendance". (Same for pp. 8 and 9 in the separate Pre Generated Investigators PDF.) pp. 82, 191: In the first sentence of Handout: Panacea 1, "wellbeing" should probably be "well-being" if the company is located in the US. In the last sentence, "state of the art" should be "state-of-the-art" since it's a compound adjective. (Same on p. 7 of the separate Handouts and Maps PDF.) pp. 108: Paragraph 2, line 4: both words of "Rolot gas" should be quoted, rather than just "Rolot". (The pregenerated investigator backgrounds correctly quote both words.) pp. 142–147: Remove the colon from the sentence starting "You and a team of experts have been sent…"; it's not necessary. (Same for pp. 20–25 in the Pre Generated Investigators PDF.) Also, the title of the Pre Generated Investigators book should be Pre-Generated Investigators or Pregenerated Investigators.
  15. I think AH's high price for RQ3 was part of the reason that edition wasn't as big a hit as it deserved to be. (RQ3 certainly didn't really take off in the UK until the publication of Games Workshop's licensed — and much cheaper — hardback edition.)
  16. That's more indicative of how terrible a measure of health BMI is than of a problem with the SIZ table. BMI doesn't account for bone and muscle mass being denser than fat, squares height instead of cubing it for no explicable reason, and is basically junk science; see, for instance, this NPR article which points out, among other things, that BMI inventor Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet explicitly stated that his formula “could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual”. (There's also this article pointing out that the average Denver Broncos player is obese according to the BMI, and that many athletes rate as overweight or obese.)
  17. In their January 1985 catalogue, Avalon Hill sold the RQ3 Deluxe Edition box for US$38, which works out to about US$90 today. (They also sold the Players Box for US$20 and the Gamemasters Box for US$25.) I seem to recall the Deluxe Edition box originally being US$40, but don't have a source for that. I do know from firsthand experience that it was £40 in the UK in 1984, which works out to £117.99 today, which in turn converts to US$154.28 today. Eye-wateringly expensive, that import.
  18. After years of play, no-one wants to risk a TPK cutting things short. Having a backup NPC to restart the game is vital IMO.
  19. Erm... Wealthy English minor nobleman Wealthy nobleman's Scottish valet-cum-ghillie Wealthy American occultist Wealthy occultist's English valet-cum-factotum (deceased, quite violently) French/Algerian occult-bookstore owner (institutionalised after committing a bloody murder and eating part of the body) French mechanical-engineering professor (left the group to try to get decent treatment for the bookstore-owner) Russian noble-born gentleman detective (institutionalised after dropping precipitously to 1 SAN) Bulgarian "antiquarian"/burglar Plus the even-wealthier wife of the wealthy nobleman, who's back in London as the person who'll hire the next bunch of investigators whenif the remainder of this bunch all die or go mad at once, aka the TPK Campaign Rescue Option™.
  20. As I read the rules, yes, you add penalty dice (or remove bonus dice, or raise the difficulty level) for each new attack roll, not just for each new volley. Hence the "First attack roll" and "Second and further attack rolls" headings in the "Rolling to hit with automatic fire" section starting on p. 114 of the Keeper's Rulebook.
  21. I don't know, but I can hope...
  22. Half the shots in the burst hit not because of cover or making three attacks in a round or the Hard success; it's just a general rule that half the shots in a successful automatic-fire burst hit. See the first bullet entry under "Resolving each attack roll:" at the bottom left of p.116; I hope that helps.
  23. Not quite. The average RQ3 character has STR 10–11 and SIZ 13, so their total STR+SIZ is 23–24, and you need a total of 25 to get a +1D4 damage bonus. I agree that the RQ3 SIZ boost meant that damage bonuses were easier to get, but they were still not within the province of the average.
  24. I'd love to see generic stat-blocks, which were common in RQ3 releases: the ones in Vikings (Jarl, Skald, Berserk, a few different competence levels of warriors, etc.) would be a good basis. Then named characters can just be "a Thane with 87% Orate" as opposed to needing a full stat-block.
  25. I've always played that defenses are declared just before the attack roll; the defender does not need to announce them in Statement of Intent. We make the attack and defense rolls simultaneously, so the defender does not get to know what success level the attacker got. So on SR 7, fr'instance, the GM says, "The brigand attacks Cormac with his battleaxe", and Cormac's player says, "I parry with my shield"; both then roll the relevant weapon skills and compare levels of success. (The attacker will often also roll weapon damage and hit location along with the attack roll to save time.)
×
×
  • Create New...