RosenMcStern

Whoohoo! And the original (well, one of the originals) map of Glorantha, with continents where there should be archipelagos, and the Land of the Altinae marked on it! A real piece of history. Lucky man. I am no collector, but if I were I would love this.

Hey, this is turning to a programming forum. Which is cool, because the only discussions that are more "religious" than those between gamers are those between programmers. Let the flames begin!

You do realize that "goto" statements are alive in well in concept?

Inserting an "exit" statement in a switch or conditional statement is

the same as having a "goto end". And nobody would argue the validity

of doing so.

Absolutely. That's why goto is not present in, say, Java or C#, but break and continue are. I was not talking about using goto to exit a compound statement, a practice blessed even by Niklaus Wirth in "Intro to Structured Programming." I was talking about using goto instead of control-flow instruction. You know, that good old practice in BASIC or the like of making end condition loops by putting an IF GOTO instruction at the end of the block.

My point stands. Find me one who is fool enough to insert a goto to a previous statement, and not to the end of a cycle. I'll find you perfectly working code written with gotos going everywhere instead of if and loop statements, something you would never do nowadays but that was commonly accepted some years ago. In fact, I am currently doing the porting of a bunch of this c*** from spaghetti code style to structured, at present. And even COBOL programmers say this is c*** since structured COBOL was invented.

It is not only "old", it is "wrong". Of course not everything that is old is also wrong. I would never compare RQ2 with spaghetti code. D&D, on the other hand.....

Ah, the Big Rants move to their own thread, at last. Now just wait till Frogspawner finds this one....

RQII's table is not inherently flawed simply because it's older.

I never stated these points were flawed, just superseded by a better version of the same rules. I should have used the term "outdated", not "wrong", but everyone complained about using the concept of "old as bad".

and I'm disappointed to a degree that some RQII ideas (such as Defence) aren't available as options in the new BRP...]

Interesting question for Jason. Did they consider it and find it wrong or did they just omit the option? I find it wrong, but that's just my opinion.

Why does the range of values for a characteristic being one thing have any intrinsic value over any other range? If DEX is 3 - 18, why not SIZ and INT?

snip...

# A fair and valid criticism of RQII's SIZ scores would have been that the suggested weights and heights for the 3 - 18 range were hard to correlate with real human norms, as 1 in every 216 humans being 70cm tall and weighing 10Kg is, even in a fantasy setting, pretty incredible - but surely the logical response is that the table of heights and weights is wrong?

In fact I meant option B. But it was rather lengthy to explain and just stated "3d6 for SIZ is bad" instead of "If you look at the table and consider that a linear progression of SIZ values starting at blah blah blah....".

Actually, you appear to be claiming that because C++ exists, not only should no one use Pascal, but that Pascal was never usable for writing programmes - and it's the retrospective reclassification bit that I'm arguing against.

This has absolutely nothing, and I say nothing, to do with what I said. Both C++ and Pascal are structured languages and there is still a lot of good software written in Pascal (Delphi), and there will be some for the decades to come. My point was that there are programming techniques (widely used in the past) that have been criticized so definitely that they are now considered wrong, not just old. The goto instruction is one of them. I can find you plenty of people who would still use Pascal over C if they had the option (at least one - me). Now go find me someone nowadays who would rather use Basica with line numbers instead of structured, object-oriented Visual Basic.

That is, gotos in computer programming are old because they are wrong, not wrong because they are old.

And please note that the software that handles both your and mine bank account is proably still 20-year-old COBOL written with liberal usage of hundreds of goto statements, so we have evidence that you can use a crappy programming construct and make workable software - as well as use crappy rules and make an enjoyable campaign. But it is still crap (conditional jumps, not COBOL).

And now I get to make a SAN roll for endorsing COBOL and Visual Basic.

You don't, personally, like RQII, and prefer RQIII's solutions to a lot of things. Fair enough: so do I, as it happens. But there is nothing in RQII compared to RQIII or even BRP that is inherently flawed that justifies saying "do not play that version of the game, play this version."

I have never suggested "Do not play". I have just suggested "Do not tell the newcomers to play old, unavailable versions". Which is different. See below.

You other argument (play what is in print) I don't have a problem with: I think there is good material in for example the Moon Design reprints and that second hand material is sufficiently easily available that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand: but, despite my personal distaste for MRQ, I don't have a problem with the argument that MRQ or BRP are the sensible recommendations because they are in print. I do have a problem with the idea that "it was published x years ago and is therefore inherently a flawed game."

Which I never stated. I just suggested that some points like the SIZ matter have been corrected over the years, which is another good reason to play the in-print version.

As to whether or not BRP Central is 'Revenge of the Beetle'... I sincerely hope it isn't. I'd always seen it as a place to discuss BRP in a civilised, constructive way: and that means BRP in all its forms.

It was just a joke. "The Beetle" himself got the mood of my comment and posted the trailer above. A pity I cannot access YouTube, I am a big fan of beetles.

Still, it is true that this forum is now much more active than the official MRQ forum, and debates about that system take place here rather than there. If Matthew Sprange did not notice this, I suggest you tell him. I noticed that the Powers at Mongoose Pub. usually learn from their mistakes instead of negating them, so this could provide some valuable info. Assuming this was their fault, which is yet to be proved.

The site certainly succeeds to a certain extent, but the level of unmitigated system snobbery that pervades is highly disheartening, as are the attacks that occasionally get levelled.

I agree that some arguments should be moderated, but I prefer reading unpleasant comments to seeing people silenced. The worst point in the flame wa- er, the debates that went on on the MRQ forum was when Trif was banned for criticism. This really pissed me off. Really. Abuse and insult should not be tolerated, but complaint is fine, however annoying it might be - if you do not agree, just hit the "Ignore" button. Luckily Matt & co. realized it was a mistake and the bans and thread deletion stopped. It has to be said that they correct their mistakes when they spot one.

:focus:

So, Hound of Tindalos, if you are still tuned, now you know that RQ2 was incredibly fantastic and you should really try it out if you feel like collecting old games. The same goes for RQ3. But if you do not like dust on your manuals, Mongoose RuneQuest and Second Age Glorantha is worth a try, too. Both will need some tweak to adapt to BRP. And I would recommend keeping the setting and converting the rules to BRP in both cases.

Is it all?

There's a lot of system snobbery on this forum, and its not exactly pretty or helpful to those who genuinely want to know which system will suit their particular playing style.

How true!

I am still convinced that dropping general Hit Points was a bad move, and my opinion about physical runes is, ahem, very well known. But this is just my personal opinion, and whether it is shared by the majority or not it does not matter. I will continue to support RuneQuest (and as I said elsewhere, with RuneQuest I mean the in-print version, no matter how much I loved the old ones) like I did so far. Even though I am more happy with BRP, rules-wise.

But, as I said above, this site is also "The Revenge of the Beetle", so expect some unmoderated criticism against your company here, Loz.

Stupor Mundi is good and has a couple of scenarios but lacks follow-ups.

Have faith. Playtesting of Episode 2 is in progress. And in fact there is a follow-up in the download section of this site.

I find it to be well compiled, modified, and simplified with the concept of creating one's own setting evident in every chapter.

For spiking my Nostalg-o-Meter and giving me usable, highly accessible tools to recreate the settings that only existed in my imagination as a junior high student, I've given this book a 10.

Applause for your review. Not as loud as the one that Jason and Sam truly deserve, but applause!

And just to go totally off-topic:

(When he first came to this forum - from the MRQ one - he described this place as "too civilized", btw !)

It no longer is. And I am not referring to our disputes, which stay away from personal insult, but to other "debates" that have degenerated lately. A pity, I like feuds, but not personal attacks.

Finally, did anyone notice that the MRQ forum is now way, way less active than this forum, despite the fact that there are always new products coming out for the RQ line? Hmm, this is interesting

If this was a movie, its name would be

Revenge of the Beetle! >:->

I'd say that 90% of MRQ was worse than the pre-existing RQ versions.

Actually I said the same, but with less offense for people who just did their job, in one way or another. And with less boldface.

(3) not having to track both Total HPs and HP-per-location.

I would say it was their biggest rule design fumble instead. They fixed something that was not broken. The poll that Rurik run on this site shows that three BRP players out of four do not mind marking off hit points twice.

But I cannot agree with the view that we should buy bad product from Mongoose (or anyone) in the hope they will then make enough money to publish better stuff later!

I never said your should buy their stuff. I am just saying you should not encourage new players to buy used stuff instead (which does not include BRP). The point is not where you put your money, it is whether you throw mud at people who were just anxious to publish some d100 stuff as a sound alternative to the d20 c*** they usually sell.

It works like this: first someone publishes a good product - then customers buy it.

Windows Vista (not to mention its predecessors) provides undisputable evidence of the fact that you are wrong (and note that this shows how the market works, not how it should work.

You seemed to be equating old with bad and new with good - which is clearly wrong.

New is usually better, but not necessarily. 80% of MRQ is newer-but-not-better than old BRP versions. Thankfully some details are actual improvements.

When there's an in-print version that's better than the oop versions (or even just as good as...)

You missed my point. As long as the old-schoolers sleep with their dusty old books like teddy bears (ahem, I have a whole collection of RQ3 and CoC books on my nightstand ) and encourage newbies to buy them, publishers will be a bit afraid to invest in D100/RQ/non-D&D. Companies make games because they think they'll sell, and if they see fans of classic games always saying "I'll stick to the old version, nothing can be better." where do you think they'll put with their money? And you will not see better versions if the money stays away - sad but true.

Especially if it doesn't require me having to hunt them down on ebay.

I think this sums it all up. When will we old-schoolers learn that suggesting people to get oop versions of games we like instead of the supported ones is actually a nail in the coffin for our beloved game systems? And, needless to say, a point scored for That Other Game.

Insignificant differences.

Cool! Send in your RQ3 Rune Lord with Protection 4 against my RQ3 Humakti with Bladesharp 12 and Parry 12, and let's have his arms insignificantly lopped off.

Well, RQII maybe (opposed skills are different, Defense) but RQIII? That's 25 years old and bar a few names and the magic system, the new BRP can reproduce it pretty closely, certainly close enough that you could use old RQIII supplements with the new BRP, and (with a varying amount of work depending on which BRP options are used) convert any modern BRP book for use with RQIII.

Ehm, in fact I wanted to suggest MRQ but it is terribly unpopular on this forum. And not very compatible with BRP.

And last time I checked, RPG ideas don't come with a "use by" date mandated by the Gaming Police, so "game concepts that are terribly outdated" seems to me, no offence, a pretty silly comment. "No longer / not currently in fashion" certainly, "ideas that have been improved on in the light of experience in more recent games" quite possibly. But "outdated" just makes no sense to me when applied to game rules.

Thanks God, gaming is one of the few areas that has not got a specialized police force (yet).

As for what is outdated and what is out of fashion, well, I'll explain my idea:

Take the game concept of Armor Class; it is outdated, as each and nearly all game systems other than That Game keeps it at bay for fear of appearing stupid. No sensible game designer would use it nowadays if starting from scratch. But it is certainly not out of fashion, as 90% of gamers play a game that uses it.

Got the idea? Rolling 3d6 for SIZ or using a d100 like it was a d20 are wrong rules [there are still some in BRP, sadly], not "no longer fashionable" rules. If you grok computer programming, it is like the goto statement. It is not "old-fashioned" programming that was popular in the '70s and will become popular again, it is a bad programming technique no one would use any more once the languages have introduced structured programming (barring some fanatics who like to code hyerogliphs).

I think you're right. Considering that Jason seems to have based BRP mostly on pre-RQ3 stuff (Worlds of Wonder, Strombringer, CoC), I suspect RQ3 fans will probably just as many conversion problems.

On the contrary, there is absolutely NO problem in converting anything written for RQ3 to BRP 1 (and anything written for SB, too). Differences are neglectable. In addition to this, using old RQ3 stuff with BRP adds the option of dropping something that was not optional before (Strike Ranks or the like). Using the RQ2 rules as base introduces conversion problems like Defense, armor with different values, etc.

Not meant to play devil's advocate or sound like a jerk, but what, specifically, are these "dated" game concepts?

- No Power Points. This Temporary POW stuff can give you a big headache.

- SIZ and INT rolled on 3d6 (no longer used in any BRP game)

- skill increments in 5% steps only

- artificial spell limits (Protection 4 is the top, even for the Ultra-High-Priest)

- incompatible values for armors (incompatible with BRP1 I mean)

- no ENC or fatigue option

Etc. etc. RQ3 is not perfect, but is closer to BRP as it is now.

SB/RQ formula: Skill - (Required STR - Actual STR) *5% - (Required DEX - Actual DEX) * 5%

BRP formula: Skill / 2

Which one is simpler?

Plus make one SAN roll for endorsing Ken St.André, you Tunneling Troll

Done. I was the first one to leave a comment :cool:

As stated before, I am definitely against advising to get out-of-print materials. RQ2 is almost 30 year old, and even though its "atmosphere" was great, it contains game concepts that are terribly outdated. If you start with RQ2, you will have conversion problems with everything if you later want to move your game to BRP.

A good alternative for the Third Age if you do not want to read all the HeroWars / HeroQuest stuff would be picking River of Cradles instead, for instance, which is also set in Pavis but after the setting had been explored for 20 years or so. It is still an out of print book, but it contains all of the starting religious info to play an Orlanthi,too, (and you do not want to play any stinking Lunar, do you?) and all the stats given are 100% compatible with BRP 1. You will need some spell descriptions, but if you are a bit patient I am finishing my list of basic RQ spells adapted to BRP, so you will be able to play all the old Gloranthan supplements with the BRP rules and just the MRQ SRD, which is free, for magic.

Regarding the "attack twice if your SR is 5 or less" rule that RosenMcStern mentions, I'll be ignoring that and using the "split attacks over 100%" rule instead. I agree (with the exception of the Missile SR rules) that Strike Ranks indicate *when* you act, not *how often*. I may just use the rule from Missile SR that says, if you have over 100% attack (and can therefore split), the second attack happens 3 SR after the first. I'll see how it pans out - it's a nice twist, but it seriously compromises attack chances over 150% (you're gonna have trouble sandwiching that 3rd attack in the SR list) - it might just make sense to have everything occur on the same SR. After all, SRs (and by extention DEX ranks too) don't represent second-by-second countdowns, only the relative ability to act in a combat round.

A fighter could have trouble making three attacks even if you use DEX ranks:

the DEX rank for the second will

be at 5 DEX ranks lower, the third at 5 DEX after that, etc.

If an attack is at DEX rank 0 or below, no further attack

can be made.

So a character with 150% skill and DEX 10 cannot make three attacks. However, having DEX 11+ is far more common than having SR 4 or less. The point here is that when you use SRs to determine what you can do then SIZ gets in the way. A halfling with a dagger strikes last regardless of DEX, but he can do as many actions as other characters.

The best solution IMO is to use DEX ranks and weapon length, and adjust weapon length if one of the combatants is significantly bigger than the other (big troll with fist and duck with long spear should go in DEX order, no closing whatsoever).

BRP, page 172. It was there in RQ3, too. Used it no more than three times in 20 years, of course.

This one I really like, Dredj. Would make a good House Rule or Spot Rule.

This is exactly the point. Many cunnng players used understatted weapons at "just -10%". Now they cannot.

Shaira hits the spot, as usual. These rules are really fine, but there are contradictions. I bet they were written by two people in different moments.

The first paragraph, Close Combat, should be labeled "Closing", and it is the best and the most usable. It explains what happens when a long weapon user and a short weapon user engage in melee. The only question here is "When to use the Difficult parry with the Long Weapon rule?"

The second paragraph, Closing, should be labeled "Close Combat". It is a bit messy and contradicts the first one with regard to how to enter close combat. Is it declaring that you are closing enough? Or must you also succeed in a Dodge roll if the long weapon user is keeping you at bay? It also uses the old RQ3 rule of "One action only when caught in Close Combat with a long weapon." which I did not like (and I am a _very_ _big_ supporter of RQ3).

All in all, I would just drop paragraph 2 and use only paragraph 1. But I know there are Close Combat fans out there that will not agree

Oh, and I do not like BRP Strike Ranks. I have used SR for over 20 years and I appreciate them, but the basic system in BRP 1 is more elegant. SRs would be usable in this BRP, were it not for the rule that states that you can attack twice if your SR is 5 or less. Read it carefully. Big clumsy guy with long weapon attacks twice or thrice. Fast small guy with short weapon attacks once. Not good. The basic theory of SRs say that they dictate when you attack, not how often.

If you did not notice, there is a table for specials, criticals and fumbles, too

Seriously, if I caugth my daughter ever asking for a calculator or a table for doing the maths in a RPG (it will not take long before she gets interested in the matter) I would bash her on the head and send her studying her maths again.

But if someone has little fun doing calculatios, there is no reason to not waste a sheet with some tables. The resistance table alone will not kill a tree.

- The extra damage from martial arts should be added to critical hits, or armor is ignored (just as it is with normal criticals). I need to go kick Sam's butt for not making that clear - he wrote the skills chapter.

Please spare Sam's backside But, ahem, the rules that are in the PDF do not say the same as you are stating here:

Attack achieves a critical success. Attack does full

damage plus normal damage bonus (or attacker may

choose a special success instead). Defender’s armor

value is bypassed.

It looks like you get to choose between max damage and special damage, not between max damage and bypass armor. Which one is true?

I would read it as "normal for Martial arts", i.e. with an additional die. It says "as above", after all. One interesting question is: criticals allow to choose between max damage and special effect, i.e. for a dagger it is eiter 2d4 through armor or 4 through armor. What happens with martial arts? Do you get to choose between 3d4 and 1d4+4 (or even 8?)