Jump to content

Colgrevance

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Colgrevance

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    BRP noob
  • Current games
    Savage Worlds: Sundered Skies
    DSA: Aventurien
  • Location
    Braunschweig
  • Blurb
    what?

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you for officially clarifying that, much appreciated!
  2. In all respect, but I disagree. I like to show maps and illustrations to my players to establish a certain feel for a town/people/culture, and in my experience this works way better than lengthy descriptions (my players tend not to read the books). But showing the new Clearwine map vs. the "keltic" hillfort from the Sartar Companion evokes totally different associations, and I don't want to struggle against preconceptions because of misleading first impressions. It didn't matter to you, but it matters to me. Anyway, thanks to all that chimed in; I take from this discussion that there indeed is some sort of retcon going on, at least with the way Sartarite cities are portrayed, and that I should use maps and illustrations from older books sparingly, if at all.
  3. While I admire your in-depth knowledge of all things Glorantha, I am mostly concerned with the practical questions of someone wanting to run adventures in this setting: How much of the material in older publications is still official? Which town maps/npcs/etc. can be used as-is, and which will be changed (like Clearwine) in future books? Or maybe there are in-game reasons for this change; then where can I find more information about them? I get that King of Sartar is an in-game resource and should not be treated as definitive; Sartar: Kindom of Heroes and the Sartar Companion are different beasts, though (and please spare me "your Glorantha may vary" - of course it will, but I need at least some official materials to base my version on, or I could be using my own setting).
  4. Taking a first look at the RuneQuest GM Screen Pack, I stumbled over the new Clearwine city map - it looks totally different from the map and description given in the Sartar Companion! Is this indicative of a new view on Sartarite culture - more urban, less like bronze- and iron-age Gauls with their hillforts? And what does that mean for the cultural descriptions given in Sartar - Kingdom of Heroes and the Sartar Companion? Are they no longer considered canonical?
  5. And if the rules had a sidebar stating something like the sneaking resolution example above and that blackjack resolution is not used because this way there are more ties (=partial successes), leading to more complicated and thus interesting situations (or whatever the real reasons were), I would be very impressed by the new RQG. But the way it is, a lot of the rules and their underlying design choices leave me scratching my head and lead to lenghty (and ofter pointless) forum discussions. THAT is why I think extensive designer's notes should be mandatory for modern rpgs (sorry, it's my pet peeve...).
  6. I do not let players roll to get past one specific guard (then they would probably have to do several rolls, greatly increasing their probability for failure), but I do see your point. I'd just like it to be spelled out more explicitly in the RQG rules, maybe: sneaker succeeds & observer fails: sneaker stays hidden without anyone noticing (as long as the overall situation does not change...) = total success for sneaker sneaker succeeds & observer succeeds: sneaker stays hidden, but has to overcome additional obstacles because observer got suspicious = partial success leading to a new contest to resolve the new situation sneaker fails & observer failis: sneaker has to chose another approach, but observer stays unalarmed = partial success leading to a new contest to resolve the old situation sneaker fails & observer succeeds: sneaker has been noticed = total success for observer
  7. I like that solution, though it still leaves some questions. Depending on how you frame the contest, you could call that a win for the observer - the sneaker didn't get past the guard unnoticed, after all. And what do you do if both fail their roll? I do not think this discussion is a storm in a waterglass, either, as someone being stealthy or trying to hide something happens almost every session at my gaming table - after all, it is an important part of social conflict, too (someone hiding his true emotions/intentions from others). Edited to add: And I think after 40 years of rpg development that problem should be well known and be addressed by any newly published rule system...
  8. As you describe it, a tied roll isn't really like a tied Cricket match - the defender wins because he stays hidden. There are only two possible outcomes here, spotted or not, whereas in most sports a 'true' tie is a third option. Which probably means situations like this shouldn't be resolved by opposed die rolls. I have seen similar discussions for other games, so it is not a problem unique to RuneQuest, though the high probability of ties exacerbates it, in my opinion. I'd like to see some official rule for situations where opposed rolls cannot logically lead to a tie.
  9. Glad to hear that. It makes me wonder, though, why the blackjack rule hasn't made it into the final rulebook. I would really like RQG (or rather, all rpg rulebooks) to have extensive designer's notes so I can see the reasions behind some of the more controversial design decisions. I know there are some remarks on the internet, but I don't want to go hunting for them.
  10. Huh? Shouldn't a playtest game use the rules-as-written to, you know, playtest them?
  11. Excuse me, but where exactly in the rules is this spelled out? I was wondering the same thing as roberrober...
  12. Thanks all, I am with you in thinking 'self-augmentation' doesn't make a lot of sense in most circumstances. I was just wondering if I had missed something, as there is no explicit rule against it in HeroQuest 2 or HQG.
  13. BTw, I am asking because I saw just such a prohibition to augment the same ability in RQG, and was wondering why such a rule does not exist in HeroQuest, where it would make much more sense in my opinion (because in HQG the abilites can be much broader/more vague than in RuneQuest).
  14. Thanks for your answer, I can see this being a problem with very specific abilties. But (to take your example) let's say I use my "mountaineer" keyword to prepare and check my equipment, look for viable routes etc. and thereby augment my "climb glacier" breakout ability for the actual climbing. For the augment, I won't get the specificity bonus (and might even get a penalty if someone in my group has a more specific ability), but I don't see why this should not work. A similar case can be constructed for all keywords and most abilities, I am sure.
  15. Am I missing something or is is there really nothing in the rules preventing me from using an ability as an augment for itself, or a keyword as an augment for a breakout ability associated with it (assuming I am fulfilling the other, metagame requirements for augments, obviously)?
×
×
  • Create New...