Steve

We're up to version 0.91 now. See https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf

0.71 is up now - https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf

Version 0.70 is now up - https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf

Several new posts from Ian over on Facebook. Give him input there rather than here if you can. From Ian: --- Changes for masteries and ranks have flowed through and there is another update here. Shock news, some tables are back! The use of ranks made it possible to update some of the text on outcomes, particularly in long contests to use them. Overall the successes model makes this part much easier https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/tree/improved-masteries/docs As ever, feedback encouraged. ---- Having said I thought the SRD was done, I have been getting some excellent feedback. One of those pieces may tie together a simpler form of masteries and our desire to reduce handling time. A summary would be that a result now produces the following Failure: no successes Success: one success Critical: a success and a bump A bump can come from a critical, mastery or story point. A bump adds a success Compare the number of successes, if they are the same high roll wins. The number of successes can be used as proxy for figuring out quality of victory and consequences benefits See the PR at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/improved-masteries/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf --- Next up, there are a range of other suggestions, some of which I like, others I am not so sure on. Just going to post here for discussion, each in their own thread. --- First up, is an issue of "terminology bloat". It might even be "concept bloat". So when we went through the rules and 'named' the concepts, our concern was that HQ/HQ had been very 'loose' with its terminology. 'Success' both meant your roll, and the outcome of the contest for example. Now, that tightening of the language was a big improvement, but, there is some concern that we have thus exposed a **lot** of concepts. Now we dropped some, such having both 'harm' and 'benefits and consequences' and we now just treat them as one. And the recent rank change has let us show that **all** long contests are just repeated simple contests with different tracking mechanics. But a question for folks here is: are there other cases like 'harm' where we double up on a concept and could shrink to one. Or are there other places we could shrink to a single explanation and then mark some use cases? --- Second is the 'advantage dice' idea. Some of you who play PbTA may be familiar with the principle of 'taking +1 forward' where a roll provides a dice modifier to the next roll. It has been pointed out that giving you an advantage dice works better. By an advantage dice we mean, roll an extra dice (in PbTA 3D6 instead of 2D6) and discard the lowest. A lot of 'hacks' and some more modern PbTA offerings use an advantage dice. So one intriguing suggestion would be to treat augments as an advantage dice instead of a bonus. Roll 2D20, take the best result. I can also see an argument for treating a stretch the opposite way, as a disadvantage dice (roll 2D20 take the worst result). Whilst it is a neat option, I worry that this actually falls foul of two issues (1) Concept Bloat: bonuses and penalties == ranks == augment, modifier, consequences and benefits etc. Adding something else is bloat (2) It's not HW/HQ any more if we start using advantage dice over bonus and penalty. --- Third, is a TN of 20. Under the new 'count successes' approach, with no fumbles, an ability of 20 is always a 'success'. You are just rolling for a critical and there is no probability difference to 1M. Maybe this does not matter. Nothing in the rules gives you a "+1" any more, so it may not show up as an issue in play. But someone is bound to raise it and say "the designers are dumb because they did not realize that this case existed!' and be dismissive of the whole game. Which could be bad PR. Now we could discuss in the text, and will do if we keep it here. I don't want to re-introduce a fumble here, which adds math issues of it's own. We could make a 20 'always a fail' even when the ability is 20, but then 19 is better than a 20, because you can critical and you can't critical at 20 any more. None of those options seem to do less harm than good. I'm also wary of a 'fix' that makes 20 better than 1M. Any 'inspiration' out there? Otherwise I will just document as a sidebar in the core rules book ---

Version 0.52 is up now - link

Indeed, as @jajagappa said, I took this from Jeff's recent post on Facebook. That's the first time I've seen the heroquesting rules split out from the GM book - previously it had been talked about as being included. I'll choose to take this as a good thing. E.g. the heroquesting rules and accompanying material are now so big that they deserve their own book to do them justice. And then buy @soltakss's book to make the waiting more bearable.

Good idea. I've just done a major update, and I've put in a date for the changed section. I'm finding it pretty hard to keep on top of this list (e.g. the many sources from which reliable updates can come), so I'd welcome input about things that should be changed.

We're up to version 0.51 of the SRD now. See https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf

For errors that you've found, or other feedback, the best way to raise it with Ian is probably to use GitHub - see "How to raise an issue" at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

There have been a few tweaks to the QuestWorlds SRD over the past few weeks. The latest version is 0.3 and is at https://github.com/ChaosiumInc/QuestWorlds/blob/master/docs/QuestWorlds.pdf

As the title says. Looks like the site's security certificate has expired today (16 Aug) and needs renewing.

I'm guessing it's the book that Ian has talked about before as being the "offstage" material from The Eleven Lights, like the Dragonrise itself.

I would hope that any published work based on the SRD would be checked over (e.g. by Ian or similar QW experts) and any such inconsistencies flagged up and corrected at draft stage. As has been said, the SRD is an SRD. It's not supposed to be a rulebook with examples, GM advice and so forth.

http://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/the-borellus-connection/ Aim is for pre-orders in the summer, according to https://site.pelgranepress.com/index.php/view-from-the-pelgranes-nest-march-2020/

Yes, it's still happening. Why wouldn't it be?

Jeff was there on the EDGE stand. EDGE are the French licencees for RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. It strikes me that the most likely announcement was for a new French edition of Pendragon, based on 5.2, as has been already suggested.

Awesome, thanks Rick!

Ah never mind.

Do you have the HeroQuest core rules, as well as HeroQuest: Glorantha? My biggest issue with the HQ:G rulebook is that far too many of the great examples in the HQ:CR have been missed out (or not updated to reflect Glorantha, since most of the HQ:CR examples are non-Gloranthan). Sure, there are examples of play in HQ:G but I found the examples in HQ:CR much much clearer.

RQG mass battle rules are in the upcoming GM Sourcebook.

Roughly every two weeks, though there's not a fixed schedule. I'm guessing that it just depends on how much new stuff that they've got to announce.

Now that it's Chaosium that own KAP again, there will be plenty of announcements. Chaosium have a newsletter mailing list that you can sign up to (check the front page of their website, down the bottom). And they're bound to mention it in their blog. Chaosium are also pretty active on social media as well.

I'm very sorry to hear that, Martin. Please take care of yourself.

According to the Runequest/Glorantha panel at Dragonmeet last month, where Ian Cooper was one of the Chaosium staffers present, the QuestWorlds OGL/SRD is very very close. So hopefully it won't be much longer.