jongjom
-
Posts
509 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Events
Posts posted by jongjom
-
-
New Chaosium have made many very sensible and sometimes tough business decisions and gaming decisions. I appalled them in this.
Its licensees have done well with successful Cthulhu Kickstarters (e.g. Props of Nyarlathotep (2); Cthulhu Metal Dice Set; Call of Cthulhu Document Wallet). The demand for bling is there, and this should provide Chaosium with extra funds to produce its high quality products. This is surely a good thing?
As for the relevance to your game, that will be down to your situation and style. We all recognise that we go about play in different ways.
One last point: quite a bit of the bling has had practical application from dice to maps to miniatures to even T-shirts (not that I need any more). IMHO things like coins should be kept back in play and got out as an unexpected 'wow' factor and a laugh for the players.
-
A good question. May be this should be the start of a 'Tribal Source Edition: RQG' thread?
-
4 minutes ago, Septimus Kendaro said:
Just the regular tough crowd then.
In the 40 years (damn I'm getting old) I've been gaming I've found gamers to be one of the most opinionated and critical groups I've encountered. Not saying that's a bad thing, just an observation of the interest and passion gamers have about the games that are important to them. It's not like people who play, run, and create games aren't imaginative, creative, and generally intelligent and honestly I think it usually leads to great collaboration and better things so long as folks egos don't get in the way.Looking at the photo of Rick and Jeff holding the preview copies for Gen-Con that logo is definitely being used on it though.
If the reaction of a number of different individuals is broadly similar then it's worth Chaosium listening. Especially if there is a more objective viewpoint (the association with the Mongoose Logo) - note that even if MRQ was your go-to game this association is probably still there. At least here the reaction doesn't feel ego-driven, rather a honest appraisal.
-
2
-
-
It would be good to hear from Chaosium explaining why this new font is preferable. As is I cannot see its connection with Bronze Age, Mythic, or Glorantha.
It also looks quite different from the Quickstarter RuneQuest font, which cannot really help?
-
14 minutes ago, MOB said:
OK, this stuff is great.
My next question. Glorantha, and specifically have always been known as a "Bronze Age" setting/game. As Greg Stafford says in the foreword to the Guide:
"Glorantha is its inspiration for the ancient world. It has far more to do with Babylon, Classical Greece, Ancient China, Hybrid and Lankhmar that does with medieval Europe, Le Mort d'Arthur. pr the Hundred Years Wars. Its heroes are Achilles, Conan, Gilgamesh and Rostum, not Galahad, Lancelot or Roland."
(Greg also goes on to say "Glorantha is the technicolor cure for bland pseudo-medieval generic fantasy." I suspect that this comes from the fusion of the Bronze Age stuff, and the stuff that isn't.)
So what do you find satisfying Bronze Age about Glorantha?
What bits of Gloratha aren't? Does it matter?
As Greg said, the inspiration is from Earth's Bronze Age myths and legends. Glorantha is satisfying because we can explore a strange and weird mythological world with Greg's brief Bronze Age Earth outline acting as a springboard. The Bronze Age of Glorantha is its own world and requires no detailed knowledge any period of Earth's history. The myths and legends that are written, or ones that you create for your Glorantha, are all part of its Bronze Age.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, David Scott said:
Page 8 is surely early enough?
May be.
However on page 3 there is a commentary on the wish to "create a game that matches Greg’s groups’ famous adventures", and then next page is a KoDP picture (one of many).
Anyway not a biggie and not worth changing the layout.
-
Page 9
“Decide how events unfold ‘off-camera,’ and present those in turn to the players.”
Depending on how sensitive readers are to using modern terms in a Bronze Age setting may be change this to:
“Decide how events unfold ‘off-stage,’ and present those in turn to the players.”
Page 10
The idea is that you can use these outlines as a framework to run adventures in any year of the campaign[full stop] Although you can use these at any time,
Page 13
Larnste’s Table (page XX), Old Wind please add in the relevant page numbers
I’ll avoid any further mention of this as you know how to Find "XX”!
-
Page 7
“from Broddi and the Rivals (see page XX), most of the NPCs here”
please add in the relevant page numbers
Page 8
…”Rivals (see page XX), neighboring clan chieftains or Telmori shaman.”
please add in the relevant page numbers
Page 9
“The timeline given in The Guide to Glorantha should be your yardstick here.”
Not too sure what is being said here as the present in The Guide to Glorantha is 1621. It does have a timeline past then.
“Note that we cover the option of the Three New Stars heroquest failing in this book — which may mean that your game deviates from the outline of history presented in the Guide.”
Same again. It’s not ‘history’ yet in the Guide: future prophesy may be.
-
1
-
-
Hi Dave,
I started one over on the HeroQuest forum as this is meant to be, correct me if I'm wrong, a game-neutral forum. And the powers that be are sometimes sensitive to how the correction thread is titled.
-
1
-
-
Any parallels with a Gloranthan computer game? Maybe worth mentioning earlier on.
Page 4
“an eight-year campaign” 1618 to 1625 would be a seven-year campaign
Before 1624 the key conflict is that between the Rivals (see page XX), their... please add in the relevant page number
…”agenda’ within the clan and expect it to reappear.”
Why is “Rivals” used as a noun (with capital R) but not “the ring”
Page 5
“When the game starts, it may be enough in character generation to tell the players about Broddi Strong-Kin (see page XX) and the Rivals (see page XX) from the Red Cow clan.”
please add in the relevant page numbers
“You may find it helpful to sketch this dozen on a simple relationship map, and show the PCs their connections
with them and each other.” – too late now but I would have preferred that this was already done
Page 6
When picking NPCs before 1624, focus on the Rivals (see page XX):
please add in the relevant page numbers
-
2 hours ago, g33k said:
HOWEVER... 13G & GS aren't Chaosium products, and 13G isn't a KS of theirs!
Agreed. However as the March 3rd 13th Age Glorantha update:
"Hi everyone, it's Michael O'Brien (MOB) from Chaosium here—as Rob mentioned in an earlier comment I'm now helping complete the project, and I'm delighted to be on board!"
-
I would hope that Chaosium focus on their remaining Kickstarters they are involved with before embarking on anything else, even though I am very keen to see a Trollball game.
No update since April 3rd for the RQ2 Kickstarter despite it being "one of the priority items" and have the "stretch goal items done by the end of June 2017". Hopefully this will be completed along with Khan of Khans,13th Age in Glorantha rulebook, and the Glorantha Sourcebook by end of August 2017.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, M Helsdon said:
I believe at a Convention, he pointed outside, and said 'that'.
IIRC that convention was in Leicester...
-
What is the problem of just having one roll: use that to see if you succeed with casting, then use that to compare against the opponent?
-
44 minutes ago, M Helsdon said:
Raised during the review period. I believe I was told that one of the Hells shown is twinned - the one on the left where Annara Gor and Deshlotralas are shown.
Believe this is an illusion because the 'rising Sun' Rune has rays above it; the 'setting Sun' has rays below it.
The 'gate' and 'gates' entries are all in alphabetical order, 's' being sorted after ' '; 'the' also affecting the order of the sort.
Thanks, I didn't quite spot the singular vs. plural Gates. But this leads to the question is the Gate of Dawn an error (page 158): should this not be written in the plural? NB They are written in the plural on page 10.
-
PDF page 10. Picture looks like the Sun rises in the West and sets in the East.
Gates of... are out of sequence in the Index page 768
-
Any more news on the Eleven Lights ETA?
-
1
-
-
It also looks like this new rule also improves the compatibility of RQG with the RQ2 supplements with character stats blocks and their list of Rune spells?
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Jeff said:
No, it still takes 5 SR to ready a weapon. So SR 1, then 5 to ready, then shoot again on SR 7, then 5, ready to shoot SR 1 of the next round.
Ok that makes sense. So only two shots in a round. That feels about right.
Even House Ruling / simplyfying it, as styopa suggests, it to make it effectively one full % chance shot a round doesn't change the game too much.
-
11 hours ago, Jason Durall said:
Yes.
It does make missile weapons faster to use than melee, but this is offset by the fact that firing into melee is extremely risky, and firing while engaged in melee is extremely difficult.
Looking at the characters in the QS there are some characters with a missile weapon SR of 1. So as it stands they can get 12 shots off in a round at their full base % chance each (accepting the risks etc.)?
Is this doable? 12 javelins or small axes thrown with 'normal' accuracy in about 12 seconds? Hum...
-
Using the same rule for missile weapons as for hand held ones makes sense to me. But I am not an archer!
-
2 minutes ago, styopa said:
QS RAW: Parry Success (vs successful attack) [or special vs special, or crit vs crit]: The attack is parried, but the parrying shield or weapon loses 1 hit point.
So it doesn't appear to matter how much damage the attacking weapon would cause - 1 point or 40 points, a successful parry means the attack is parried and the parrying item takes 1ap.
Note that the text highlights the difference between a parrying WEAPON and a parrying SHIELD. They are treated differently.A parrying weapon only blocks as many AP as it has, excess goes on to the defender. A shield is different: "...When a shield successfully parries a successful attack, the shield loses 1 hit point and the damage of the attack is absorbed entirely....".
Yeah I reread (again!), saw that and agree.
One potential typo: maybe replace 'absorbed' with 'deflected'.
-
1 hour ago, styopa said:
But doesn't really address why missile weapons are so astonishingly more lethal, ie 2x the strikes (or more) in the span of a round, all else being equal. (Firing into or during melee is sort of a canard, needlessly complicating the basic question.)
I'm not trying to change your mind, you and I simply differ on this.
If you are not firing into a melee then you are firing at someone firing back at you? Balanced lethality?
Rushing the enemy over open ground leads to big losses. Lethal, yes as always?
-
1 hour ago, g33k said:
I need to re-read those rules in the QS, to see if I agree with this emerging consensus.
If weapons are indeed this fragile in RQG, this strikes me as... erm... broken (so to speak).
Correct me if I am wrong but the damage has to equal or exceed the HP of the weapon to cause it damage, unless the attacker rolls a critical or critical? Rereading the QS leaves some ambiguity.
Overall this means that basic run-of-the-mill weapons will probably soon get trashed against big, tough opponents but survive battles against minor opponents (unless they get lucky)? If so it makes sense to me.
Looking forward to the complete rules, fully tweaked and polished.
Leather wallet for your CoC books - new Kickstarter by Chaosium licensee
in Call of Cthulhu
Posted
I backed it as I am after a leather document holder, and after looking around in local stored I have come to realise this is the going cost for a decent one. At least until you start factoring in shipping and the battered British £...