Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About Mechashef

  • Rank
  • Birthday 01/20/1969


  • RPG Biography
    About 26 years of gaming. Mainly RQ & Super Squadron, but some D&D.
  • Current games
    BRP and RQ
  • Location
    Canberra, Australia
  • Blurb
    IT Consultant
  1. Our Last RQ Session

    This account reminds me of a story/account I have been trying to track down. Years ago I read an account of some experienced RQ people attending a competition game at a convention and pretending they had never played RQ before. They freaked out their opponents at the start by asking about iron weapons (which their characters didn't actually have). They played a group of broo and "broke" the scenario by sacrificing one of their own to summon the demon in the lake instead of taking the expected path of eventually capturing an opponent and sacrificing them. Does anyone have a link to that account? Thanks
  2. QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

    This reminds me of the "Short Bastard" conversation from a RQ3 game I was involved in before we had access to the errata: Player: "So I can't attack and parry in the same round with my short sword, but (other player) can with their great sword?" GM: "Yep" Player: "I will get a weapon smith to make me a short sword with a longer handle so I can use it one handed or two handed. When using my Short Bastard sword two handed I will be able to attack and parry with it." GM: "Sure, but they will be different skills." Player: "So using it one handed I have a 72% skill but can't attack and parry in the same round. Using it two handed I have a greatly reduced skill but can attack and parry in the same round?" GM: "Ummm yes" Everyone: "That sux!" The idea of two handed weapons being able to attack and parry in the same round while one handed ones can't seems to be on par with D&D's old rule of two handed weapons attacking last. Put in for game balance, but makes no real sense.
  3. New RuneQuest and gods' Runes.

    Glorantha is at the same time a great strength of RuneQuest and also its greatest weakness. It is a fantastic, rich setting that is refreshingly fundamentally different from the typical D&D style Middle Earth inspired settings. However this can come at a cost. As this thread demonstrates it can be very confusing and convoluted and appears to be frequently subject to change. For someone to feel comfortable enough with it that they are confident to contribute to a discussion would take a lot of time and research. This may not be noticeable to many people here because their understanding has grown and evolved over (literally) decades. Responding that this will all be clarified in one of an endless series of supplement may seem attractive but is itself risky. An opinion of "It is a great game once you have spent $500 on source books" is not really a good one to have. RQ is not Warhammer 40K (with the common joke that the 40K stands for the disposable income you need to have to play the game). My prediction is that if this new version gets too tied into the very nitty gritty of Glorantha and mired down as a pseudo socio-mythic experimentation tool then it will fail. Then we will have a group of people standing around wondering what went wrong. They have a fantastic system and a great world. What could have possibly gone wrong? Even the hope that copies will be bought by people who are attracted to the system and hope to use for their own settings (a great strength of the D&D community) may be dashed based on the disparaging remarks of some posters, which seems to be of the attitude that RQ=Glorantha and that if you don't want to play in Glorantha then don't play RQ. Ultimately this version should not be about creating a game that perfectly matches our understanding of Glorantha's most intricate details. It must be about attracting new players to both the game and to Glorantha. Getting the balance right between making it accessible and understandable to new people and also satisfying the old guard is a very tough challenge.
  4. Elder Races as PC's?

    While obviously Tolkien's non-human races are more playable than Glorantha's, the common D&D style party is very much not Tolkien. Like in Glorantha, it is quite clear that in Middle Earth, under normal circumstances, the various races do not like each other and will not generally work together. The Fellowship is exception, something that hasn't happened for thousands of years and only happens because of a threat that is immense in scope and threatens all of the races. A situation very similar to that proposed in a previous post in this thread
  5. Use of Spirit Magic during Melee

    I suspect a big part of why the game system tracks individual projectiles and spells is that they are consumables that we can run out of. We need to know every arrow or javelin or MP used so we know when we have run out and can't use any more. And yes I know arguably a similar claim could be made about melee weapons as they could be damaged or broken, but over the various versions of RQ, that aspect has had less emphasis than running out of the other consumables.
  6. RuneQuest Roleplaying in Glorantha Character Sheet

    It is great. The only quibble I have with it at present is that you have used the (and in my opinion the better) RQ3 concept of melee and missile hit location tables instead of the RQ2 style of just one table for all types of attacks. The characters in the QS adventure follow the RQ2 approach. However, I suspect I won't be the only person adding a house rule to use the RQ style dual hit location tables.
  7. My review of the RuneQuest Quickstart

    Thanks, that is great news.
  8. My review of the RuneQuest Quickstart

    At least the new version goes a long way towards addressing perhaps the greatest failing of RQ 1/2/3. Despite its name the game had almost nothing to do with Runes. Sure the campaign world did, but the game itself didn't. In my opinion, the biggest disappointment with the new version is that like RQ 1/2 it is still just a pseudo-D100 game, not a true D100 game (like RQ3) as it appears skills can only have (at least normal) values that are multiples of 5.
  9. QuickStart/RQG - Characteristic Roll or Resistance table?

    Why is forcing/bashing a door open a STR X 5 roll instead of a resistance roll. A STR X 5 roll would imply all doors are equally difficult to bash or force open. Of course it could be played that some doors have modifiers (+20% or -20% etc) to make them easier or harder, but then they have just been given an easily quantified passive force and the resistance table would then be appropriate.
  10. RQG : Why should we parry?

    I haven't seen the full RQG rules and I may be misreading the QS, but it seems rather clear that the QS rules work as I wrote (unless I missed where it contradicts itself later).
  11. RQG : Why should we parry?

    I understand by the earlier posts that it will change in the full version, but as written in the QS, my understanding is that in one round: Parry can be used against multiple opponents and/or multiple attacks from the same opponent. Dodge can only be used against the attacks from one opponent. So if being attacked by a 3 thugs, parry is better. If being attached by a monster using both paws in the same round as two attacks, dodge may be better. That is working on the assumption that as implied by the QS rules, parry has a penalty of 20% for each subsequent one, while dodge does not. If that changes it may make dodge less appealing.
  12. While reading through a bestiary for Mazes & Minotaurs I came across a monster race called Draconians. Some of the description immediately caught my attention. I think I can guess where their inspiration came from: Has anyone else come across obvious references to RQ or Glorantha in other game systems?
  13. New design notes - Sorcery!

    I think this sounds very promising with lots of potential. I liked RQ3 Sorcery but it didn’t have anything to do with Runes so I assigned a set of Runes to each spell and created a skill of Runic Lore. Each 5% in Runic Lore allowed the character to learn one Rune and they could only learn spells they knew the Runes for (Opposed Runes cost 10% if you already knew its opposite, so it would take 10% of Runic Lore to learn the Death Rune if you already knew the Fertility Rune). My system made sorcery more complex (I also renamed it to Wizardry and wizards typically created Staves instead of familiars). Jeff’s system gives a similar flavour but seems to be nicer to play (and I’d guess has better game balance), so I am looking forward to it.
  14. Convicts and Cthulhu - a new sourcebook

    Many foreigners don't realise that associating Australia with dangerous animals is really a joke. Our wildlife is really quite safe providing you aren't a moron and act sensibly. Just follow these simple rules: Put soft spikes on your helmet and wear sunglasses if you ride a bicycle Don't worry about snakes as they rarely attack people and you usually have time to get medical attention Don't worry too much about spiders as you have plenty of time to get medical attention Don't go in the ocean and the sharks, jellyfish and blue ring octopus wont bother you Don't go near water (i.e. in the water, on the bank or in a boat) if you are further north than Brisbane and crocodiles wont eat you And never ever pick up a platypus or you may wish you were dead. The Americas and other places such as Africa and Asia which have creatures like wandering bears, lions, tigers etc are much more dangerous.
  15. Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)

    I started with RQ2 but in general do find RQ3 a better system. For a lot of my most active gaming time I was in rural Australia where RQ supplements were impossible to get. I do really enjoy reading Gloranthan material, but it never really grabbed me as a campaign setting though it is a wonderful source of inspiration The RQ2 book was very evocative to read. The maps had such wonderful place names and the creatures chapter had some really fascinating entries. Perhaps the problem I have with Glorantha is not the setting but the fans. I have certainly come across some who are extremely fanatical and probably spend far more time arguing over incredibly obscure Gloranthan details than actually playing. Regarding sorcery, some of the people in my gaming group loved it, though perhaps being IT nerds there was something about sorcery that appealed to us. I totally agree that sorcery has flaws. It is great for the player who wanted to play the dedicated scholarly wizard, but is not suitable as a cultural magic type (though rather ironically sorcerers could be the best at combining heavy armour and magic and could be able to dish out awesome damage with a sword or other weapon) and doesn’t really fit in with Glorantha. I love it that the new RQ is doing a far better job of actually making Runes important, which (especially in RQ3) has been a rather embarrassing failure in the system. I do think a major improvement in RQ3 was allowing different values for CON (other than the 3D6 for all creatures in RQ2). I am undecided about RQ2 Defence. We never had a real problem with it but I am aware of the apparent issues. The big challenge will be attracting new (probably younger) players to the game. This will be aided by frequent, good quality supplements, which of course raises the whole issue again of whether the focus should be on updated classics, or completely new material. Another important issue may be if it should be totally tied to Glorantha. I love RQ2 & 3. They are far better than D&D, and I found them better than BRP. For those of us that aren’t great fans of Glorantha, will the new RQ be a viable option?