Mechashef

I’m sure most of our “advice” is quite common, but here are some I follow: The Fallibility Principle: As a gamemaster never be ashamed to admit you were wrong. Admitting you misread a rule or made a hasty decision that in hindsight was bad is better than wrecking your game. The Naming Principle: Always say the names of your non-player characters, localities, items etc out loud before the gaming session. If you cannot pronounce a name or feel stupid saying it, then change the name. The Return on Effort Principle: Do not spend excessive time creating a scenario that is a work of art if it will only be played once and you are the only person who will ever see the scenario notes. The Consultation Principle: Before playing, consult with your players to determine the tone of the game they want to play in. Are they interested in a dark campaign with adult themes or a more whimsical one where comical names and farcical situations are common?

Yes I am from Canberra, Australia. And in answer to one question, I work for an organisation that is by law bound to investigate matters of inappropriate behaviour. A complaint was made and thus it had to be investigated. The fact I was using my own laptop and was not in a conspicuous location is irrelevant. The nature or the motivation of the accuser is a factor to be considered (he has a track record of putting in complaints about things that are offensive to his culture) but does not mean the complaint can be ignored. I have no issues myself with the art. But when releasing a product into a crowded market, and when getting new fans would seem to be essential, giving people a reason to be negative about the product does not seem to be sensible. Though my view is probably influenced by memories of D&D and RQ both being banned from my highschool because of a widely circulated (and largely inaccurate) pamphlet published by the Australian Federation for Decency (I still have a copy of that pamphlet somewhere). Other games benefited from that (ironically Call of Cthulhu wasn’t banned). Standing up for what you think is morally right sounds like a good argument, though perhaps it should be noted that this is exactly what the person who complained was doing. At the end of the day it is the money that comes in from the product that is important. Be careful not to harm that.

Ok, so some background. I posted this after getting to work today and finding an email stating that I had to answer a claim of reading pornography at work. I.e. I had been reported because of the content of the RQG PDF. After going through mediation and checking each page it was decided not to take it further as the material was considered borderline. The agreement was that an official complaint would not be made if I agreed not to read it at work again. Ironically the page the person complained about wasn't one of the "worst offenders" For the record, it was decided that the unsuitable pages were: 12, 22, 51, 83, 99, 268, 272, 289, 302, 364, 424. I later heard the person has a long history of making similar complaints.

I know this may prove to be a very unpopular opinion, but I think the interior art of the core book needs to change. The art is of great quality and the artists are very talented. The quality is by far the best of any version of RQ and as good if not better than that I’ve seen in any other RPG. BUT While reading through the PDF on my laptop at my desk at work over lunchtime, I encountered a number of images that would not be considered SFW (Safe For Work). Images that I think are great and acceptable when I’m playing at home amongst friends of a similar age group (late 40s) may not be very suitable for reading on the bus, or at my office desk, or for a teenager playing at school during lunchtime. While images that appeal to the stereotypical teenage male gamer might boost sales amongst that demographic, do we really want him to have to hide it from his mum? Do we want his sister to be happy playing? This is not a criticism of the artists. The work is fantastic and I hope they/she/he does lots more for future RQ products.

I thought I may have been misunderstanding it too, but for a normal success it states: Interpreting it the way you suggested would mean that a successful jump allows an adventurer to reach to their own head height, which is lower than they can reach without jumping.

Jump heights may be a bit broken. P166 states that with a running start: A 2m tall character (SIZ 19) thus could jump 4m high on a critical (3m high on a specia . To put that into perspective, a basketball hoop is 3.05m from the ground. Thus such a character would be able to comfortably make it over the ring on a critical, and almost make it on a special. The current world record is 2.45m, held by a man who is 1.95m tall. The distance for jump is about right, with the current world record being nearly 9m. So a RQ adventurer can do long jump well, but certainly not at current earth elite levels, but their high jump ability is phenomenal. Of course viewing a fantasy game through real world realism eyes is always of debatable use.

Perhaps Detect Enemies should just be renamed “Area Counter-Counter Magic” because that may be what it is most useful for. As a spell to help spot people who are a danger to you, it has some use but appears to be rather pathetic: Will it detect the big band of broo on the other side of the door? Apparently not because they don’t know you are there, so currently do not intend to harm you. Will it detect your sworn enemy (who has vowed to kill you on sight) on the other side of the door? Apparently not because that person doesn’t know you are there, so currently does not intend to harm you. Standing outside the entrance to a ruined temple and about to enter but worried that there might be some bandit guards in there set up to ambush anyone who enters. Try Detect Life, because Detect Enemies won’t work. If they don’t know you are out there, they are not yet your enemy.

My feeling is that spells which affect an area and are not cast directly at a target entity should not be cancelled be a countermagic on someone in the area of effect. There are probably (I don’t have the PDF with me) many spells that fall into this category. Some may be obvious, such as Group Laughter, others more debatable such as perhaps Cloud Call (could a trained hawk with a countermagic cast on it fly high enough to be in the area of effect for a Cloud Call spell?) The effect on the countermagic if the area spell overcomes it is more problematic. Perhaps the most sensible thing is to just House Rule that such spells do not cancel a countermagic. They affect the protected entity but the countermagic remains.

Why? Surely the spell would have to check everyone in range to know if they are actually an enemy? it can’t know if someone is an enemy without knowing their intent, thus it needs to check them all. This would also include checking the other members of the adventurers group so may well take out their countermagic spells if they have any running, If a detect spell can take out countermagic spells from multiple people (a bad idea I believe) it should become part of a standard temple response plan in case of attack: Get a designated person (or guardian spirit) to cast a powerful Detect Enemy. It helps to locate the attackers and to take out their countermagic.

I agree with keeping the system as it is and also that people misunderstand how it works. Having 20 years of martial arts experience, I would describe the mechanism like this (perhaps not exactly cannon but it is an easy way to look at it): During sparring I spend a lot of time trying to create an opening. This may be as simple as moving sideways or inwards, hoping to catch my opponent off balance, or it could involve an "attack" which is not intended to strike, but to force my opponent to move part of their body (such as dropping their hands to block a low attack) . Every so often this will succeed and an opening will be created that I think I can exploit. Then I attack for real. Sometimes that real attack will succeed, other times I have misjudged how fast my opponent is (or how slow I am) and they successfully block or dodge my attack. All that maneuvering and feints aren't really what we are rolling for. The rolls are for the real attacks that eventuate from such efforts. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

As I see it, the question is a bit like asking: “Which is better, a shovel or a spade?” I can dig a hole with either, but each is better suited for a particular type of work. D&D is typically great at very heroic scenarios where the brave heroes cut their way through more minions than they can count. Many people like that type of game and there is nothing wrong with that. RQ as we all know, encourages a very different style of play because a multitude of minions can still take down a powerful character. As far as game systems go, the new D&D is very good and does some things better than RQ. The system is much more unified and internally consistent. A high roll is always good. It is good for: Character Attributes, To Hit Rolls, Damage Rolls, Skill Use and Saving Throws In RQ, Stat rolls can be better high or low (that is actually a good thing), to hit rolls, skill use and resistance rolls are better low, but damage rolls are better high. D&D also appears to be better at resolving the ever present RQ issue of two skills working against each other such as sneak vs listen. RQ in concept is far more intuitive. We instinctively think that the chance of success is 60%, not 12 out of 20. And the concept of attack then parry/dodge is also more intuitive than the D&D armour class system. I’m a die hard RQ fan, and will vote for it as it just feels more right, but as a unified system, D&D does have its strengths.

Obviously my real world experience has no bearing on the rules, but nearly three decades of martial arts experience has taught me that when holding a kick shield (about 10cm of padding), strong kicks don't hurt the arm holding it, but instead hurt whatever part of my body lies behind the arm. Frequently this is because my arm is forced hard against my body. Though my arm seems to take the punishment without problems, my ribs aren't so fortunate. It is common to put more padding (such as a focus mitt) between your arm and body to provide extra protection. And then there are the injuries caused by techniques such as a front kick done incorrectly which can force the kick shield upwards and into the face of a careless but helpful holder who has their head forward trying to see what the attacker is doing wrong with their technique.

If you want to be a real pedantic Rules Lawyer (just like players when they want to be) then this could be interpreted in an interesting way. One point of Multispell allows a Disruption spell to be combined with itself "doing 2D3 damage to one hit location". I'm sure we would all agree that two points of Multispell will allow that process to happen twice, apparently allowing 3 Disruptions to be combined, but the description clearly states "doing 2D3 damage" it doesn't actually say that the damage rolls from the two spells are totalled together (obviously that is the intention), but as written it states "doing 2D3 damage to one hit location". So you can combine ten Disruptions if you wan't but as written there is an argument that it only does 2D3 damage. A nasty interpretation of the rules, but perhaps one to use if the players are big fans of "that is what the rules say, it doesn't matter what was intended"

My experiences may be a bit skewed as most of my RQ years have not been in Glorantha but: Holding a one handed weapon and a torch/lantern is a much better way of exploring dark areas than having to put away your two handed weapon so you can use your light source. Opening a door with one hand while having your weapon ready to strike at whatever is on the other side is also much easier with a one handed weapon. Holding onto a ladder, rope, cliff etc with one hand while still being able to fight can be useful. Waving a hand around for magic, grabbing the handy potion in your pouch etc can be done without completely removing your ability to defend. The main city that my party frequents has rules about heavily armoured and armed ruffians wandering its streets. The bad guys are frequently armed with shortswords and other small, concealable weapons. Those PCs with similar small weapons can often carry them without attracting attention. Lugging around a greatsword, greataxe etc will result in arrest or a terminal battle with the city guard.

That suggestion seems wrong to me. It seems to preclude the idea of the ugly outcast, shunned by society because of their looks or personality who works hard, studies forbidden lore, and becomes a powerful sorcerer etc. Or the beautiful weak willed eye candy NPCs. I think a large part of the reason for CHA being the least useful stat is because of a lack of role playing. I have been involved in campaigns where CHA was very important as it was used frequently to affect interactions with NPCs, in matters such as getting information, bartering the goods gained from defeating the bad guys. etc.

My eldest son and his friends have just started a D&D campaign (none of them are experienced with D&D so it is new to them). They rotate around houses and last week they were at my house. They had all started at first level and some have now just reached third level. I was hoping to grab them for RQG, but I didn't want to have to teach them one set of rules then change the rules, so with the delay in the full version of RQG I wasn't in a suitable position to start a campaign. I'm now hoping that by the time RQG is available their campaign may be slowing down due to an inexperienced GM.

Does anyone play any version of RQ without their own House Rules? I wonder how many people are already planning on House Ruling RQG even before it is released.

Reading back through my various rule books, it appears that only RQ3 clearly answers the question and states: That is from P35 of the hardcover core edition (I can check later against the softcover boxed set). Presumably (and the related Cormac's Saga seems to suggest it) any armour is ignored and the Damage Bonus would be rolled normally. But as the OP is interested in RQ1 & 2, then the situation is rather murky. I would suggest ask yourself if you want a critical impale to result in the weapon being stuck in the target (like a standard impale). If you do want that to happen then it seems reasonable for the critical impale to have the combined affects of an impale and a critical.

The answer is "perhaps". There are arguments for and against and I have seen debates on this literally extend over multiple years. The rules for this vary from RQ2 to RQ3 to RQG and are very poorly written (a simple clarification clause would have ended decades of debate - hint hint). Play it how you want. The most common interpretations I have seen are: Yes a critical is also a special No, they are different, and a critical uses either the special or critical result, whichever is more advantageous A house rule extension which has special, critical, and a hypercritical (which is both a critical and a special)

hmmm, The rules are definitely contradictory. I hope that page 6 is the intended version and that the page 2 connection to combat is just the fingerprints of a significant rule change that didn't make it through to the published rules. Is anyone able to arrange an official response?

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. My mistake. Dot point one under "ABILITIES ABOVE 100%" states in full: Thus it appears that regardless of what we choose to call it, that clause is aimed at combat (and also some other skills). On a very minor point I would also suggest that the "100%+" in that clause should really be "101%+"

Can the chance for a critical be higher than 5% and for a special be greater than 20%? On Page 2 of the QS under the section on Abilities over 100%, the second dot point states: This seems a definite yes. But ... On Page 3 under “Special Success” it states: And back on Page 2, the first dot point states: Does this mean that for skills such as attack, the character's modified skill can never exceed 100% because the component over 100% is subtracted from their own skill bringing it back to 100%, and thus the chance for a critical or special can never be greater than for 100%?

Is free RPG day in June? If so, that would be disappointing. If the full game is to be released in Q2, then releasing the QS at the end of Q2 isn't going to help much. I really wanted to start a campaign over our Antipodean Christmas/Summer break but am reluctant to do so with the current QS which doesn't really inspire confidence in the integrity of the rules (and with some RPG newbies taking place I don't want to have to suddenly change the rules once the newer version comes out). I know that was just a guess, so hopefully it will appear much earlier.

Any idea when the second quickstart will be released?

4d4+2!!!! Noooooooooooo! Is there anyone who does not hate rolling those blasted 4 sided dice? I’ve seen people roll d8 and halve it or d12 and third it instead of using those little pyramids of annoyance. And yes I presume you were not really serious.