Mechashef

I don't know when the change to SIZ and INT was made. It was somewhere between RuneQuest 2 and 3, but quite possibly first appeared in one of the other stablemates. In fantasy games such as RQ, it does make sense, especially for SIZ. In RQ2, it was quite possible for a dwarf (SIZ 2D6 with an average of 7) to be larger than a human (3D6 with a minimum of 3). The smallest dwarves (SIZ of 2) were almost the same size as the smallest human. The smallest elves (SIZ 2D4+4 minimum of 6) were quite larger than the smallest humans (SIZ of 3). RQ3 made the smallest humans larger than an average dwarf, and larger than the smallest elves. In a game that doesn't have races smaller than humans, it perhaps doesn't make as much sense to have SIZ of 2D6+6. It is perhaps harder to justify the change to INT, other than very few players (yes I know some do exist) like to play truly moronic (INT 3) characters. Stupid ones, perhaps yes, but not ones with an INT that low. Also, by having the lower human INT range set at 8, it better allows scope for fantasy creatures that are really stupid (but still sentient). Perhaps (completely conjecture here), the reworking and emphasis of knockback in RQ3 made playable characters of very small size potentially problematic. Remember that paradoxically while RQ (the game system) was ground breaking in having monsters with the same full stats as the "player races" and thus potentially opening up a plethora of playing races, Glorantha is quite relatively opposed to this (with the notable exception of Trolls which seem to be a fan favourite) and mixed race adventuring parties seem to be less common in RQ than in D&D (where they are almost a staple). And yes I am aware that some people do play rogue dragonewts, newtlings, trollkin, baboons and even elves and dwarves, but far less frequently than in most other fantasy RPGs.

From RuneQuest 2 Regarding Power It says something similar later in the book as well. The "in tune with the universe" is the part which can be interpreted as luck.

RQ3. I started with RQ2 and it was good. Then I got RQ3 and it was so much better. Sure it wasn't so closely tied to Glorantha and wasn't well supported with quality supplements, but that isn't a flaw in the game system. Sure it's encumbrance and fatigue systems are clunky and seemed to demonstrate a lack of play testing but on the other hand: It is a true D100 system, not a pseudo one like RQ2. Hit locations in RQ2 were cool. But RQ3 with different tables for melee vs missile/magic makes so much more sense. The formal distinction between Pow and MP is great and makes the rules easier to understand. Siz and Int of 2D6+6 instead of 3D6 for humans is a good change (Siz more so than Int perhaps). Creatures having a Con of more than 3D6 is good. The skills bonus calculations is harder to do than RQ2 but is much more logical (and less D&D like). I never had a problem with it but I have talked with people who complained that the RQ2 Defence concept could get broken very easily. RQ3 Dodge is not perfect but I think is better than Defence. Sorcery is not well suited for Glorantha, but for those of us who played in other worlds, and with a bit of tweaking, it can be an awesome magic system, great for players who like to number crunch and plan ahead. Renaming Battle and Rune Magic to Spirit and Divine is in my opinion good. RQ2 is good. RQ3 is better. I hope RQG is the best.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks, that is great news.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Page 16 of the Softcover Magic book of the Deluxe RQ3 in regards to learning and using spirit magic spells states: “To learn a spell, a character must engage in spirit combat with a spirit which knows the spell. ... If the student reduces the magic points of the spell spirit to zero (without losing all of his magic points in the process), he takes knowledge of the spell from the spirit, impressing it upon his own mind. The spirit breaks off combat and returns to the spirit plane. If the spirit returns to the spirit plane free of any control, it then regains the spell.”

I always had the impression in RQ3 that some spirits held the knowledge of how to cast a spirit magic spell but were not actually required to cast it (exception see below). A character would learn the spell from the spirit by defeating it in spirit combat and then both the spirit and the character would go on their way. The benefit of belonging to a cult is the priests would be able to hook the character up with a known, low powered spirit from their god’s retinue. Shamen would also know of suitable spirits, either from personal experience, or having the details passed down through their spirit cult. Characters could try and quest for a spirit that may possess the spell they are interested in, but may find one that does know the spell, but is dangerously powerful. The exception mentioned above would be that instead of defeating a spirit and learning its spell, it is possible for characters (most commonly Shamen) to defeat and bind the spirit, forcing it to cast its spell on demand. This of course would mean that the spirit would not be able to provide its spell to other people during the tome it is bound by the character.

In my very limited real life lock picking experience, in any one attempt (say a minute's worth of trying) the following things can happen: Complete success - Lock is picked Partial Success - I can feel I have managed to lift a pin and turned the barrel enough to hold that pin up but there are still pins I haven't lifted Failure (no progress) - I haven't succeeded in lifting and holding any more pins Failure (negative progress) - I have exerted too much pressure and the pins are stuck meaning I can't raise any more. Almost always I can rotate the barrel in the other direction and drop all the pins back to their locked position and start all over again. Failure (negative and positive progress) - As per Failure (negative progress) but some locks require the pins to be lifted in a particular order and though I have to start over I at least have made progress in learning the order. Fumble - I damage the lock picks or lock. Of course my experience with modern locks may not hold true for those from other eras or settings. btw. Lock picking and wine parties are heaps of fun especially if you have access to cut away locks designed for learning so you can see what is going on inside the lock. Drinking games where you down a shot every time you succeed in picking a lock are also a fun way to pass an evening.

I agree, and things like how Defense is increased in a different way than other skills are just wacky. Presumably there for game balence but makes the mechanics inconsistent. At least looking at the draft of the new character sheet they are keeping Magic Points unlike the confusing Permanent and Temporary Pow if RQ2. I wonder if human Int and Siz will be 3D6 or 2D6+6? Whole many people seem to prefer RQ2 over RQ3 it shouldn't be forgotten that some of the changes in RQ3 actually fixed things from RQ2 that needed fixing.

Will the system be a true D100 like RQ3 & BRP or a pseudo D100 system like the existing RQ2 where skills can generally only have values that are multiples of 5? I did actually play RQ2 with some D&D players where we divided all the skills by 5 and rolled D20 instead of D100 and it worked ok (not great but ok)

Do you need to? No. Is it worth it? Propbably yes. The magic may not be of use to you, but many of the spells could be slotted into a "standard" campign, especially for NPCs. The class and alignment sections won't be of use. Load level & Fatigue, equipment, potion rules, and many of the Spot Rules may be very useful. I believe it is a good general resource for GMs planning "traditional" (i.e go into dungeon and defeat the bad guys) style adventures.

I had another look through the MERP manual and really can't find anything about doors. Even the troll scenario at the bak of the book is very vague (i.e rooms are blocked by boulders that need 1 or 2 strong characters to move). I suspect that my edition of MERP doesn't have anything about it.