dragonewt

Not to worry. Disney will buy out Glorantha. A new set of canon material will be defined, everything else will be moved to "legend" status, and JJ will direct a movie based on the result.

It's ironic to see the direction that two universes that started with the influence of Joseph Campbell took.

On 19/02/2017 at 0:08 AM, soltakss said:

Since this is the RQ written by Chaosium after being taken over by "others", I wonder how long it is before we get a new revised edition.

Every 27 years?

BTRC's Guns! Guns! Guns! might provide some suitable solutions

Game Moderator (GM)

11 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

Not buying it.  The ES games are dragon-obsessed, especially Skyrim, and the mythology is like a child's primer compared to the encyclopedia that Glorantha is.

The question relates to Morrowind, not the other Elder Scrolls games.

Skyrim and Oblivion are only shallow shadows compared to the atmosphere, culture and mechanics that were provided by Morrowind. They returned to a more generic Western European D&D "pop culture" feel with a few trappings taken from Morrowind.

13 hours ago, ColinBrett said:

I've been working with Python over the last few weeks and, so far, I have a script that will do something like this...

You could use the Godot Engine (free). It uses GDScript, which is loosely based on Python, and so it should be fairly easy to port your code.

The main benefit is that Godot targets (makes programs for) many platforms:

• Mobile platforms: iOS, Android, BlackBerry OS
• Desktop platforms: Windows, OS X, Linux, *BSD, Haiku
• Web Platforms: HTML5 (via Emscripten)
• One-click deploy & export to most platforms. Easy to create custom builds too.

More information:

• Features (here)
• GDScript Language (here)

There are a lot of tool kits out there, but this is one of the few that has a Python-like language, and easily creates for (and can be used on) many platforms without the need for complex and cobbled-together build environments.

An alternative would be something like Kivy (here).

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Which OS will it run?

Raspbian.

Steve: "Did somebody say Pie?"

1 hour ago, Stormwalker said:

Just go to RuneQuest 10, because then you can call it RuneQuest X, and, as we all know, words that end in "X" are cooler than other words .... and then you could use a TLA like "RQX" which is even cooler right?

Users of RQ7 and RQ8 will at some stage see an option to upgrade to RQX (via a pop-up message in in the PDF). Users who are happy (or required) to stay with RQ7 and 8 will continue to be nagged by additional pop-ups on a daily basis.

There will be no "opt-out" option. The upgrade will be touted as being "free", even though it requires an existing paid copy and removes some features from the rules, while adding "telemetry", tracking, advertising and will constantly recommend that the user uses its Suggested Rules Options even though the user has already chosen their own preferred set of Options and House Rules. Changing the RQ10 rules to suit a user's preferences will require checking and changing a multitude of options spread over 20 different tables that seem to be hidden across several different (often unrelated) chapters - without a meaningful index.

Even if a user did not agree or commit to proceed with the upgrade, the PDF will automatically download the new PDF "just in case", while consuming costly download quota, for the user's "Improved User Experience" (naturally). Some users might find they were tricked into upgrading. Most users found they had to use the "RQX Control Panel" Third Party House Rules in order to completely "opt-out" of the upgrade.

Note: Version RQ9 was skipped, because of referencing conflicts with the earlier RQ9x (95/98). Play-test "discussions" regarding version 9 almost resulted in the crashing of the BRP Central and RPG.net forums.

PS: This a dig at Microsoft's current activities around GWX; not at Chaosium (where I can see both sides).

6 hours ago, Baragei said:

With the exception of MRQII, this has been the case of every RuneQuest, no?

But everyone loves RQ2, RQ6 is the one currently in-print, and everyone is up in arms over RQ47. I don't think this discussion is about what's going to be printed in big letters on the cover, it is about making the game accessible for people who don't have an MD in wonky RPG-history. Starting to mess around with the fairly standarized way numbers work is not the best way to increase accessabilty and interest.

I am not sure if there was ever a general expectation to have anything other than "RuneQuest" on the cover, regarding versions. Possibly only a consideration to emphasise Glorantha.

The question revolves around how the community at large will reference and distinguish it from all other versions.

Additionally, some people like to read up on something before they purchase it. For example, reviews, of which many exist for many different versions. How will an interested party know which one is the correct one? How will they know which is the latest or relevant one?

You could consider using Xamarin (based on MonoDevelop, now owned by Microsoft) - Info here.

"With a C#-shared codebase, developers can use Xamarin tools to write native Android, iOS, and Windows apps with native user interfaces and share code across multiple platforms."

Also targets MacOS and Linux. Not sure how the licensing currently stands.

4 minutes ago, David Scott said:

I'm not sure of how many RQ 6th editions are out there in the shops, but it can't be many, they'll soon be gone. Shiny Mythras will take it's place, and a new a shiny Chaosium RuneQuest will be prominent on the shelves. I can't see this ever being a real problem. If they do accidentally buy an old RQ 6th edition, I'm sure they'd like it and could then go and buy the new Chaosium edition as well.

Unless you can convince the "Internet" of the "right to be forgotten" for RQ6, it will live on in forum archives, reviews, fan pages; and show up in searches for "RuneQuest".

People only have so much to spend, which is something not to be taken for granted. There would be no better way to potentially jade the perception of a friend who trusted a recommendation to try something other that Pathfinder or "D&D".

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

We don't call this RQ7 because we find that very misleading. MRQ1, MRQ2, and DM's RQ6 share a common design thread from MRQ1, and going on to MRQ2 and DM's RQ7. The new RQ is simply not from that line of development. It stems from RQ2 (with elements of RQ3) and then moves on, but does not build off the MRQ line. Calling it RQ4 (or RQ2.5) makes that point. Calling ti RQ7 is, in our opinion, more confusing.

Does the new buyer care? They just want to know which one is the latest one to get. 6 comes after 4, so it must be the latest. I generalise regarding levels of perception, however, let's consider the common ground.

Imagine the circumstances when a player joins a group playing, as indicated by the GM, "the latest version of RQ", and buys RQ 6, because it has a higher number than 4.

Because duckses have a bad reputation and a social stigma attached to them.

While not officially Gloranthan, there is a lot here that matches the theme:

Shadowforge Miniatures (Fantasy Range)

Eureka Miniatures (Myths, Assyrians, Mycenaeans, Greek and Persian, Chaos Army, Sumerians, Fanticide, and more)

Victoria Miniatures

Video: Skallagrim discusses "Throwing a sword - Crazy or viable technique?"

Video: What happens when GM's show their players how weapons work (battle axe, and bow enchanted with magic missile being impossible to dodge)...

Who and what you relate to and join with in RQ is the "Rune Questing". What matters is how the character relates to the world and its essence. Not some abstract point collection or stat number. What the character has done and who they relate/align with is what defines them. Their history and actions (although this can be recorded with a relationship stat, that loses the depth, detail and cultured feel). This ties in with the approach and importance of hero questing.

36 minutes ago, fmitchell said:

Maybe we should simply retitle this forum something like "Mythras and RQ6"?  Most of the threads in this subforum are about RQ6.

More like: "Mythras, Legend and RQ6". Does MRQ2 also count?

13 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

We commissioned an extensive and thorough trademark and usage search by specialist IP and trademark lawyers, so yes.

More to the point, I hope they can assist with optimising Google PageRanking for Mythras.

Did you check google for other uses of the name (spelling variants using an "i" or"y")?

http://www.viewzone.com/mithras.html

2 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I like Pendragon passions, although I'm unsure that they may be too limiting nowadays, and perhaps there is another way of putting an emphasis on personality traits.

I like the way relationships (between anything and anyone) are handled in Monsters and Other Childish Things. This also maps to the way they can be used in Wild Talents, and blends with Loyalties and Passions (as well as being similar to Mission, Craving and Duty in Reign).

20 minutes ago, Iskallor said:

Might be the only way to break something is to hit a trollkin over the head with a hardcover edition

I used to be a play-tester like you, then I took a hard-cover to the knee.

Cthulhulike

Update the tick rules with some 'realistic' moderation. Limit the number of ticks that can be learned from. Add a short paragraph to explain it.

While a person can try and succeed at many many different tasks, most people can only retain a certain amount of learning. This would often be the most relevant (important to them, profession or life calling), enjoyable (more likely to take in something they like), eventful/meaningful (that last parry that saved them from within an inch of death really stuck in their memory and answered some sword play questions the student was struggling with), easier to remember (learning that takes less effort or thought, a good trainer knows how to help a student focus on what they prefer to avoid but need), or complementary (repeating similar skills eases learning when there are common elements between skills).

Only the top few events would be mentally digested. So allow a player to choose a limited number of ticked skills that make sense (depending on the degree of the tone of realism in the game session).

The maximum number could depend on a time period (eg: per day, per session, per month). Could be moderated with "down-time required to absorb" and let it "sink in" (again, depending on the style of play). Stress might reduce the ability to absorb and learn.

Smarter or "more tuned in" or "enthusiastic" characters might be able to absorb more (based on INT, POW or EDU) - some people need to first learn how to learn or be "coach-able" (even if they are "clever" with a high INT). For a 'balanced' game, allow all players the same number of ticks that can be learned from.

A type of stat could be used for this (either hard set, or calculated from other stats): LRN or LAP (Learning Aptitude).

Did Classic Traveller (1977) use character classes, or were career paths just a template for creating a character?

7 hours ago, tooley1chris said:

My point is don't forget other survivors. They can be a lot of fun.

Other survivors are often the real 'monsters' to watch out for (As seen in Walking Dead or when playing DayZ).

After a while (depending on the nature of the dead), zombies become a predictable threat that can be managed (similar to other environmental threats).

Unless you are playing a game where zombies develop sentience, or are controlled and coordinated (zombie lords or necromancers), or the supernatural theme is taken up several levels (zombies were just the first wave of some kind of inter-dimensional rift opening), or the 'science' allows for bigger threats to evolve (radiation or chemicals enabling the dead to mutate and grow into huge tentacled constructs), or maybe scientists work out how to weaponise the dead (or are the result of an alien invasion, with the first landings only months or years away - Ack ack ackkk!).