Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. 11 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    Thanks to everybody who pitched in!  The episode is now recorded and in the final steps of audio editing. I'm sure I can speak for both @Joerg and I when I say we're pretty excited about this episode, we had an amazing guest, and there are a few interesting things we'll be sharing in the show notes (which Joerg started typing today). Stay tuned!

    Looking forward to listening 👍

  2. 10 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

    The strike rank system as used in RQG is just an initiative system. The actions you take, the weapon you yield, the moves you make, the spells you cast are all factored in to tell you when you strike/act in the round. That is why the statement of intent is important in RQG. It is the moment you decide what you do and compute the effect to the action order.

    But it's an initiative system that is more involved than most and one could only use only DEX ranks and INT ranks to determine who acts when and be done with it.

    What some see as a "slippery slope to action economy", others would describe as the "benefit of tactical combat". Isn't great that we can choose? I think it is.

    Yes I find so much to recommend BRP based games. You can pick and choose bits you like depending on your preference. 

    If you wanted more tactical movement in RQG you could (i imagine) use RQ3 movement mechanics with the 12SR round in RQG without too much work. 

    Or introduce a simple ruling for pressing forward and retreating in RQG combat, whilst staying engaged? 

    • Like 2
  3. 2 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    Even RQG is arguably a bit too "Strike Ranky" for me. I'm tempted to use SRs just as "initiative", and ignore all (or relegate to "optional") the other stuff that invariably puts everybody on the "slippery slope to action economy systems" (which is where RQ3 ended up). AFAIK, that's actually more or less how the designers use SRs in their own games, even though they kept all the RQ2 rules when they wrote the new book. But that's mostly "house rules" and not "rules from other editions".

    Yeah I think that’s how it works best. Just keep it in mind as an initiative system 

  4. 24 minutes ago, dvdmacateer said:

    In RQ 3 it does not have to be a special any damage that goes over the target's SIZ creates a knock back.  For each 5 pts of damage or fraction thereof the target is knocked back 1m and make a Dex x5  to stay standing pg 49  of the boxed set players book.  With smashing  and slashing weapons  on special the target is knocked back 1m per 5pts of damage, SIZ is not a factor pg 56 of the Box set players book . 


    Yes RQ3 only had impale special damage, so I was thinking there’s an opportunity in RQG to allow the flavour of attack with the greater variety (slash,crush,impale), to dictate how effective the knockback is. Doesn’t have to be ‘special damage’ as such, but maybe crush type weapons have more of an opportunity for knockback on a normal attack etc? Slashing weapons might not be as effective for knockback? 

  5. Regarding movement in RQ3, and strike ranks, personally I wouldn’t want to use that as it creates a lot more to track in game, pushing the game into a more simulationist direction. Having said that RQ3 is perhaps better suited to accurately measuring movement in melee, and if that suites your style maybe something worth considering? RQG/RQ2 is better suited to theatre of the mind, and has more flexibility which I like. 

  6. On 8/6/2021 at 3:21 AM, dvdmacateer said:

    Knockback for damage > SIZ from RQ3

    Iirc there’s intentional knockback in RQG, but not a general rule like in RQ3. This would be easy to slot into RQG. Though I guess you’d need to give some thought to whether you allow it for all special damage types  (slash,crush,impale)? In RQ3 where the rule originates there was only impale.

    • Should slash have a knockback potential?
    • With Impale does knockback take the weapon with them?
    • Perhaps there should be options for the attacker to run with the impale, adding their damage bonus again for extra knockback? 
    • Depending on how far the knockback are you still considered ‘engaged’ for purposes of the melee round? 

    Good optional rule, but a little extra to remember. 

  7. RQG. For me it’s the best of the rest. It’s been well thought  through and IMO has polished off the RuneQuest rule set very nicely. Going with RQ2 for strike ranks makes play much easier to track in combat, keeping  play possibilities open - A nice balance between crunch and improvisation.

    The basis of combat is the most satisfying of RQ2, and RQ3. To take a few points: 

    • Specials & crits are better thought through. 

    • Weapon/shield damage is a satisfying compromise between RQ2, & RQ3 

    • free Defensive actions keep the game flowing. But with diminishing chances after the first parry.

    • Rune magic is more enjoyable 

    • Sorcery is easier to use whilst retaining the original intent. 



    • Like 2
  8. 8 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

    One True RuneQuest With No Ambiguity, but that's not the Chaosium way, deliberately.

    Yeah, I’m pretty flexible with the rules in game. But there’s a bit of a disconnect when you have a crunchy set of rules to learn with goal posts being moved from product to product. Nice to have a clear base line from which you can deviate if you want to, it also makes it easier for new players to assimilate the rules.

    I expect this won’t be the case with the starter, and I agree the quickstart was before the final core rules were settled on. But just flagging up as it’s something I noticed from the QS. 

    Definitely a case for abbreviation in the starter rules though, not arguing that.

  9. I really enjoyed the Quick Start adventure and format, but a few small things like the summary of parry vs attacks were slightly different to what ended up in the core. Whilst I understand the need to abbreviate rules, I don’t think this particular variation in the QuIckStart helped new players. In this instance, the core is no more complicated, and probably easier with the chart/table.

    Will the starter set use the same basis as the core rules here?


  10. 1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

    Get a few hints of these additional adventurers.

    Dazarim Crescentblade - Yelmalion.  Interesting that his ransom says "None".

    Mago the Fierce - from the high Death, Beast, Air, and Darkness runes, I'm guessing a Storm Bull (possibly worshiping Zorak Zoran as well).

    Someone with very high Death Rune and high Stasis Rune (decent Water Rune, no Darkness). 

    Va... Wol... - possibly a Wolf Pirate? 

    Makari... -

    And someone who looks something like an assassin.

    Can we have a baboon please? 

    • Thanks 1
  11. This is working well on so many levels. Well done.

    looking forward to seeing the fleshed out Jonstown. Great images - Guessing that the city references we see depicted in a few of the pictures, and on the back cover is Jonstown? 

    Excellent choice of cover artist. I really like how you’re mixing up different artistic approaches. That broken painterly/impressionist approach really gets the imagination going - lovely. Artists that capture light like that really make Glorantha shine (so to speak). More of that please. 
    All brilliant though. Lifts my heart seeing Glorantha conceptualised and brought to life like this. Really want a Krasrshtkid encounter now.

    Edit: As pointed out on Twitter, great reinterpretation of the luise Perrin cover 

    • Like 2
  12. 11 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    My understanding is that Passions start at zero. The thing about starting new Passions at 60% is mainly for the Family History and (more generally speaking) for character creation: you have Love (Family) or Loyalty (Tribe) at 60% because you literally spent most of your life loving or being part of this or that group. And you get Hate (Lunar Empire) at 60% when your grandpa got killed by their sorcerers because you literally heard that story (along with witnessing all the casual bigotry your family exhibits as a result) most of your life too. So I wouldn't expect a 2 weeks adventure to similarly propel you to an equally strong Passion.

    RQG p236/237 mentions that a new Passion's starting value should be discussed between the GM and player. The 60% in a recommendation (not a rule), and personally I would only use that value for special occasions such as taking on a new title or post, pleading allegiance to a new leader, being adopted in a clan or joining a community (such as a warband), etc.


    Depends how you play it I guess (YRQWV and all that) but that's not my interpretation.

    1. I see Passion rolls as an "actionable" thing. That is: you roll to see if you are motivated by your Loyalty, or if you can invoke your Loyalty. If you succeed the roll, it happens. If you fail, it doesn't happen -- which is different from the opposite happening!
      1. For instance, if you roll to repair a broken sword and you succeed, you fixed the weapon. If you fail, you didn't make it worse... you just didn't fix it, or not well, or it took way longer. It gets worse only on a Fumble -- a Fumble is generally the only type of roll result where something opposite to the player's wishes happen. That's important to keep in mind.
      2. So rolling for a Passion determines whether you succeed in the reason you rolled for, simple as that. A failed motivation roll just means that Leika's interests don't matter to you (not that you will suddenly actively act against Leika!), and a failed invocation roll means Leika won't lift much of a finger to help you (not that she will actively send thanes to get in your way!)
    2. So basically, a 10% Loyalty doesn't mean (to me) that you're Loyal 10% of the time and disloyal 90% of the time... it just means you're loyal 10% of the time, and 90% of the time it doesn't matter, and your actions are guided by other factors.
      1. Think about the alternative: would you, as a ruler, surround yourself with thanes with Loyalty (to you) at 80%, knowing they they will be disloyal to you 20% of the time? Probably not! 🙂
      2. Even worse, consider a Hate Passion. If the "default" of everything was 50/50, does it mean everybody is being biased/bigoted/racist/sexist/etc against everybody else half the time?! That would suck big time. Although it would give the GM a lot of fun (roll 50% and roleplay that NPC being an asshole to the players!)
        1. I don't even want to think about what it means that, as a result, the opposite Passion (Love, Loyalty, etc.) would also start at 50%! Combined with the interpretation of failed rolls meaning acting against these Passions! Argh! Eternal internal turmoil! 😉

    As such, to answer the original questions, IMHO:

    1. If you didn't have that Loyalty Passion before, you now have it at 30%. Getting it at 80% or 90% all of sudden sounds completely wrong to me, especially since Passions at 80% or more get into "mandatory rolls" territory (RQG p237).
    2. It is indeed a two-way street. You roll under Loyalty (personage) to help (if you want or if the situation warrants it) with decisions impacting that person, but you also roll under it when appealing to that person for help, discounts, loans, etc. (RQG p234/235).


    Yes lordAbdul on the money here. This is how I see it. Passions take you above and beyond what you’d normally be capable of doing - Not necessarily whether you will or will not be loyal. More a case of whether you’ll be loyal with real passion, and fire in your belly!...or feel hesitant, & slightly unsure due to your personal doubts, other commitments etc (represented by failure -10%). Passions are emotive and can distort working either way.
    But failure on a passion roll doesn’t mean you’re going to become the opposite of loyal and turn into an enemy.

    As lordAbdul said fumbles are the ones to watch out for, but even then it could be emotionally crippling, but not necessarily twist you into an enemy of your clan etc.

    • Like 1
  13. On 3/22/2021 at 7:08 PM, lordabdul said:

    Yeah that's what I was thinking when I was checking the first half of the book. It would have been simpler to state special attack abilities in each creature. It doesn't seem to me like it would add much text to the book because the number of entries that fall under the general rule p8 seem pretty small.


    Yep agree 100% 

    On a side note, I like how they’ve left a couple free strike ranks after the Crimson Bat has finished its attacks, gives a chance to teach that Mofo a lesson! 🤣

    • Haha 1
  14. 36 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:


    We will sell the PDFs at $14.99 when we start selling the printed set for $29.99. Same day.


    That’s a great entry price. Really looking forward to this. Sincerely hope it grows the game, I’m sure it will.

    I like the design ethos of keeping as close to the core rules as possible, rather then an overly abbreviated version of the rules. Really hoping for a clean, clarified and accessible starter set that opens up RuneQuest to a new audience. I’m guessing that will be forefront in the design of the new starter? There’s been such a wealth of feedback here since the original release of RQG, guessing that’s helped steer the designers in presenting this boxed set a new? 

    • Like 1
  15. 16 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    Yeah the giant's special attack is really a special move -- and it's a single attack anyway so I don't know if it qualifies as an RQ3 holdout.

    The Huan-To (and the couple other monsters I've found with this "3 SR apart" special rule) is kinda weird... If I understand this correctly, Biting by itself would be done on SR7 (as per the table), Biting after a sword attack would also be SR7 (sword's SR4 + 3), and Biting after a claw attack would be SR10 (claw's SR7 + 3) ?  Another instance of "RQG has many special cases and special rules".

    Have to give the designers the benefit of the doubt here. There are elements like the 3sr intervals that have crossed over from RQ3, but I’ve yet to find any example where RQ3 rule cross over is problematic. There’s no overt reference to parry restriction that could feel left over from RQ3. The borrowing of the 3sr  must be intentional in RQG. Maybe alarm bells were ringing because of previous rules clash’s from older editions in the core book? 

    There are a few what I’d consider to be missing combat notes ( not too many) which I’ll add to the Q&A thread. Scotty rightly pointed out that I would be breaching copyright with my other thread on missing combat notes, and perhaps they may clash with the designers intensions.

    That said presentation of the rules could be a bit clearer - for example why not have notes about simultaneous attacks included in the individual creatures combat notes? There’s a relatively small number of creatures that that rule refers to. It’d save a lot of confusion, and referencing back and forth. The less rules I need to remember the better. Have it all by the creature for easy reference.

    Also the general rule about 2-weapon attacks that is the fallback rule in the book, should be emphasised better at the front of the book. It’s there but tagged on to the end of another rule. I’d make it more obvious, give it its own bullet point.


  16. 12 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    Yes it might be late 🙂 As per my original comment: the "multiple attacks happen simultaneously" is only, I think, for creatures that are already specified as having multiple attacks per round. So the way I understand it:

    1. No combat notes: the creature follows the usual rules.
    2. Combat note about having multiple attacks per round: these multiple attacks are simultaneous (the "if so..." of the rule p8).
    3. Combat note about having multiple attacks per round but with a specific rule for how to play those attacks: just follow the combat note (the "unless specified otherwise" of the rule p8).

    I’m going to bed 🤪

    • Haha 1
  17. 24 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    The Huan-To (and the couple other monsters I've found with this "3 SR apart" special rule) is kinda weird... If I understand this correctly, Biting by itself would be done on SR7 (as per the table), Biting after a sword attack would also be SR7 (sword's SR4 + 3), and Biting after a claw attack would be SR10 (claw's SR7 + 3) ?

    Yes it curiously seems to also fit with the RQ3 10 melee round

    • Like 1
  18. 5 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    I don't know what the problem is with the Minotaur? It can attack with a melee weapon (Great Axe) or with a natural weapon (Head Butt). Again, that's similar to baboons with their spear and bite, or humans with their sword and kick. I think you just go with the normal rules there, no?

    I might well be befuddled as it’s late now, but I was thinking if there is no mention in the notes as to how to use the second attack, that they should therefore follow the rule on p8 and happen simultaneously? 

  19. I’m also noticing a lot copy over from RQ3 in the RQG bestiary which reference parry, or the loss of parry due to making two attacks. Those bits aren’t relevant to how parry works in RQG now. Sure you can make exceptions, like the giant sweeping attack, but some of those like the Huan to are obviously referencing RQ3 rules, and are not relevant to RQG. 

    Also the reference to attacks being 3sr apart was a RQ3 convention. Doesn’t break the game, but I wonder if it was intentional using that, instead of the RQG approach for the second attack? 

  • Create New...