Paid a bod yn dwp

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

Interesting find, thanks! I'm not sure how that can work in practice though... say I have 150% in weapon skill, and I'm splitting that 80% (against opponent A) and 70% (against opponent B). Do we need to track this so that I have 80% parry against A and 70% parry against B? And if a 3rd opponent C attacks, which skill score should I use? I've got no idea what Jason means, there.

Yes agreed, after revisiting Jason’s reply it doesn’t seem to make much sense. The multiple parry rule already covers this. And as you say what would happen if a third person attacks, which parry would you use? 
i accepted it at the time but rereading what Jason wrote, it doesn’t seem to fit.  

On 12/26/2019 at 5:08 PM, lordabdul said:

Whether it's ludicrous or not is hard to tell because the percentage system is only deceptively linear -- in truth, a few things (like for example the >100% rules) make skills scale non-linearly, where someone with 200% is a lot better than 4 times better someone with 50%. So I don't know about that.

However, remember that attacks and parries are not behaving the same, and you don't get to subtract willy-nilly like this!  Assuming all 8 opponents have below 100% in their attack and defense skills, then:

• When attacking, your Humakti can either:
  • Attack one of the 8 opponents at full skill (-85% to that opponent's defense)
  • Attack two of the 8 opponents at partial skill, with one attack above 100... like, say, one attack at 120% (-20% to the opponent's defense), and one at 65% (no penalty to the opponent)
  • Attack three of the 8 opponents at partial skill... say, 55%, 60%, 70% (no penalties to any opponents)
  • The Humakti can't attack more than 3 opponents because he can't go below 50% for any attack. And he might run out of SRs anyway.
• When defending, your Humakti can either dodge or block or parry.
  • Assuming he has "normal" (below 100) skills in Dodge and Shield, doing that won't affect the opponents' attack rolls.
  • If the Humakti chooses to parry, remember that subsequent parries are at a -20% penalty. So if 8 opponents attack him:
    • First opponent gets -85%, most probably gets parried and even hurt (or his weapon broken).
    • Second opponent gets -65%.
    • Third opponent gets -45%. These guys are really just here for the attrition.
    • Fourth opponent gets -25%.
    • Fifth opponent gets -5%. He might get lucky.
    • Six, seven, and eighth opponents don't get any penalty, and the Humakti's parry dips below 100%, at 85%, 65%, and 45% respectively.

So yeah, it might take more than 5 or 6 warriors to take down a Humakti in a Sword Trance, assuming zero magical support in favour of the opponents. That doesn't seem too ludicrous to me narratively/cinematically speaking.

One of Jason’s answers in the core rules questions seems to say that the starting parry % will also be affected by the split attack rule. Not sure if that is an oversight?

*Rubs hands together* So this is a very useful guide on the “look” of the various cultures in dragon pass. When’s print on demand available? 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

GaGoG

Excuse my ignorance, what’s this refer to? 
 

thanks for the news.

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

Robin Laws was at my place this week, and he's about 70% done with the new Big Rubble book, and moving forward on Pavis as well. And I think it may well be Robin's best work ever.

Excellent! Can’t wait to go back there. I’m saving up my lunars ( hope they’re still an accepted currency)

On 7/16/2019 at 8:33 AM, Marty Jopson said:

So, returning to my original post, the group met up and discussed our options. Bottom line - no one wanted to make the investment of time to involve themselves in the Gloranthan setting. The rule set was also seen as overly complex and simulationist for our play style. Runequest was rejected. 

Instead we are first having a gonzo break and I will run a spot of 5e DnD partly for my son who wants to have a go at the system. Then back to the very excellent One Ring for a more extended campaign. 

I’m a little disappointed I will be honest as I was willing to give it a go and I tried selling it. In retrospect I should have Gone about this differently. I tried to get across my own enthusiasm for the setting - but that was a mistake as it just made it seem daunting. I also should not have given out my spare rulebook as if my enthusiasm was daunting that book is doubly so. Maybe just running them through the quick start adventure with no other background would have worked but that was specifically not what they like doing (they like making characters in a setting they relate to). 

I’ll try again when we are done with the One Ring and by then hopefully there will be a few more campaign settings / adventure books out I can tempt them with. 

So what have I learnt from this? Maybe, just maybe, Glorantha is not the best sales pitch for Runequest. 

I played through the Broken Tower Quick Start on free RPG day in a local venue in Cardiff with @Dimbyd as GM. I hadn’t played RuneQuest for 25 or so years, but it all came back so naturally. I don’t need to preach to RuneQuest players about the systems virtues, suffice to say it was exciting from start to finish. 

I think I was the only player with previous RuneQuest experience ( apart from the GM). We had a mix of ages with some late teens/early 20’s playing too. The new players loved the game and picked it up easily. 

Beyond a very quick introduction to a couple of concepts like “this is a Bronze Age world” and “the gods are real and very important”, we went straight into the action of the scenario. There was no need for the bigger Glornatha picture. The world was revealed simply through playing through the adventure. I have to say it worked perfectly as an introduction to Glorantha and RuneQuest with it’s excellent nail biting combat.

Well worth a try as a one shot to see if your players like the RuneQuest Glorantha experience - I find RuneQuest runs so intuitively in play, best way to introduce it. 

Edit: by the way I also adore The One Ring. Great game.

Thats a big Duck...probably why the Vingan carries a larger then average cooking pot

Superb. Is this work going to be used in an upcoming RuneQuest product? 

2 minutes ago, Crel said:

I mean, it's the third adventure in the only published adventures book, soooooo...

Yeah that’s fine, and avoiding Dragons is always sensible...but for the sake of the OP be nice to know the designers intention on multiple creature attacks in the bestiary - Do they have the potential of using all their attacks in a round? 

Good question. Looking at the Bestiary it’s ambiguous. On p8 under weapons it’s says

“Many creatures can attack more than once in a round: if so, unless specified otherwise, the creature uses both attacks at once, instead of working under the guide lines for two-weapon combat...”

That could be interpreted as a maximum of two attacks per round unless specified other wise. Though i feel it’s more likely referring to if the creature has two attacks listed on the same SR they may attack at the same time instead. If the latter is the case then it would seem the Dragon can potentially use all its attacks in a round. 

@Marty JopsonIf you want a big story arc set in Dragon Pass how about the Heroquest Coming Storm, and Eleven lights campaign? There’s a thread on these forums about converting it to RuneQuest. The timeline is earlier than RQG,  with the Lunars still occupying Sartar, but I imagine many of the adventures in the GM pack and the QuickStart could slot in quite easily being Dragon Pass based.

I’m currently playing through it with @Dimbyd Gming on roll20, so I don’t know the full detail of the campaign, but it’s building up nicely. 

Link to Runequest conversion notes for coming storm:

Had a quick look at Jason Durall's core question thread. My question has been deleted, but I think that there may have been some editing of the contradictory answers(?) A  read through seems to be fairly clear on damage to limbs now, and in line with what the core book says. 

7 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

The next round the same but the parry (which hand does not matter) is now less

I think the intention is for the cumulative  penalty to reset at the start of the next combat round. It simulates the struggle to parry a flurry of attacks in a single combat round. Next round catch your breath and start again. 

2 hours ago, Crel said:

This sounds to me like you could also get in a free shield bash if you're using a shield instead of a second weapon. Basically, each hand can parry once, attack once, and further parries take the -20% penalty. Am I right?

Shields are an exception to this rule. If you attack with a shield, you loose the shield parry, but you would still be able dodge.

So you could attack with both a shield and a melee weapon in a round if enough Strike ranks, but you’d loose the protection of the shield.

...Also parry and dodge are interchangeable. So you can parry one attack and dodge another in a round, however the -20 culmaltive penalty applies regardless. 

On 4/25/2019 at 2:07 AM, DreadDomain said:

However, ii the Rules thread, Jason clarified:

-------------

Posted April 8 Jason Durall said:

  On 4/7/2019 at 11:43 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Pardon me -  but I would add (based on Jasons previous clarifications) That with two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry.

Worth repeating

------------

Gone over this with Jason in detail, and this is the intention. I do think the correction for the 2nd printing on 2 weapon fighting was a missed opportunity to make this crystal clear. 

23 hours ago, Mechashef said:

Thanks.  Your responses have been extremely helpful.

 

btw, one of the things I get paid to do is run training courses.  A couple of these courses I have written then modified many times over the past 20+ years and are on a topic I have an encyclopedic knowledge of.  Even after more than 20 years I still occasionally find bits that are wrong because I knew what I meant when I wrote them, but they don't actually say exactly what I intended.  And of course because I wrote it I generally don't spot the error.

There is a reason good technical writers are worth their weight in gold.  It is a really hard thing to do.  While it is easy to pick flaws in what has been written by the authors of RQG or the posts by those helping to explain things, it is really hard to actually do it better than them.

Thanks again for your invaluable contributions.

And thanks for pointing out the wording, I wouldn’t have noticed it otherwise. 

18 minutes ago, Mechashef said:

The reason why I was trying to nail it down, is because that is not what is written in the earlier posts:

Reading that, if we try and determine the effect of cumulative hits we get:

Thus stating that even cumulative hits will not pass a combined total of more than 2 X location's HP on to total HP.

Thank you for clearing up what it is intended to say (and I agree that the interpretation you intended to write is the correct one), but the section I've quoted does not mean what it is intended to mean.

 

Ah yes I missed that I shall try and edit that. It shouldn’t suggest ignore hit point loss to total hitpoints

51 minutes ago, Mechashef said:

 

So based on this, if Bazza's arm was at -3 (7 points damage to a 4 point arm) and his arm was hit for an another 10 points damage:

His arm would be reduced to -4 HP (only one point more damage) because it can't go beyond X2 damage.

His Total Hit Points would be reduced by 8 HP because up to twice the arm's 4 HP can be passed on to General Hit Points as damage from one blow.  This results in a total of 15 (existing 7 plus 8 new damage) Total Hit Point damage and Bazza will die at the end of the round.

 

Is that correct?

 

Thanks again

That’s it. You got it 

10 hours ago, Sumath said:

full of things that should no longer be there (e.g. prime stats, which aren't even used - modifiers are, so why not generate them directly?).

Prime stats are used in 5e - opposed strength and dex checks for example.

Removing something as iconic as prime stats starts to dismantle the identity of the game. There’s innovation and then there’s innovation. I feel the same about saving throws in DnD, but they’re such big part of that games identity that they would be too problematic to remove.

I think it’s the same for RuneQuest. If you change it too much or too dramatically it ceases to be the game you identify with. That’s ok if you’re starting fresh, but not so if you have legacy. 

47 minutes ago, Numtini said:

Overall, I am with Styopa in thinking RQ:G was a little too slavish to old RQ and missed an opportunity to update the game. 

Personally I’m not so sure. I think RQG mechanics being based off of RQ2 still works really well. They were so well designed in the first place that there isn’t a lot that would improve them IMO. 

Edit: though I think in some places the rules could be explained a little better, as evidenced by the long post on damage “Death by a Thousand Cuts”

2nd Edit: OK RQ3 First Aid skill feels a bit ill matched to RQG.

I like the introduction of passions and Runes as it slides into the rule set nicely and really helps with the immersion in the game.

Combat in RuneQuest still feels as visceral as it did back in the day. 5e still plays off of a simpler more abstract  approach with AC. Though I find in play RuneQuest is fast and furious in all the right ways, despite perceived crunch. 5e ( which I play a lot of, and like) is much pulpier In approach, and despite having a more abstract approach to combat, can still fall into the trap of protracted fights, particularly at higher levels. 

I don’t see D&D 5e as particular vanilla. It’s setting and classes are quite specific DnDisms. Though I guess the background for characters tends to be much less then the rich tapestry of Glornatha. Which in one helps with accessibility - without lots of background new gamers can easily pick it up and run with it.

Looking forward to see what Chaosium does with the new RuneQuest Starter Set on this point.  We’ve got this great rich game, we now need different entry points for newcomers. 

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

This is also  exactly how I read the rules. Nice summary

Yes thanks - that’s how I read it. Pretty sure that’s all right now.

I do think that the RQG text misses out on the explanation for the crunchier rules around “limbs”, which is explained in RQ2.

Also it hasn’t helped that there are some mistakes in the core rules questions answers from @Jason Durall which misses the distinction with differing rules for “limbs” - Understandable though with the amount of questions thrown his way, and I do really appreciate the time he’s taken there to answer questions.

i think those two points, combined with perhaps the rules for first Aid, and us grognards having a blind eye to some rules details has led to this really long topic.  

14 minutes ago, Mechashef said:

3. His left arm is reduced by 2 and his THP by 4 

It’s number 3. 

The arm can’t go beyond x2 damage, but damage upto a maximum of x2 the limbs hitpoints will still be passed onto THP from a single hit.

On 4/13/2019 at 1:08 AM, EMH said:

I'm hoping for some of Andrey Fetisov's excellent adventurer illustrations to be rendered as 28mm figures, myself.

As far as I'm concerned, he's nailed the Bronze Age influences (both Mediterranean and Central European) perfectly, while adding some truly amazing Gloranthan colour to the mix.

Yes I agree. Can’t wait to see more of his work. I think he’s a key to making Bronze Age Glorantha truly accessible. The new maps of clearwine, Boldhome, and Apple lane are stunning. The thematic change of the Orlanthi back to what I felt was the original feel/vibe of Glorantha is big reason why I’m fully behind the new RuneQuest Glorantha. That’s the foundation and inspiration I’m personally looking for, so thanks Chaosium.

 But as they say your YGMV.

5 minutes ago, Grievous said:

I understood the new printing might have brighter colors (?).

The cover image looks like it’s had small tweaks to increase the colour chroma a bit. More dramatic is the picture of the trolls in the rubble, where you can see a lot more detail in the dark areas

@Jason DurallSo my take away from this long discussion is:

1. The omission of the reasoning for there being different damage rules to limbs specifically, is a barrier to the comprehension of this section - In contrast RQ2 included an explanation.

2. The reading of First Aid skill adds confusion because it is used on each individual hit/wound. With limbs, after the x2 has been reached you no longer track/count damage to limbs, only to Total Hit points. So further hits to an arm past x2 can no longer technically be healed with first aid - at least on a straight forward reading of the rule. 

Fist aid was designed to work with RQ3, but feels a little disjointed as written with RQG, and perhaps adds more unnecessary granularity by having to track individual wounds for future healing?