Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Regulars
  • Posts

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. Thanks for that. I've just had a chance to read over rq2 combat, and you've confirmed my understanding. Over the years I must have unconsciously mixed up the rules from the 2 editions. I think we played RQ3 games with the freedom of rq2 combat, allowing both attack and parries with a single one handed weapon. I've been looking through RQ2 for a ruling that wasn't there I think for ease of play I prefer the RQ2 approach - simple straight forward everyone gets a chance to parry no matter whether one handed or 2 handed weapon is used. Your point about dodge in RQ3 is important too as it becomes an extra action to be used instead of an attack or parry. I guess in RQ 3 the combat rules encourage either 2 handed weapons, or the combination of shield and a singlehanded weapon. A single handed weapon on its own, would only be a good option if your dodge % is good. Other wise you're at a major disadvantage without a parry defense. I see no reason why the RQ2 approach shouldn't prevail here? Surely a skilled fighter could both attack and parry in the same round with a single handed weapon? After all it is lighter and more manauvreable. And in game terms, I think it's a lot easier to take for granted a parry option no matter the weapon. It's more streamlined - everyone gets a parry.
  2. From my hazy memory, in the past when we played Runequest in combat we allowed an attack and parry with a one handed weapon during a single melee round. Looking through RQ 3 this is not the case, it's a choice of attack or parry with a one handed melee weapon ( not taking into account shields or 2 handed weapons) Skimming through RQ 2 classic I haven't been able to find clarification regarding attack and parrys with one handed weapons in same melee round. Was it the same as RQ 3?
  3. Really appreciate the game designers sharing these insights. It good to hear other perspectives of gamers too. Regarding break points, and sudden large increases in value of bonus's, that seems acceptable if you embrace the gamism aspect. Perhaps it's a more exciting dramatic step forward for characters, as opposed to a steady even progression. Maybe the game needs a bit of drama? One thing I've learnt from looking back at RQ3 is it could tend to go into an overly dry and mathematical direction. Although some of that impression was also due to the presentation removed from Glorantha - too generic, too much about rules without flavourful context
  4. For what its worth, regarding the new Runequest, as long as the fun factor is dialled up to 11, I think the new RQ is going to be great. The more I look at RQ classic compared to RQ3 the more I think that the new game based off the soul of RQ2 is going in the right direction. I like simulation but not so much that it becomes cumbersome, and a maths lesson. likewise the downside for me with RQ3 was that the game became overly dry and generic, compared to the flavoursome RQ 2 with Glorantha, with rules complicating the game a bit too much in areas. I agree with Jeff on his sentiments about magic, it should be setting specific, exciting, colourful, and fun bringing life to the game world ( & hopefully not too complicated to run) So - Pour in the flavour & atmosphere, get the imagination stirred, have characters with plenty of character, Magic thats fun & colourful, an easy streamlined system that still retains the great options of Runequest 2 - knock 'em dead with the presentation, and stunning new art, to get the kids (& adults) salivating. That should just about do it.
  5. Apologies - Brief off topic link diversion for Jeff. Its regarding Orlanthi steads Nothing else to see here. Back to the discussion...
  6. On the subject of other games, and influences. I like the colour & varirty that D&D5 has introduced to D&D creatures. Particularly low powered creatures. Like the Goblins ability to hide. Gives them something characteristically goblinish, and a tricky challenge to overcome. I'd like to see plenty of colour in the RQ creatures too, though admittedly thats not going to be difficult with the rich backgrounds of Glorantha. Having a look at RQ classic and the skeleton, its a pretty straight forward low powered creature, surely a moving skeleton would be scaring the bejesus out of the you?. An opportunity for a bit of gamism with a fear factor for player characters perhaps?
  7. Yes i think a more streamlined approach to working out the bonus's is better as in RQ2. As long as the characterises are clearly having an influence on skills, the working out should be as straight forward as possible. Good point about the size of the bonus, however isn't part of the D100 RQ system about having a greater scale with which to get more variety in characters individual abilities? Would the bigger bonus (+10 +30 )negate that to an extent, making the d100 scale a bit more equivalent to D20 even ?
  8. Hi Jeff, Could you clarify our discussion here on the square Orlanthi steads in Sartar in light of the publication of the Coming Storm? Does the Coming Storm represent a different perspective/approach on Orlanthi Culture, or is it representing a culturally different part of Sartar?
  9. Thanks for the contributions all. It's really helpful to hear the different perspectives, and the games designers point of view. Its a way of reminding myself what made the game (both RQ 2 & 3) so great originally. Such a rich, well developed game ( yes we marvelled at its mechanics as youngsters). Coming back to it now with RQ Classic, it's brought back a lot of memories, and this comparison of the two Chaosium versions of RQ is a great refresher before the new edition arrives. At the time I wasn't overly academic about comparing the 2 versions, but now it's interesting to see how they stand together. Reassuringly what Jeff says about the games I find myself agreeing with. There were big parts of RQ 3 that just didn't work for me. Which came down to the generic flavour of the rules, and the magic system, particulary sorcery and the ritual stuff which did literally drain the soul. ive been looking at the strike rank rules in both 2 & 3, and on cursory glance they seem to read much the same. Both seem to allocate movement @ 3 meters per SR. Although to be honest I can't remember using this in a strict manner when we played orginally. Is there a significant difference in the SR usage I'm missing?
  10. It would be good to get some clarity on the reason for this from Jeff. Are the vikingesque steads because these are "frontier" Orlanthi? Where do we find the square steads?
  11. So with the arrival of the Coming Storm, do those that have read it feel like it's Clarifying Orlanthi identity from previous publications? How are the Orlanthi steads portrayed? Are they like the square esrolian influenced steads?
  12. Thanks all Its very helpful to think of RQ3 as more additive with regards to rules. Fatigue and sorcery were things I never came to terms with in RQ3. I've heard it said that the way sorcery was edited for the Games worship edition, made it even more confusing. In my opinion magic (sorcery) should be fun and simple to use in game, but with potential for fumbles and crits affects. For myself it did seem that RQ3 was becoming needlessly complicated in these areas. But there were also a few areas of RQ3 that seemed to make a bit more sense like the already mentioned double damage needed to maim or sever a limb. One other point that has been mentioned by many is the critical vs impaling damage of RQ2. Where critical is the hardest result to achieve of the 2 so should presumably have a greater affect, with RQ2 this is not necessarily the balance. RQ2 - Critical roll does normal damage but ignores armour. Impale does normal rolled damage + total possible damage RQ3 Crit does full possible damage plus Damage modifier and ignores armour. Impale does twice normal rolled damage + normal damage modifier, however if impale is a critical as well it does the twice the maximum rolled damage + damage modifier. If I were to pick and mix from the two Runequest versions, I would go with RQ 3 for the following: Critical & impale rules Change to hit points & dismembering ( sounds brutal!) Dodge over defence I think Im more inclined to go with RQ2 Knockback for the reason that with RQ3, although it makes sense, knockback is constantly a calculation in combat adding to the time it takes to run any combat. With RQ2 having it as a specific attack means that it only needs to be calculated on rare occasions so becomes less complicated in the long run. Regarding strike rank I'm not sure I like either systems either. Rolling a dice and adding a modifier is perhaps more fun? like others here though I'm looking forward to the new Runequest based off of RQ2. Streamlined and fun is good, as long as its colourful and inspiring with fumbles and crits I'll be happy.
  13. I've had to dig out RQ3! Knockback Knock back in combat is quite different in both editions. 2nd edition has it as a specific declared attack, pitting Strength + Size vs Size & Dex of the opponent on the resistance table. Where as RQ3 has it as the by-product of any attack, calculated as damage that exceeds the size of the opponent by at least 5 points (size ignored on Special/crit). In my mind that makes for a lot more calculation in combat in RQ3, although the increased knockback chance with a special/ crit is quite realistic, but as mentioned doesn't scale well with creatures of vastly differing sizes, like in the the hobbit vs the Giant example previously mentioned. I wonder how knockback will be treated in the new Runequest edition?
  14. I liked the previous experience occupations in 3rd, but looking at it now it seems a bit too generic and dry. Occupations / previous experience are a really good opportunity to help develop the actual character. Warhammer fantasy role-play in contrast to RQ3 provided colourful background occupations to the player characters through the previous experience system. The strength of Runequest with Glorantha (and the cults), is a much more colourful character background, then the generic starting points of RQ3. I'm sure that will be built on in the new edition.
  15. Some great points there, thanks Styopa. I played both editions originally but it's been a long time since I contemplated the rules, and my memory is a bit hazy, but the points you've raised do ring a bell. Although i started on 2nd edition ( with older sibling) which got me hooked, i really took ownership of 3rd edition, buying the gamesworkshop reprints. With 3rd edition we never used fatigue. I also never really got my head around the sorcery rules of 3rd edition and gave up on trying. I preferred Dodge to defence as iy removed an extra calculation in attack. A bit more streamlined. It seems there were scaling problems with both editions. You mentioned the 6 pt damage needed to to sever a limb in RQ2, which RQ 3 corrected ( i think) through exceeding by same or more hit points in that location. RQ3 also had some minor scaling issues with knock back not taking account of a characters size. So a small character like a hobbit could potentially knock back a giant on a special/crit. I've also seen the point raised that RQ2 had 12 strike ranks, while RQ3 had 10. Not too sure whether there is much difference in practice, though it makes sense having 12 strike ranks to12 seconds of the melee round.
  16. I've been enjoying flicking through my Runequest 2 classic reprint, and it got me thinking what were the significant differences between RQ 2 & 3? It seems that with a new addition of Runequest by Chaosium soon to be released (based off of RQ2, a bit of 3, and lots of other new good stuff), that a revisit to the two older versions is appropriate. Keeping a focus on Runequest 2 and 3 ,most people seem to agree that RQ2 was full of flavour, and perhaps RQ 3 was a bit dry in presentation. However what aspects of the 2 rule sets do people prefer & why? Also, what if any are the considered flaws of both rule sets?
  17. Whats the chances of chaosium getting a license to adapt warhammer FRP to a BRP version? Enemy Within campaign conversion would be great. Although having said that, the current GW setting has changed dramatically and detrimentally (as far as i can tell), and lost a lot of its potential for the & story line & subtleties found in the Enemy within campaign. It could only work thematically if they kept to WFRP 1ed background.
  18. Nicely summed up. For the me the steady change of the Orlanthi from classical inspired RQ2 to Viking/Celt/Saxon felt wrong, and made the setting confusing to get to grips with. It eventually turned into something I wasn't really interested in. Having an inspiring ancient near eastern feel to Pavis, suddenly juxtaposed against neighbouring Viking/Saxon/ Celtic dragon pass just felt very wrong in tone/ flavour and put me off the setting. The "medieval" west was the final nail in the coffin. Im very pleased to see Glorantha returning again to RQ2 ancient feel with mention of Mycenae and such. The things that put me off Glorantha after RQ2 seem to be being corrected. The tone is retunring to the that more ancient classical feel that inspired so much and helped make rq2 so popular.
  19. All these comments show how important it is to get the tone of art right. The scantily clad bikini girl is one cheesey example. Another generic troupe is depicting monsters and hereos as if they all work out in the gym on steroids. Totally loosing all character. From what Jeff is saying I don't think we need to worry about these generic cheesey depictions.
  20. I think Jan's drawings do a good job of really getting to the nitty gritty of the clothes and details people of Glorantha wear. And in a sense Glorantha really needs this sort of detail worked out. I think there is also a danger that if that type of schematic illustration was over used, it would become too dry and boring. As mentioned there really needs to be some excitement, a little sword and sorcery, an element of the cinematic. With Glorantha there are plenty of subjects to inspire, from the more mundane but fascinating, to mythical and magical on a breath taking scale. For me the second drawing doesn't succeed on any level, it's not something I can relate to. But I can see why it was juxtaposed with the more schematic drawing. Glorantha really needs artists that can capture the depth of glorantha whilst at the same time keeping it exciting.
  21. Lots to like here. The shop front, and small apartments make sense. high up small windows and roof terrace are characterful pavic/sartarite details. Have to say Glorantha is really coming alive for me again, after a long hiatus. These discussions, details, combined with the Sartar webcomic are really establishing the ancient mythical Glorantha again in my mind. Very cool thanks.
  22. I do like the goblin inventions in the film "Labyrinth" as insipiration for the fantasy and inventiveness of the mostali. The cleaning wheel was a great idea, and a great sequence in the film. also the armoured goblin Gatling gun in the film was excentric and fun. I could see that working for these mostali. The giant robot guardian of the city was also inspired.I think those ideas start to build up mostali into a real curiosity with lots of flavour
  23. And I suppose that these Golden mostali dwarfs that interact with humans are the ones most likely to be distracted by the contact with the outside world, and in rare cases swayed away form their Mostali beliefs to become mortal. Either that or a dwarf who can't except the discipline of mostal belief.
  24. So the dwarfs that trade and deal with humans on a daily basis ( openhandism) like those in Pavis or dragon pass, what type would be chosen for that job? Gold mostal? Or combination of types? I guess whoever it is needs to have a different set of skills to communicate effectively with humans. Some form of understanding of human nature and etiquette? A diplomat
  25. I've not read Griffin mountain. Is there a lot of material on dwarfs in there?
×
×
  • Create New...