Paid a bod yn dwp

Very enjoyable listen. Great to here Rick talking about his background with roleplaying, & Chaosium. largely thanks to the podcast, my interest in the hobby has returned, and as the stars align I'm looking forward to the new edition of Runequest. Mythras also sounds like an excellent game, and the discussion of Mythras & comparison of the 2 games is very interesting, it opens up a lot of questions, and has also got me double checking my own memory of how RQ2 works. So now instead of a fondly, but distant game that I used to play, Runequest is feeling a lot more contemporary again. Great format, looking forward to the next episode. Thanks guys Rick - around 2000 (I think) I bought a copy of Borderlands from your website. It was a very brief thawing of my own RPG deep freeze, but unfortunately it didn't last very long, more in the tradition of collecting then playing. However over the past year, thanks to Dirk & co I've returned to the hobby, with actual play sessions on Roll20. There seems to be a lot of great things happening in the hobby again. Good time to return

Based on this discussion, I'm looking forward to seeing some great visual examples of the various architecture/ settlements in the new Runequest. Having really good illustrations of building styles will really make Glorantha and Dragon pass easily accessible to new players (and old). The depth of background that Glorantha affords is great & second to none, but small sound bites (represented in quality illustration) is key to quickly setting the scene/flavour and attracting & keeping new players. From what I've seen so far this is exactly what Chaosium are working on.

I like these conceptual sketches very promising. Like that you've found an artist who understands Anatomy yet still has a feeling for the flow & movement of a drawing. Really good choice - Sometimes these sketches can stir the imagination more then the finished paintings. Ideally i like a contrast of sketches and fully realised images. looking forward to new Runequest

Pretty sure that whole section was taken out in a later printing for RQ3 with an errata, meaning that in RQ3 you could both attack and parry with a 1handed weapon, as was the case in RQ2. I have the books but can't check now - it seems that most people house ruled it the way they wanted anyway. Perhaps Jeff, MOB, Rick or someone from Chaosium could give us the official RAW interpretation on the parry rules for RQ2 to lay this one to rest?

I've been out of the Gloranthan loop for a long time, but It feels like the west is finally opening up & making sense in Glorantha. As a scarred RQ 3 user back in the day , the west was completely broken for me on many levels. The weird medievalist idea, and the inaccessble sorcery rules. When we were finally presented with sorcery NPC's in strangers in Prax (Arlatan, the troll sorcerer etc) they appeared to be overly complicated to run with all the extra book keeping. Could be interesting to see these characters revisited with these new RQ4 sorcery rules? If memory serves they were interesting characters

To give another perspective when I was of an age for actually collecting Runequest products it was the RQ 3 line that was available. I collected products like Vikings, land of Ninja, & monster collesium. They were good, but very dry/dull in presentation, and not quite what I was lookfing for. My experience of Runequest started with RQ2. My older brother Introduced me, and we played a lot. The Gloranthan rules were brilliantly pitched & full of flavour. It was exciting. The ancient feel was unique, and stirred my imagination. RQ 2 was the reason I bought into RQ 3 when I came of age. Unfortunately I never quite found that same inspiration in RQ3 products. As Mob said, eight years is a long time, without new Gloranthan material. Eight years was my period of gaming as a kid, an important formative time. I was looking for new Gloranthan inspiration, but the products weren't available. That important time passed me by and I grew up. I think Avalon hill lost an RPG generation of gamers in that period. Particularly myself who experienced the excitement and flavour of RQ2, but who only experienced the possibility of buying Runequest 3 products. When the Runequest Renaissance happened I jumped on Sun County , shadows on the borderland, and Dorastor. The covers inspired that ancient fantasy feel I was looking for, and the Glorantha material was fantastic. The problem was I was no longer playing. Late teens meant that myself and my circle of friends were doing other things by this point. That big chunk of time, 8 years, was a crucial period for my gaming development. I was a prime candidate for Runequest Gloranthan, but the RQ Renaissance happened a bit too late for me and my circle of gaming friends. I've only recently started playing again on roll20. It says a lot about the hobby and its lasting appeal, that I'm able to jump back into the RPG world so many years later. Needless to say I'm really looking forward to finally buying a version of Runequet that I anticipate will inspired me like the original RQ2 rulebook did.

Interesting to watch the video of Chaosium team talking about Call of Cthulhu 7ed at Gencon. Very positive. Will there be a similar video posted of the Runequest seminar?

Yes. Apple lane is a bit of a marker for me. This idea of Novan/Etruscan villa fits much better for me. Viking was just completely the wrong vibe. I like the idea of tiled roofs too.

I still love the strong ancient Greek flavour of RQ2. There is something very stirring about that imagery in a fantasy context. Certainly it's much more popularly understood. Strong mythic and heroic connotations. Has a hell of a lot to do with the soul of RQ2 I think, and it's popular appeal. Though I appreciate that Glorantha is more complicated then that. But you can't beat close Ancient Greek analogies for accessibility

Thanks for your perspective here. It's very helpful that you make the distinction of Orlanthi long houses from the Viking long houses. Those pictures help too. I guess the flat roofed/ low tilt roof could be more common in the southern Esrolia region? Is the square earth rune stead idea voiced by Jeff, still relevant in northern parts of Sartar but perhaps with A-framed roofs?

Are we talking casting spells? I guess if you allow that with melee combat then the order of sr would quickly become confused as second attacks pile into the next melee round?

Ah ha, I've had to delve deeper( a few disgruntled Balrogs) I actually have the Avalon hill soft bound reprint as well, with the errata in the back, although it never had proper use. You are right in the errata correction. Although I also have my Gamesworkshop used copies and they don't include the useful errata. Thanks for bringing that to my attention A surprisingly critical bit of errata!

Thanks for this. It's really helpful to see where the writers are coming from, particularly with the varied history of Gloranthan interpretations. Good to see that there is less overall Northern European influence on orlanthi culture. More in keeping with RQ 2 conceptions. Where does this leave the square Orlanthi stread idea mentioned by Jeff? For me it seemed to make sense with the RQ 2 Pavis square Orlanthi houses. I couldn't see how long houses could translate to the Pavis imported Orlanthi building style? I can't help but feel that the more southern ancient Bronze Age idea of Orlanthi fits better with the Classic Runequest depictions and feeling. But your interpretations are also a welcome change from the overly Norse/ Saxon influence of the recent past.

Thanks. I'm really enjoying the chance to indulge in these RQ ideas. Must be an itch that I never properly itched back in the day You've summed that up brilliantly. I think my younger self saw the "advanced" nature of RQ3 as the way forward at the time, more sophisticated, more attempts at simulation. Now it feels surprisingly that I want the opposite of that...but not as far as heroquest, I still want some crunch. I think also the point you make about attempts at realism in simulation don't always reflect real authenticity, as mentioned with regards to the parry options of rq3. There's lots of factors that would affect the speed and ability to parry and attack with a 2 handed weapon, like extra weapon weight for instance. And as you mentioned it doesn't take into account the fast nimble one handed weapon user.

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.

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?

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

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.

Apologies - Brief off topic link diversion for Jeff. Its regarding Orlanthi steads Nothing else to see here. Back to the discussion...

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?

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 ?

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?

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?

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?

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?