-
Posts
926 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Events
Posts posted by Paid a bod yn dwp
-
-
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.
- 2
-
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
- 2
-
On 22 February 2016 at 11:36 PM, trystero said:
It's called out very explicitly in RQ3's Player Book, p. 48, "How to Parry" section:
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
- 2
-
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?
-
4 hours ago, Mankcam said:
I am thinking that the more urbanised the settlements are, perhaps the more Mycenaean and Etruscan flavour they have; they more regionalised or rural they are, life gets a bit more rudimentary and the more Dacian they get. Not sure if this helps others, but this spectrum helps me visualise things a bit.
For those that had the original RQ2 box, I am thinking that even old Apple Lane works so much better now fitting in with this kind of analogy, rather than trying to re-trap it as a saxon/celtic style village. There is something vaguely Villa Novan/Etruscan about it in my opinion, so I do like these contemporary Orlanthi depictions.
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
- 2
-
57 minutes ago, Ian Cooper said:
I'd agree btw on the RQ2 bronze age feel being much more Greek. I would say that both Greece and Rome could be Orlanthi cultures (Rome would not be Lunar), though the usual Hellenic period depicted in that era was probably a little off, except for the more civilized regions.
The issue with square houses in Sartar goes like this. I want to put a roof on my house, because no one who lives anywhere with high rainfall or snowfall is going to have a flat roof unless they enjoy catching drips in the helmets of their enemies (or even having the whole thing collapse). Now I'm not a structural engineer but although you can build a sloping roof on a square house you need a box frame, and its easier to build one using an A-Frame. So all things being equal an A-Frame makes more sense at this technical level in wet and cold climates for a typical rural house. In the cities, folks may have the money for a box frame.
In addition, if you have a cattle byre in the building then its akin to slapping a barn onto your house, which will tend to lengthen it.
I don't think this is quite a viking longhouse though, more wattle and daub walls, and tiled roof than 'log cabin' or turf walls.
I still think S:KoH gets it right for Sartar, here and here. This definitely isn't a viking longhouse but was the model used for descriptions in TCS.
Pavis might well have flat-roofed square houses by contrast, built with brick or stone. I expect people sleep on the roof in the heat of summer.
As a rule, houses reflect environment - unless there are strong cultural reasons not to change.
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?
-
10 minutes ago, styopa said:
We mostly use semi-rolling SR/rounds anyway, so base-10 was MUCH simpler for everyone to parse into future expectations.
It just seemed silly to me that an action (using 12 SR rounds) taking 14 SR could technically never happen, sort of a RQ version of Zeno's paradox. *Obviously* it would occur on SR2 of the following round in lieu of that round's action. I don't even remember if RQ2 even addressed that?
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?
-
3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:
This point was absolutely and clearly taken back in the official errata. The softback Deluxe edition clearly states that the two last lines of the first paragraph of the "How to Parry" section should be disregarded and replaced with "You cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR". IIRC, the GW edition of the rules has the correct text in that paragraph, rather than an errata at the end.
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!
-
1 hour ago, Ian Cooper said:
Some newer ideas about house shape post-date The Coming Storm. So we tend to use the older term of long-house, and would concieve them as being as depicted in Sartar:Kingdom of Heroes.
Some things to note. The first is that it is hard to depend too-heavily on terrestial analogues. However, in Europe, Dragon Pass is climatically most similiar to areas like Translyvania and you can think of the Esrolia in the model as equivalent to the settlements around the Black Sea. I'll let Jeff offer up the US equivalents. Jeff and I argued back and forth on analogue cultures. I tend to see Orlanthi is more Central European and on the cusp of the Iron Age, he tends to see them as more Mediterranean and earlier in the Bronze Age. But the best conclusion I think you should draw is that the Orlanthi represent Indo-European Bronze Age peoples, particularly from Cental and Southern Europe. The north is less of an influence than it was in past thinking.
I'm fond of looking at a couple of 'mixed' culture when considering the Orlanthi. Bronze Age Romania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Transylvania#Bronze_Age and the Etruscans:
With that said I would offer that house shape tends to depend both on available local building materials, climate, as well as custom.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, styopa said:
Without putting words in his mouth, I think that's exactly what Jeff's trying to do with RQ4. Get the essence of combat, but get rid of the cluttery details that would slow it down.
The game-mechanic concept of tactical choices informing weapon-use preferences may be interesting for some people in a crunchy, simulationist way. (Me, for example.) BUT...(wild-ass guessing) I suspect that's a minority, particularly today where players apparently feel, as Jeff mentioned, that adding 12% to a skill % was just too hard/too much work.
Your point is correct, essentially RQ3 was definitely saying "if you want to do a lot of damage, use a 2h; if you want to be safer, use 1h+shield" quite clearly. I always understood the 'balance' aspect of the rule, but I don't even feel it's particularly accurate. It kind of makes fencing impossible, for example.
Of course it's a spectrum, right? On the one hand you have a Phoenix Command level of simulation, where 'ticks' are 1/10 of a second, and the entire GAME is simulating a few moments of (usually brutally deadly) combat. At the other end of extremes, you have Hero Wars, where a character has general ability that can be used to contest an opponent (that doesn't even necessarily have to be violent, like Oscar Wilde having "Witty Repartee 4W") and only the result is determined by die roll, leaving everything else rationalized and up to the descriptive/creative engine of the DM to describe. RQ2 to RQ3 was definitely a sold step toward the Phoenix Command end; probably, in retrospect, an overshoot. RQ4 seems like it's intending to be more of a step back toward the middle ground of playability but still maintaining the canonical 'crunch' that RQ is fundamentally identified with.
I hope that RQ4 will be more than just a cleaned-up, Dragon-Pass focused reissue of RQ2 though, and take advantage of rules mechanics and concepts that bring the game into relevance in 2016.
BTW Jeff, when's the next "Designing the New RQ" coming out? Been more than a month now.
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.
- 1
-
1 hour ago, styopa said:
RQ3 RAW was:
You can pick 2 of (attack, parry, or dodge) in a round, constrained by
- a 2h weapon can both attack and parry in the same round
- a 1h weapon can either attack or parry in the same round
- if you dodge, you get to roll your dodge against ALL attacks from that single source in that round (thus potentially effectively giving you many more 'actions')
RQ2 doesn't appear to limit actions in a round OTHER THAN that constrained by the total number of SR it would take. So if your attack SR is 7, you'll never attack twice because your 2nd attack would always be at an SR greater than the 12sr limit per round (even if you're using 2 weapons). Note also that in RQ2, you could split your attack if you had 50% or above but this second attack could never be used against the same target. Also, remember there was no actual 'dodge' in RQ2.
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?
-
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.
- 1
-
Apologies - Brief off topic link diversion for Jeff. Its regarding Orlanthi steads
Nothing else to see here. Back to the discussion...
-
34 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:
That may be the case, but when you are designing a new edition I don't think it wise to cut yourself off from any inspiration. I do get that RQ2 is the main source, which having got the book I can see why and support. However, game design developments did not stop in the mid 1980s.
For a comparison, I thought that the 4th Edition of D&D was awful, and it was a commercial and critical disaster for many. However, even when the creators of D&D 5th went out of their way to try to take the game back to earlier editions, they still managed to glean a lot of ideas from 4th edition and bring them in. I'm not saying you shouldn't prioritise your decisions, but the more books you research - even bad books - the more ideas you can potentially bring in. It's why debating about previous editions misses the point for me - they all have something to offer.
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?
-
5 minutes ago, Mankcam said:
I do slightly prefer the simplier way of calculating the skill category modifiers from RQ2 to the way RQ3 does it, although RQ3 was the game I played much more. However I just feel that it would work better if the bonuses were much bigger. Rather than have 5%, 10%, etc it may be more versatile if they were 10% - 30% so you could try to roll under a Skill Category for purposes of untrained abilities.
I do see the point of making the RQ back catalog supplements compatible with both RQ Classic and CRQ4, that does make a lot of sense.
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 ?
- 1
-
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?
-
4 hours ago, Mankcam said:
Well I haven't had time to really give it a good look yet. However from what I can initially see, surprisingly the Steads don't appear to be along the lines of the Earth Rune influenced square structures like what Jeff posted.
The village has descriptions of long houses and shows them as such on the map. So I am unsure if the square design discussed earlier in the thread is an urban Orlanthi house opposed to a rural Orlanthi house, or if it is an Esrolian house opposed to a Sartarite house.
I will need to take a further look to clarify, but from a quick glance it appears that rectangular longhouses may be the norm for this region. Perhaps the houses Jeff described are in the upcoming second volume?
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?
RuneQuest Podcast
in RuneQuest
Posted
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