Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Member
  • Posts

    926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. You can’t go wrong with Baboons and Ducks. 
    I was put off playing dwarfs and elves by the old Avalon hill supplement Elder Secrets. It still hurts.

     

    Played a centaur once, that was fun, but was excluded from public buildings due to high grade  manure..some people don’t know they’re luck.

    • Sad 1
  2. So Chaosium I asked this on Twitter but I’ll ask again here.

    What similarities/differences from the standard book can we expect with this 40th anniversary edition? 
     

    I understand there are new essays from Cthulhu contributors, and the inclusion of the Haunting adventure, but are there any layout changes, or any errata included in this new special 40th anniversary edition? 
     

     

  3. This is great new art. For a second I confused Starter Set with Sartar set 😅 

    Presumably we’ll see more illustrated examples of Sartar settlements, and key places in Dragon Pass in this new boxed set?. Love this character art. I’m already at full baboon levels of excitement…just imagine a new Pavis and Big Rubble boxed set! 
     

    Whats the design goal for the Sartar boxed set? Campaign and detailed region description? 

  4. On 9/26/2021 at 10:36 AM, Runeblogger said:

    Critical hits also ignore magical protection. According to the Q&A:
     

    I believe "any other protection" also includes magical protection. Otherwise, I wonder what kind of protection is meant by "any other protection" aside from armor.  🙂

    However, if you feel that is too much damage, you can always rule criticals do not bypass magical protection.

    Guessing it’s meant for physical protection, which could include enhanced/enchanted magical armour, or other obstacles in the way.

    Other magic defence I’d play as not by-passable with physical means no matter how well placed the blow. 
     

    Is that a fair call @Scotty
     

  5. 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 👍

  6. 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
  7. 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 

  8. 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? 

  9. 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. 

  10. 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. 

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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?
     

     

  14. 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
  15. 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
×
×
  • Create New...