Jason D

I've corrected it in the core book InDesign files. Future printings and .pdf updates will have the corrected example.

I decided that I'd err on the side of the players having fun vs. strict adherence to the concept.

A great many of the issues I faced were due to simple fatigue. I'm a light sleeper at the best of times, and the night before the session I had a particularly short sleep due to environmental factors (noisy neighbors). So I'll readily admit I was not in my most careful form, and I was sort of waffling back and forth between using the core rulebook and the abbreviated quickstart rules. The introduction of a new player with zero familiarity with the setting and the system made me take an extremely relaxed view of the rules, as the primary goal was to spotlight some Gloranthan monsters for the Bestiary launch. When Jeff and I do an official "combat demo" video it will be as adherent to the rules as possible. That said, here are some answers to your questions/comments: 1. I meant "Herd". I'd been working on a bunch of stuff for the Conan line earlier in the day, and that system has Animal Handling as the skill. 2. That was a glitch on my part. 3. Ditto. 4. Same. 5. She had augmented, IIRC, and was using her Earth Rune affinity. 6. Oops. 7. I wondered... 8. No comment. 9. Yeah, it was an "Oh crap!" moment. 10. Yeah... it was a pretty wild set of rolls, to be certain. 11. The special result was the max + roll in that instance, and the crit aspect of it ignored armor. 12. For traditional arthropods, the "non-vital" rule for limbs is still in effect. I see that it was in RQ3 but for some reason didn't make its way into RQG. I looked in the rules at the time of the roll and decided that they were more "man" than "scorpion" for the purpose of the demo. (To be honest, too... it was about 4:30am and I was eager to wrap it up.) 13. See parenthetical comment above.

I should also clarify that personally, I find strike ranks to be frustratingly inconsistent in execution, and my least favorite part of the entire BRP/RQ system. Sometimes they're a means of ordering attacks by first to last, sometimes they're an action point allowance. Both work in entirely different fashions. My preference is for the simplicity of Stormbringer when it comes to determining who attacks when, and how often.

Yes.

I have updated my post on the subject.

I'm becoming increasingly aware that what seems pretty clear to Jeff and I is not so clear to players, and the rules text on two-weapon fighting should be corrected and revised for clarity. Here are the guidelines put as clearly as I can make them, in the form of a Q&A: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Can I wield two weapons? Yes. Can I attack twice in a round? Yes, if the combination of SRs for both weapons allows it (12 or lower). You can attack once per weapon, not twice with the same weapon. What if I have 100%+ with one or both weapons? You can split those attacks, as normal, within the limits of SRs. Can I parry with either weapon? More than once per round? Yes, with a cumulative -20% per subsequent parry after the first. Doesn't matter which weapon or hand you do it with. Can I use Dodge along with my parries vs. melee weapons? Yes. Dodge attempts vs. melee should be counted along with parries, with the same cumulative modifiers. What about Dodge vs. missile weapons? If you are using Dodge against missile fire, it takes your entire action and you can do nothing but Dodge. You take the same penalties to subsequent Dodges as per parries. Why would anyone use a shield? You can't parry missile weapons with a hand weapon, though your GM may decide to let you try at some astronomically low chance of success. (Maybe a Martial Arts roll?) Shields are also more durable than most weapons, and offer passive defense, even when slung. You can also do mass combat formations with shields. If you choose to attempt a knockback attack with your shield, you attack on SR 12 and can't parry with it that round. Why would anyone use a two-handed weapon vs two weapons? Two-handed weapons do more damage on average, have low SRs, have more HP, and are much more likely to penetrate armor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I hope that clarifies everything. For those who want more grit in the system, you can blame me. The subdivision of weapon skills into attack/parry and RH/LH is, to me, a overly crunchy level of detail that adds nothing to the facilitation of gameplay. By all means, if those are desired details, add them right back in. Your RuneQuest will vary. 👍 Answer added to Q&A

It would have gone into the core rules, but we chose to emphasize the "full" system as the default/preferred mode of play.

If you get the same type of result (standard success, special success, etc.) you tie or are stalemated in some fashion. What's next is up to you and the gamemaster to decide. You can try again when appropriate (depending on what task you're performing, but it would be wise to do what you can to change the circumstances before a second roll. Cast a spell, use a Passion to Inspire you, invoke a Rune, augment with another skill, or take some other measure to better your position or hinder the opposition. For a smart opponent, the gamemaster should also also be thinking along these lines.

Weirdly, about the same time this thread started, I looked into what the status of the rights would be for a potential RQ/BRP license. Nothing came of it, but I wonder if there was something in the air. I think it would be a blast. I'd use a simplified version of BRP, though... probably more akin to Elric!/Stormbringer/Magic World, etc. No SRs, "criticals" at 1/10 and just simplified to double damage, etc. I'd break Pattern, Logrus, Trump making, sorcery, Shapeshifting, etc. into packages of powers that you could advance individually, and make racial templates for scions of Amber or Chaos that handled their distinct advantages.

We're doing the following: 1. Revising the QS rules to bring them up to date. (Our localization partners need this, as well as us.) 2. Getting these new rules integrated into the second Quickstart. I'm not sure about the timetable for a second printing. I don't know how many we still have in stock.

That's on my to-do list, but it's a question of "get final edits into the Bestiary" and "push GM Pack through production" vs. writing a combat example. Once those two books are available via .pdf, my time frees up considerably.

It will basically be broken into six (I think) decisions based on six packages of attributes, homeland, background, profession, cult/runes, and an equipment pack, with a bunch of sample names, etc. and the chance to fine-tune with some skill distribution. You could technically roll randomly the whole time, as well. It is not intended to replace adventurer generation at all, but will let players come in quickly with "original" characters they have some decisions about. It's most suitable for convention games, demos, one-shots, and those instances where you need a new character pronto (unexpected character death, guest player, etc.).

To give credit where it is due, Jeff did the lion's share of work on this book. I came in and edited, clarified what needed it (obviously missed some things), and added bits and pieces where they were required. I did a lot of reorganizing. But this is Jeff's book through and through. We had incredible contributions from others on the writing team, but without Jeff's work there simply would be no new RuneQuest.

I'm working on a quick character generation system for the Gamemaster's Sourcebook.

The Bestiary is almost through layout (as in it's completely laid out and there are some things that need fixing). I'm going through now and correcting the many small errors and issues that we've identified in the manuscript since the book went into layout. Once those are complete, it'll be made available for .pdf sale, just as with the core rule book. Right after that, the GM Pack & Screen will go on sale. The Bestiary will not be in print for Gen Con, as that takes months, but both it and the GM Pack & Screen will be available for sale via .pdf at that time.

It's on the boat. We'll have to clarify in future print runs and via a FAQ.

I've just received an unexpected bonus in my mailbox - a form-fillable character sheet from the person working on another electronic play aid for us. This is, unfortunately, the un-corrected version of the character sheet, as he was both unaware it had been corrected and I was unaware he was doing a form-fillable sheet. I submit this for testing purposes, and encourage folks to give it a try and see what errors they can discover. We can test it on our own (and will!) but the more eyes the better. Please post any errors you find in the sheet functionality in this thread. Note that our dev has said that the experience check-boxes are not yet implemented, so that's a known issue. Thanks! 001 RuneQuest Glorantha - Character Sheet.pdf

We are hearing the exact opposite from most newcomers, who find that a "four page character sheet"* is daunting. We may include something more expansive in a player's guide (which is not a scheduled product, but more a post-it-note with a list of topics it could cover), but right now the focus is on lowering and/or removing barriers to entry, instead of making the game seem even less accessible by implying players need to develop even more background information before they can adventure. That said, we welcome players and gamemasters to come up with (and share) their custom worksheets and play aids, and if there's anything we can do to support that, let us know. * actually two pages, a worksheet, and a family/ally sheet

Thank you for this sentiment! I'll admit that sometimes it's difficult to even visit this forum at times, versus spending the time working on the books. This is still a part-time job for me and I need to prioritize my time carefully, so forums and other social media sometimes don't get the attention they deserve. It's good to be reminded that complaints about errors, demands for clarification, etc. stem from passionate enthusiasm, not negativity. Thanks for your support!

I just heard back from them, and they've said they have no current plans to sell individual dice. They've done so in the past, and it's always been to the detriment of pack sales, which is their focus. That said, they've got very ambitious plans for the RQ line, and I'm suggesting a second "expansion" pack with multiple d6s in it, perhaps a deluxe "all in one" set that has everything in both boxes plus a couple of extra d6s.

Right now all of these are on a sideburner while we're focused on getting the three initial core products into print. After Gen Con, we'll be discussing these and seeing how much effort we can apply towards realizing them.

I think I see the confusion, and it's bad wording on the rule's part. You can parry as often as you are able to in a round, assuming you have a positive modified skill value. If your modified skill goes to or below 0%, you can't parry any more. You can only attempt to parry a single attack once. You can't try to parry an attack with one weapon, fail, then try to parry the same attack again with your second weapon. The "one parry per round" should be per attack. You can parry multiple times in a round whether using 1H weapon and shield, 1H weapon and 1H weapon, or 1H or 2H weapon, hence the modifiers.

I am fairly certain they'll be selling them individually, but I can ask them to confirm. I know they sell their specialty dice singly at conventions.

My apologies if the language is vague or misleading. It seems the confusion revolves around two-weapon fighting. I don't have my printout handy so I can't give page refs. 1. You can attack with multiple weapons multiple times in a round so long as you have the SRs. 2. You can parry an attack only once, using one weapon. If you like, you can describe it as doing some funky X crossing your swords in a scissors or whatever, but basically it's one weapon parrying and one supporting the other. 3. The cumulative parry modifier is agnostic to the weapon/hand you're using. We found in our playtesting that treating the modifiers separately was too fiddly ("Which hand is at what modifier now?"), that favored two-weapon fighting to the point where it seemed to defy the entire history of human melee combat, and that it de-emphasized the dangers of being overwhelmed by superior numbers in a fight. Does this clarify things?