Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


creativehum last won the day on August 24

creativehum had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

107 Excellent

About creativehum

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • RPG Biography
    I was given a copy of D&D. I bought a copy of Traveller back in 1977. I wrote for FASA, TSR, Mayfair Games, West End Games.
  • Current games
    Running: Lamentations of the Flame Princess
    Playing in: Cyberpunk 2020
  • Location
    Los Angeles CA. USA
  • Blurb
    I'm a screenwriter and director. Creator of "The Booth at the End"

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    That's a lovely sentiment, and would be fantastic if it held up to the actual text. As it stands, I've read deeply into the rules. I've run a session of the game. And I've never played any version of early RQ. And I can tell you now the writing is often unclear and obscure; contradictory and fussy. This isn't a matter of "style" (though the style certainly gets in the way of clarity.) Without referring back go the earlier edition of RQ2 I simply would not understand how certain elements are supposed to work or find certain clues as to make my best guess on how certain elements are supposed to work. As I've said before there are a ton of fantastic ideas in RQG. But some of the core concepts that should be routine (both for any RPG and for RQG specifically) are obscure, unclear, and poorly worded and laid out across the book.
  2. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    Following up on Atgxtg's points, I went back to RQ2 and looked at the passage pulled from RQ2 and placed into RQG. While the texts are similar, they are not the same: From RQ2: From RQG: (the bolded passage is bolded in the rules) The RQ2 section ends with this sentence: "However, he is considered to be performing that attack for the entire round and can do little else except parry and defend." Which makes it clear that there is only one attack, either physical or magical, each round. (Duel wielding and multiple attacks are special cases that break this rule, which is why they are special cases.) The last sentence in RQG muddies the later by removing that sentence and making the word attack indefinite (how many attacks? who knows) and makes the use of magic plural ("spells"), implying one can make multiple spell attacks. But since RQG is built off the bones of RQ2 I'm happy enough to that text for reference. The assumption seems to be that when engaged in melee one is very busy, but while attacking from a distance one can get off multiple attacks and is less constrained about what can do in the round. (The text is explicit about this: Outside of melee one has a lot more options; in melee, the game says you get in one good attack and a defend). In terms of mechanics and gameplay there is, then, a distinct advantage to being at range. This means opponents may want to close, or attack a character standing back from the fight and lobbing arrows or spells. This offers tactical play because fighting at range and in melee are not the same thing. This may not be what some people want. Some people might not consider it realistic. And that's all fine. But I can see what the rule is supposed to be now. And I can see how it will evangeline players when in a fight. As a side note: I could not find any examples in the RQ2 contradicting this rule, though I'm willing to believe a) there are examples in other RQ books that do contracted the text; and b) plenty of people didn't play this way. Nonetheless, the RQ combat system is an integral part of any RQ game and I'm all for trying it out as is before changing things up. Thanks for all the replies and thoughts.
  3. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    Fair enough. All good. I simply don't want this to be about my players. The latest advice I'm getting on this is: Ignore the rules you bought; buy a scrying bowl; play the way we did 40 years ago when we blew off the rules too. This is the problem at hand, as far as I'm concerned.
  4. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    I want to be clear about something: The question at hand is, "How do you hit something?" We now have a half dozen posts circling at that question in a rules set for an RPG. That's ridiculous. Further, you made a weird and nonsensical jump about some sort of abuse or anger about not getting our way. That's not the issue at all. I ran the QuickStart for friends this weekend. It went great... except for a few question about how combat works. We checked the book. Found some confusion, made a call, moved on. No problem. Like, what the hell? I'm saying we'd like to have a consistent set of rules about how combat works so there is no confusion. What does this have to do with whether we hang out together outside of RPGs? (Which we do.) Yesterday I went to book to resolve the confusion. Found out the book doesn't resolved it. Posted here for some clarity. And now at least one person is telling me I should ignore the rules I bought and be playing the way people played decades ago. I'm not faulting Atgxtg for suggesting this. To be told "Well, they cut pasted the rules and really didn't think about what they were doing," is both horrific and calming... because now at least I have context for why the rules read the way they do. But I'm not taking any comfort from the fact that there's a real problem with how this book was made.
  5. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    And yet the text I quoted explicitly states you can't do what you say people did above. Whether people did things that contradicts the text, the text is clear: You can't cast Disruption and make a melee attack in the same around. I mean, that at least is clear in the text. I'm not talking about what people did in the past. I'm talking about what is right there in the text. The text states clearly you can't do that. You say, "Despite what the text states..." and I'm going be like, "Dude. Right. I'm looking at the text."
  6. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    For the record, I didn't bold that text. It's bolded that way in the text of RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha. As for your points about the text contradicting itself, sure. Again, for the record, my frustration about the lack of clarity in the RQG rules mounts each time I try to sort through the book. With that said, while your distinctions about descriptive and prescriptive text and how to read them might make sense in almost any other rule book, in the case of RQG I am a sailer at sea after a storm, grabbing onto any flotsam I can to stay afloat. In the specific case of RQG (and not focusing on RQ2, RQ3, or any other editions of RQ, because for crying out loud I should be able to buy a book and understand what the rules are supposed to mean without having to do an exegesis of 40 years worth of published material), my own reading is that the bolded part is the part that matters and the bullet points are merely a continuation of the sloppy and vague (sorry guys, it's true) writing that plagues RQG. Should the bullet point have been clearer with the point? Yes. But RQ Spirit Magic is an extraordinary thing and magic is Glorantha is common, and I can see making a case for being able to cast Bladesharp while engaged in melee as the rules, read one way, suggest. And can the rules be read to mean exactly what you say? That the bullet points state that no spells (of any kind) may be cast once engaged in melee? Sure. And that's the problem. The text lacks clarity on clear on countless points, contradicts itself or drops points made one page when mentioned again on another, uses different sentence structure or phrasing (I assume to avoid being "repetitive") when using specific phrasing or word choices repeated regularly to mean the same thing would be of great help, and doesn't bother to clearly delineate and defined key terms. (I think we can all agree "Engaged" is a key concept in the game. I can't be the only one to notice the game never define "Engaged." It isn't even listed in the Index.) It isn't @RosenMcStern that I disagree with you. It's that I can see your point. And I can see my point. And the book does nothing (and I mean nothing) to clarify the point. We are left trying to piece together whatever clues we can find sprinkled with our own intuition and the way we think magic "works." There are great ideas for both setting and mechanics in the RQG book... but I'm having to weigh right now how much effort I think is worth teasing it out and trying to create a rules set for several sections so my players and I could have a solid, consistent set of rules to work from rather than having to go around in circles as one of us quotes one sentence from the rules to support his point, while another player pulls out a second sentence that supports her point.
  7. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    To clarify this point (which I think is fairly clear), here is the passage on this matter from page 195 of the RQC The text is referring to spells an adventurer might "throw... at an oncoming foe" and limits, while engaged in combat, the "attack" one might make to either a physical attack or a magical attack. Bladesharp is not an attack on an opponent. It is not thrown against an opponent; it is placed on a weapon. So casting it does not prevent an adventurer from also making a physical attack the same round. The question that still matters to me is: Is there a limit to the number of attack spells a character can make in a round? This question is for both when the character is not engaged, and also when the character is engaged.
  8. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    Keep in mind I began this post with a series of questions. It is more than possible you are not disagreeing with me, but rather clarifying something for me. Further... Thi s is what I said. So could you clarify the point where you think we're disagreeing? Thanks!
  9. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    Thank you for the answer.... but the portion of the post you quoted contained two questions. Is your answer about Rune Magic referring to: 1) Do spells work as Melee Attacks, with only on spell per round? Or: 2) Is a character able to cast as many spells as he or she can squeeze into the round?
  10. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    I think this is the nub of the issue... and definitely one of the stitches I dropped a couple of times as I've read and re-read the rules. My guess is, at this time, if you you are engage in melee combat you can only get one spell off. If you are at ranged (that is, not engage in melee combat, as if you were firing arrows), you can get off as many spells as you can within the 12 SRs. The issue is one you are engaged in melee combat your focus and actions are much more limited as you do the do-see-do of bobbing, weaving and striking. Staying out of melee allows you more flexibility with actions.
  11. creativehum

    RQG print copy?

  12. creativehum

    Do you use figures in RQ Poll

    Yesterday, running my first game of RQG I used wooden, 1"x1" chits with Runes drawn on them representing the adventurers, the rock lizards they fought and so on. We played on a hex battle mat. So, no miniatures, but we counted out measurement for movement, range of spells, positioning of who was engaged with who and so on. Miniatures are great! But costly, time intensive, and limited (a troll is a troll is a troll.) I've decided using removable stickers on wooden chits for maneuvering and combat will be the way to go for me.
  13. creativehum

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    Played my first game of RQG yesterday (all of us never having played RQ before). We had a great time, but had a few questions that left us flipping through the book searching for answers on the fly. One of them stuck with me and I want to ask the group here if we got this right. MELEE ATTACKS WITH ONE WEAPON If an adventurer is NOT splitting an attack, it seems as if the adventurer only gets one melee attack per round. The rules (as far as I can tell) never state this, but looking at several passages in the book (specifically the way Splitting Attacks works on p. 202, which suggests that splitting attacks is how one makes multiple attacks with a single weapon in one round) and interpolating the texts, it seems as if even if a character had the SR for several Melee attacks, he or she could not make more than one attack. (The exception to this is Duel Wielding or Split Attacks.) We came to this conclusion yesterday, but I want to check. MISSLIE WEAPON ATTACKS As opposed to Melee Attacks, the user of a missile weapon gets to fire as many times last he weapon's Rate allows. This seems clear, but I'm bringing it up in contrast to Melee Attacks to make sure I'm getting it right. SPELL ATTACKS Up until yesterday, I would have assumed that an adventurer could cast as many spells as his SRs allowed with in the firm limit of 12 SRs. Now I'm not so sure. Do spells work as Melee Attacks, with only on spell per round? Or is a character able to cast as many spells as he or she can squeeze into the round? Further, is there any distinction between the kinds of spells that impose limits. That is: maybe an adventurer can cast only one combat spell of some kind per round, but multiple spells per round the are not combat? Honestly don't know but trying to sort this out. Thanks for any help on this!
  14. creativehum

    Facing and Positioning in RQG Combat

    That's a fair point. The statement was made from reading several posts from people on this forum who stated quite firmly they don't use the SRs as written, and basically only use the SRs for DEX, SIZ, and Weapon. Or people who are adamant that they avoid concerns about facing at any cost. But that's hardly a poll or any kind of study. I hear you.
  15. creativehum

    Facing and Positioning in RQG Combat

    The thing that is confusing me is that the RQG SR system depends on movement limits and disengagement rules. If one is not using specific positing (as found in a miniatures game) I'm note sure what some of the rules are doing in the game. I undestand many (if most) people don't play RQ with tracking of positioning and movement. (We are told you can move half-MP and engage, or full MP if not engaging, or only move 1 meter if engaged... so somehow this stuff is supposed to matter.) But I also know a lot of those people dump the SR rules as written and come up with a new system. I'm trying to figure out the game as it is written... and as written it sure seems like the use of tokens or miniatures of some kind would allow all the rules of combat to be employed clearly. If not a lot of them are going to be quickly handwaved away, dropped, or ignored. That's my take at least. I can see not tracking movement and positioning. But that means ignoring several elements of the combat rules as they stand. And at that point you're heading toward a static combat where each PC does pretty much the same thing most rounds, on the same SR every round... and that would be boring, right?