creativehum

First, I completely understand where you are coming from when you say you want more information about the RQG rules and game line before you invest. I have enough games on my shelf to keep me busy until my last days on this earth, so it isn't as if I need more. I'm not a collector. I buy games to play them, and that's my bottom line. This is one of the reasons I am currently on this forum... reading, asking questions, and digging into the rules as questions and confusion arise about the text. I want to know the rules work, I want to know how much I need in order to play the game. 

But as for this:

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Have I? Could you please post cases where I've done that?

I will point to a post in this very thread:

23 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

My concern is will Chaosium clarify and correct this stuff, or just dismiss it as nitpicking?

The quoted sentence regards the mater of this thread: Two weapons and multiple parries.

The sentence makes it plain that:

1. The rules on this matter require a clarification by Chaosium
2. The rules on this matter require a correction by Chaosium

Which in turn, to my mind at least, implies that something isn't working or is broken (why else would such things be required).

Further, if Chaosium doesn't clarify and correct this matter they are dismissing it and demeaning an actual problem as a nitpick. That is, something really is broken, though Chaosium might refuse to fix this actual problem.

However, the text is actually fine. No clarification on this matter is required, no correction is required.

I'm not sure how you see the sentence I just quoted above, but it sure seems like you are saying something needs to be fixed... which can only mean something is broken. Which is why I wrote you have commented on the rules as if the are broken or flawed.

EDITED TO ADD: 

If you didn't mean the above sentence to mean what it certainly means to say, it's cool, and I apologize for pulling the conversation to a tangent.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

This serves as a great example of how not knowing the rules is an advantage, and knowing the rules a disadvantage....

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I don't think this is merely a matter or "knowing the rules and not knowing the rules."

If I'm not mistaken, you have yet to read a copy of the new rules, and yet you comment on them as if they are broken and flawed based on several previous editions you have read. 

I'd say in some cases the key thing might be, "This serves as a great example of how not reading the rules is a disadvantage..."

I've dug into the rules several times now.

As far as I can tell:

• If you are using one weapon it can attack and parry in a given round (p. 197)
• If you are using a weapon and a shield you can a) attack with the weapon and parry with the weapon, as well as parry with the shield; b) attack with the weapon and parry with the weapon, as well as attack with the shield but not parry with the shield (p. 219); c) parry with both weapons but not attack (though there is no penalty for attacking with the weapon and then parrying, so this would by a choice in special circumstances) (again, p. 197)
• If you are using two weapons you can use them to a) have one attack while the other can parry throughout the round; b) both be used to attack ; c) both be used to parry throughout the round (p. 224)
• Each parry with a weapon or a shield after the first time incurs a stacking -20% penalty for each particular weapon or shield (not a cumulative penalty for each parry)
• Dodge can be used in a round instead of parrying ("Dodge may be used to avoid an attack instead of attempting to parry." p. 201)
• Each Dodge in a round after the first incurs a stacking -20% penalty 
• Dodge penalties do not stack with other parry penalties.

Thus, a character in a given round could parry twice and then dodge, all at no penalty to the skills. If the character were to then parry with each weapon and dodge again later in the round, each attempt would suffer a -20% penalty.

These rules explain why a 2H is not the default. (To answer another question in another thread). The character with a weapon and shield or two weapons has more flexibly in a combat situation. 

While these rules might not be what people want, they do seem seem clear to me. I'm not seeing anything that needs to be corrected.

6 hours ago, 7Tigers said:

[21:23] <+mib_j0446f> What are the “core books” for RQG that are enough to really enough support to start a campaign and play well–without having to buy the entire upcoming game line?

6 hours ago, 7Tigers said:

[21:25] <+JasonDurall> GM Screen + Pack… lovely four-panel GM screen, a three-adventure sourcebook with Apple Lane described (a starting hamlet/location), reference sheets, maps, etc.

I'm the one who asked that question last night.

What I forgot to ask is what makes the GM Pack "essential." I'm not saying it isn't. I'm curious what makes it so.

36 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

This here could be the classic example. RQ never had a riposte rule, but had limits on the number of attack and parries you can attempt. Stormbringer had a riposte rule, but no limit of the number of attacks and parries you could make. Hence the conflict.I suspect that since the riposte rule is new, it should override the previous limitation on parries and attacks. But that's just my way of thinking. 

Question:

I just did a search of RQG for "riposte." I could not find the word.

Can you tell me more about what rule you are referring to? Do you have a page number?

(I'm finding that if people reference page numbers I can understand the conversations a lot faster.)

20 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Just to clarify, as I feel I may have sown a few seeds of doubt:

To be fair, I've seen this same sort of thing happen several times in different threads on different points on this forum with the same results. Someone posts something that seems to suggest the rules are broken or ambiguous or not clear. I wonder how anyone could have printed such rules and get wound up all on my own.

And then I go look into the rules of RQ:G, see how all the pieces fit together, and either realize the rules are fine as they are, or the ambiguity isn't really there, or, if I stop a bit to think about what the designer might have meant I can see how the rules will play well. (I think the fact that I have no knowledge of prior editions of RQ rules is helping me on this front. I can't make any assumptions about how different parts of the rules work or fit together. I have to dig in and look at all the pieces and see how they work as a whole within the pages of this particular rules set.)

1 hour ago, Skovari said:

But I think you are missing the part in "Tie" where it says "same quality of result". It doesn't say anything about same rolls on the same level of success like opposed skills does.  So it does not mean the higher roll if they both have normal success wins.  Which is different than opposed skill rolls.

You are correct. I screwed up.

16 minutes ago, David Scott said:

If read you back, there is a link to a posting by one of the authors saying that ties are not about rolling exact numbers but comparing levels of success. Because of this it’s now likely that the text in current PDF will be changed to reflect that when an update appears. If I’d thought about it I’d of checked the printers proof when I had it in my hands on Sunday. 

At this point I'm not sure exactly what the clarification will be. (I know many people assume what it is, but we don't know yet... Though you did have the answer to this mystery in your hands!)

in any case, my point is the current rules already have a ethos for reducing the number of ties... As quoted above. One only has to use the method presented and -- voila! -- less ties.

The text literally says what I typed above:

"Ties: A tie (where both participants achieve the same type of success but roll the same number)... If both participants rolled a critical success the result is a tie."

I keep seeing people posting that this is ambiguous. For some reason it seems bluntly clear to me.

1 hour ago, hanataka said:

We should consider a simpler case. What if two riders are horse racing?
A clear winner should be decided by the Opposed Roll of Ride skill.
Too many draws are not appropriate. Means to prevent draws are necessary.

There is already a method to prevent too many draws in the rules. Ties only occur when the numbers rolled are the same and  the quality of success is the same. 

There is a less than 1% chance of this happening.

A few points:

Physical Combat and Spirit Combat don't use the same rules. Combat uses the combat rules, and spiritual combat uses Opposed Rules. Since Spirit Combat doesn't use Strike Ranks (or, rather, always occurs on SR 12) and loses a host of other tactual options found in Combat, it makes perfect sense to me to use another method of resolving conflict. The Opposed Rolls system.

Once we turn to the RQG rules, we find that in the description of Spirit Combat on p. 368:

Quote

If both combatants succeed, the winner is whichever combatant achieved the better result.

Which is a phrasing that seems to confuse a lot of people, but it is clear to me: The higher roll wins when the success value is the same. Ties exist, but only when the numbers are the same in the two die rolls. So whatever concern people have that there will be tons of ties isn't a matter of the rules at this time.

Meanwhile, we can't discount Fumbles, Special results, and Crits which change results drastically. Even characters with low ratings will have a 5% or so shot for Special results. And Fumbles and Crits are always hovering at the edges.

While I can see the concern about two spirit combatants with low values going at it and the combat taking forever, my own reaction is 

If I'm not very good at this, why am I risking doing this when I can get any of those results on the Spirit Combat Fumble Table?

The Crits, Special results,  and Fumbles will even things out over time.

13 minutes ago, simonh said:

It says on page 194 that a parry does not take any strike ranks. On page 197 it says "an adventurer can attempt to parry an attack on any strike rank of the melee round during which the parrying weapon is prepared (in hand and ready for use)".

That implies to me that yes you can parry on the same strike rank you attack on, and yes you can parry multiple attacks on the same strike rank. Remember these are just initiative order counters, not units of time. The last two paragraphs on page 192 make this clear.

Also, regarding that last paragraph on page 192. If it were not possible to parry on the same strike rank as your own attack, and your attack came later in the round than your opponent, then your faster opponent would be able to play SR delay tricks to try and force you into giving up either your attack or parry.

This is certainly how I read the rules.

12 minutes ago, deleriad said:

• If you have a DEX SR of 0, you will attack on SR 1, 6 and 11. 
• If you have a DEX SR of 1 you will attack on 1 and 7.
• If you have DEX SR of 2 you will attack on 2 and 9
• Dex SR 3 - attack on 3 and 11
• DEX SR 4 - attack on 4, prep an arrow
• DEX SR 5 - attack on 5, prep an arrow

The bullet appoints above assume the arrow already bring prepared, yes? Because if you start the round with an unprepped arrow, you can't shoot until SR 5, correct?

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Does it say that you lose 5 SR if you don't have an arrow prepared at the start, or is that just for firing more than one arrow in a round? For spells, according to my reading, it is just for subsequent spells in the round, so with DEX 21 you can cast on 1, 6, 11 and then on 1 again the next round.

P. 193

Quote

Strike Rank Modifier Table

• Prepared spell or weapon SR 0
• Prepare a new weapon, reload a missile weapon, spell, or ready a missile (arrow, sling stone, crossbow bolt, etc.). SR 5

So, if you have to prep an arrow, you start at SR 5, with other factors perhaps adding in as well. If it already prepped you start with SR with other factors adding in.

But spells work the same way. If the spell isn't already prepped, you'll be starting at SR 5, with perhaps other factors adding in as well. If the spell is already prepped you start with SR with other factors adding int.

Double Post

NVM... completely misread the question.

Yes, your reading is the reading I have as well.

Never having played any versions of RQ, I'm curious as to what wasn't clear for you? (Reading RQG it seems clear to me.)

Thanks for the replies!

I want to be clear, I wasn't trying to take away any pleasant memories or criticism the adventure.

What I understand now is that Apple Lane is a specific and strange place... not a typical village in Sartar. (The placid name of the place threw me off.)

As I dig into it I might make some changes in the "set design" and the name of places ("pawn shop" might well be replaced so my players don't make associations about setting and culture that don't fit). But I take everyone's words that the adventure is the bomb.

If I should start a new thread for this, I apologize and please let me know. It is kind of a detour. I'm digging into RQ for the first time and looking for clues.

I'm looking over the adventure right now and I'm seeing there is an "inn" and a "pawn shop" -- and I'm not seeing those two elements fitting into with the feel of everything else I've read so far about Sartar. 

Am I wrong about this? Or is there something about pawn shops and Sartar that makes perfect sense that I'm not understanding?

Soltakss, do you have a write up of how you run HQ anywhere?

Thanks!

Thanks!

And to clarify: 

18 minutes ago, soltakss said:

we just add the number of "10s" as an augment.

So total the value of all the Abilities being used to augment, and then for every ten points of that total the Augmented Ability gets a +1?

Also: from the way you describe it in the example, you don't use the Group Rules either, but rather have one PC be the focus of the conflict and other PCs helping out rather than each PC having their own roll or action in the conflict? Is that correct?

Following up from a question on another site, but posting here because I think this forum gets a lot more focus an attention:

• On page 254 it says a spell strike rank is DEX strike rank + magic points in spell + boosting magic points for the total SR.
• However on page 191 under "Magical Attacks And Strike Ranks" it says "Remember that the first magic point used in the spell has no strike rank modifier."

Is this an error? Or is there a way of squaring these two sentences I'm missing?

5 hours ago, Ian Cooper said:

On a simple contest yes. In an extended contest you roll for the series of actions. One of the early steps to mastering HeroQuest is to get used to using simple contests for most things, including violence, whereas traditional RPGs tend to have a subsystem for violence.

True.

I was specifically, however, asking how soltakss plays the game in light of his "These are my three rules for playing HeroQuest" outline.

I'm curious as to how much he's simplifying it.

On 6/9/2018 at 3:16 AM, soltakss said:

At its core, HeroQuest is a simple system that can be used for anything. It takes, what, 5 minutes to learn how to play and, maybe, 10 minutes to generate a PC, so you can be up and running in 15 minutes with a new PC for a player who has never played the game.

What slows it down are all the artificial stuff that has been bolted on to model various things. Restrictions on what can and can't be used, for example.

My rules for HeroQuest:

• All abilities are treated the same
• You can use any ability to counter any ability, but it might have a penalty
• Everything is Simple Contests or just straight rolls with penalties/bonuses

 

Out of curiosity, when you roll to resolve a conflict, you're rolling for the conflict, yes? Not as a series of actions within the conflict/fight/whatever?

5 minutes ago, Gene M. said:

Given it says "the GM's book will also feature," the "also" implies it's the same book. It's called a pack, I imagine, because it includes a GM's screen.

I hear you. I really do. But other words posted online from people directly involved in RQG suggest there is a separate GM Book.

Look. I'll stand back and wait. 

The cover of the Bestiary, like everything else coming out of Chaosium right now, looks fucking fantastic.

39 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think the only significance is whether you need to buy campaign materials that you might not use in order to get the full game rules. It's not an issue that bothers me though.

Bingo.

As I said, I'm trying to figure out the buy-in for the game.

I know for a lot of people here it will be, "I'm all in forever!"

For some of us, who are dipping our toes in getting a sense of what we need to pay to get the rules for the game is not jimmies issue. It's a matter of dollars. Which isa practical and real thing, and something worth being curios about.