lawrence.whitaker

Yeah, the DM forum is as basic as it gets. I'm informed that the Moon Design forums are underway and shall be with us soon, giving lots of forumy goodness for RQ.

As for playtesting: hasn't started yet because there's a whole heap of material we want to test at the same time. Previews will happen, but not until the end of the year (at least) and most likely beginning of next. So something for you to look forward to on Jan 31st...

Its nice to have a section of BRP Central for news, discussions and so on.

Hope to see some future discussion.

Loz

I don't know if this is what you're looking for: On DriveThruRPG there are two versions of hawkmoon. I can't tell who the authors are, but maybe one of those is what you're looking for. They are listed under Mongoose, which I think is a result of a deal between Chaosium and Mongoose based on Mongoose's Moorcock license.

Stve

I can only see the original Chaosium version on there, not my monograph.

Chaosium commissioned me to rewrite Hawkmoon in a similar vein to Elric!, which I did, but fot a whole host of reasons (see the interview I did with Binder on the Stormbringer RPG site) it never saw publication. So, I stripped out a lot of the rules and Chaosium published it as a monograph not very long before the license went to Mongoose. I'd be a bit peeved if the monograph was on Drivethru because I never got paid for it.

The Pan Tangian Gladiator does not work for me as whilst I completely agree that he or she may indeed be taught a number of weapons to please the crowds would they not specalise in the same way as historical gladiators? The Elric example says no they are equally skilled in all the weapons they use - not one or two that they specalise in - that they have been found to have an talent for one of more. Surely it would have been that a Gladiator would have a series of Combat Styles and given that most warriors get 2 or 3 as part of their background this could have worked....

It could have been done in any number of different ways, sure. I chose this way and if it doesn't work for you, then by all means split the style into two or three that cover linked weapons, such as net and trident and spear and sword. Personally I didn't envisage Pan Tangian gladiators as training in the same way as Roman gladiators at all. I wanted to deliberately move away from direct historical analogs because I was writing the Elric book and not a historical sourcebook.

What you're suggesting is that, within a style, a character can choose a specialisation with a particular weapon that attracts a bonus. That's fair enough, but it layers-in all kinds of other complexities. Does that bonus then get carried through to a different style where the same weapon is used but perhaps in a different way? What if I use a broadsword instead of a longsword - does the bonus apply still? How about a buckler instead of a kite shield? How do you earn that bonus? Do you apply IRs to a specific weapon? What if you want to specialise in two weapons? Pretty soon you've broken down the idea of the Combat Style and effectively reverted to a 1 skill per Weapon model which means slower advancement for the character and is exactly what we were trying to get away from. Either that or you end-up with combat styles within combat styles which I think is overly complex.

You can make weapon usage rules as granular and complex as you wish. There's any number of ways of doing this, from individual weapons, to groups of them, to combat styles to specializations within combat styles. Each introduces complexities and idiosyncracies. We think Combat Styles strike the best balance between realism, skill balancing and playability. Is it perfect? No, but then no set of game mechanics really can be because there will always be GMs and Players that find, or want, a different emphasis or usage that suits their style of play. Fortunately, Combat Styles are flexible enough to allow you to build in specialisations if you feel they're necessary and warranted (and you do, which is fine, because I'm sure you can, and do, make them work for your campaign). But from a design perspective, we, as the designers, have to strike the balance between playability and complexity. Otherwise we'd get into Aftermath-like levels of combat skill rules. And for a game like RQ we want to avoid that.

What we tried to do in MRQII and will continue to do in RQ6 is provide frameworks that permit flexibility plus a solid, workable style of play, and encourage GMs and players to find and use ways that work according to their specific needs.

Combat styles required greater explanation in the core rules. That much is clear. Pete remedied this with his excellent Signs and Portent article which discussed what combat styles are, how they work, why they work in the way they do, and so forth.

RQ6 will continue with them, but with much clearer explanation and examples of how they are composed and used.

One thing to bear in mind is the versatility of styles. In previous editions of the game, characters who used a sword and shield (the classic combination) has to invest two skill choices to gain these essential, paired, style-based skills. Improving them required separate skill checks and improvement rolls. Yet, in reality, any self-respecting warrior would be practicing, training and using both in combination: Combat Styles overcome this discrepancy.

In MRQII the improvement process isn't based on skill checks against skills used but uses improvement rolls. This reflects the kind of practice a dedicated professional will put into improving his style. Its far more of a benefit than a drawback for characters and allows for some very creative weapon combinations. Da Boss mentioned the number of weapons included in the Pan Tang Gladiator style and seemed perturbed by it. Why? This is very clearly a niche profession where men are being trained to fight for their lives and forced into using a diverse range of weapons to do so. I designed it that way so that a Pan Tangian gladiator who's managed to somehow survive the fighting pits of Hwamgaarl would be a truly competent warrior reflecting both the time invested by his trainers and the necessity of fighting with trident and net one day, and a spear and buckler the next. Most other combat style examples found throughout MRQII supplements are far more restrained but still reflect cultural norms.

But, as I've said on the DM forums (and this is the best place to keep abreast of how we'll be approaching RQ6 changes) everything from MRQII is being reviewed and refined.

With the proposed release of a new version of RQII many people consider that there are some issues with the original system and if these will be sprted out (or not) in the revised version.

The primary ones that I have seen an aweful lot of debate about are:

Combat Styles

Combat Actions (especially duel wielding with things like penknives or a sharp pen)

Movement

It might be that RQ 6 does change these or it may not .............

Everything is being reviewed for RQ6 - Styles, Actions, Movement and more.

There will most certainly be changes. What they are or will, I can't say yet. But changes, certainly.

I'ld love Chaosium to bring out a new hardcover edition of Stormbringer; if they're gonna have two properties as their babies then Cthuhlu Mythos and Young Kingdoms are certainly good ones to have.

Chaosium relinquished the license to the Eternal Champion line back in 2007. Mongoose is the current holder. Chaosium had pretty much let the license slip into abeyance, and some poor relations with Moorcock meant they were actually happy to let it go. So a new version of Stormbringer isn't on the cards - although there is an MRQII version available from Mongoose.

Loz, any chance of seeing dual-statted (HQ/RQ) Gloranthan products in the future?

Probably not dual-statted in the book itself, but a very, very good chance of having RQ stats available as a separate download for HQ Glorantha books.

Its definitely RuneQuest 6th Edition, which, as the sixth published edition of the game, its quite entitled to be. RQ6 seems to be favoured shorthand, although RQVI will no doubt appear as may 'DMRQ' - which I hope won't happen, because, well, I don't like it.

Combat Actions will be staying. That said, how one comes by them is fully open to review by me and Pete, and there's lots of little things like this that we're reviewing right now.

Loz

Great news for RQ!

Any plans for a "Glorantha for beginners" type release with the basics and a few straightforward adventures? Something that would generate enthusiasm in a GM new to Glorantha, rather than feelings of intimidation. :-) I think that would help get more folks interested in Glorantha.

Not from Design Mechanism, however Moon Design have some plans in this regard.

Can we get some dual statted 3rd Age Gloranthan goodness to tie in to the HQ2 stuff?

Yes. We have a plan... !

Wow!

Thanks Paolo!

The revision history is...

1. RQ1 (Chaosium)

2. RQ2 (Chaosium)

3. RQ3 (AH)

4. MRQ1 (Mongoose)

5. MRQII (Mongoose)

6. RQ6 (Me 'n' Pete)

Bear in mind these are published editions of the game. There's the old RQ:Adventures in Glorantha floating around, which some refer to as RQ4/IV, but as it was never published, it remains outside the RQ chronology.

So, its RQ6!

I saw a sign outside a shop in Toronto that said: 'Good. Cheap. Fast. You can pick two, but you can't have all three.'

And I didn't know you'd installed a webcam on my PC back in my Mongoose writing days... :-)

I'll settle for black coffee.

But do enjoy the Amontillado!

I love it, especially because I did bet on this to happen and someone now has to

give me a bottle of good sherry.

Good luck with it.

Sherry?

Many thanks for the good wishes!

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch. So, tell us more about those exciting plans!

Better not be another troll book, though ...

Thanks Vile.

I can absolutely guarantee you, 100% that there won't be a troll book.

Its with great pleasure and excitement that I'm able to announce that The Design Mechanism, the new company formed by myself and Pete Nash, has successfully reached an agreement with Issaries Inc to become the new licensee for RuneQuest. The full Press Release can be found on the RuneQuest page at www.thedesignmechanism.com along with a detailed Q&A sheet for those who want to know more about what we have in store for RQ.

Greg Stafford, Issaries President, had this to say on the agreement: "RuneQuest is an old, highly respected brand that requires creativity, dedication and knowledge of the product. I know that Loz and Pete have that, plus enthusiasm and professionalism that will keep up the reputation and good name. I am pleased."

Clearly its early days for both Design Mechanism and RuneQuest's 6th edition but we have exciting plans for the game building on the work Pete and I have already done with Mongoose's RuneQuest II and we look forward to sharing them with the roleplaying community as we develop the new rules.

Lawrence

This whole debate started around the absurd notion that doing a little basic math was "too hard". It isn"t.

I think that, more to the point, its doing such things at speed. I can do the math, sure. I can do it in my head too, but I can't do it quickly. Some are blessed with that ability and some aren't. If you're not so blessed, and you're sitting there, looking at your dice roll and mentally doing whatever numerical gymnastics you need to do to reach the answer, whilst others are sitting around you, tapping their fingers or texting their friends, it can be intimidating. It can be frustrating. It can be demoralising - especially if someone who IS good at mental arithmetic comes back with some jibe or rolls his eyes or snorts.

Simply put, some people are slower at this than others. Does it make them dunces? No more than it makes people who can't spell (whether its dyslexia or whatever) poor writers or eloquent speakers. Its the attitude others display that can be injurous. If you used to get that at school, you don't need it at the gaming table. If a game system makes it easier to do a little math quickly, with as few rules (such as round up if its X, but round down if its Y) then it will, clearly, be of help to those who cannot swiftly compute on the fly.

and his decision to basically kill MRQII by removing all Glorantha connections and turning it into a generic fantasy system was not exactly applauded.

Your assertion is inaccurate. It was a decision reached mutually and amicably with Issaries. It wasn't unilateral by Mongoose which is what you're implying (and none of the press releases I've seen have indicated anything to the contrary). And, as far as 'not exactly applauded' is concerned, well, that's wrong too. There's been quite a lot of praise for divorcing MRQII from Glorantha (do check out the threads regarding this on RPGnet and The RPGsite is you want some proof).

I hope that they are able to get as close to systemless as possible with their Glorantha stuff for HQ, as I'm sure their Glorantha info will be great.

If you look at Moon's most recent releases - Sartar and the Sartar Companion, you'll see that they're as statless as you can possibly get whilst still retaining the heart of the HQ mechanics. HQ2 works in such a way that you don't need stats to be able to run the material as its written. It also lets you plug-in whatever system floats your particular boat, be it HQ, RQ, BRP or even D&D 4e or Savage Worlds. What drives HQ is the 'story cycle' and 'pass/fail cycle'. Now you could dismiss such things as storygame wankery if you like, but really all they do is quantify and provide a structure for the in-game tweaking most GMs do when running a scenario or campaign and want to scale challenges according to what the characters have done, are doing, or are likely to do. It works surprisingly well.

But as I say, HQ doesn't appeal to everyone. Pete and I will, though, be going for good, epic, usable books with our respective projects and we're looking forward to the journey.

HQ is very, very good at creating a particular kind of feel and experience. Sure, it might not be to your taste or play-style, but it has a lot of merit. I've used it very successfully for Star Wars and Hawkmoon.

If Pete and I felt we were being 'wasted' then we wouldn't have taken on the projects we have.

Erm... I left Mongoose in October last year.

Its sheer coincidence that Moon Design announced my new project with them today (no, really, it is). So Pete and I didn't jump ship at the same time...

A few words.

My departure from Mongoose had nothing to do with today's announcement. It was purely down to my working arrangements. I've been talking with Moon for quite a long time about writing for them but I needed some space and time to relax first. That's done, and so now I'm delighted to be able take on a project like Harrek saga. The announcements though, are quite coincidental. Moon were waiting for a revamp to their website so that they could support an author blog for me. This was completed today, so no need to hold back on the announcement.

As far as the RQII/Wayfarer stuff is concerned, Matt did let Pete and I know quite some time in advance - so I'd be surprised if Cakebread and Walton were kept in the dark although I cannot say for sure. I think that something else like this was inevitable. RQ and Glorantha sales were less than stellar and any publisher has to look at the bottom line.

I wish 'Wayfarer' every success (hell, I wrote the system, whatever its called). It does signal some interesting times ahead though, which, depending on your view of things, could be a blessing or a curse...

By the way. LOVE the new Elric book! Excellent job!

Don't want to threadjack, but thank you! Glad you like it.

Back to CMs...