d(sqrt(-1))

I think we used to just subtract spell MP from DEX to get initiative rating (I used to use Elric! as the base system). I always found the SR system difficult because of trying to integrate movement with anything over a few PCs/NPCs got messy.

Me too - well I'd like an "all-in" for everything...

Will there be a "buy everything" option? PDFs up front then hard copies as they become available?

Well he's the god of brewing right? So he's obviously been out for 10 pints of lager and a vindaloo the previous night...the Fire connection would make sense then too - some sort of Orlanthi Ring of Fire? Looks like he's having a hair of the dog or two as well.

RQ 2 had this as an optional aimed blow rule - for each SR you delay you can adjust the hit location roll by +/-1

I was wondering how the pregenerated PCs in the QS ended up with such high INTs: 15/16/15/20/19/18 - so do some runes/cultures give +2 to INT?

We did. Nothing wrong with a houserule though. I suspect that if you have 100+ skill you may be better off using the full skill to land a blow rather than splitting it, unless you are in the 200%+ range

Yes I had a quick look but the QS doesn't seem to mention split attacks.

A minor point but in RQ2 if you split your attack the separate attacks had to be vs different targets (p23 Splitting Attacks)

Yes I agree. I also think it makes it easier for the GM

The Gimpy's tavern example, sure Rurik takes 2 points to the abdomen. That reduces his General HP by 2 and we note a wound of "Abdomen: 2". Notes on Damage results (p17) : Sure, a 2 point arm can only take 4 HP max from the General HP. "If damage equals or exceeds the location HP" can just mean the rolled damage exceeds the threshold. A 2 point arm struck for 8 points only takes 4 damage against General HP. None of these necessarily mean reduction of location HP. Herkan dies because he took Abdomen threshold + 6 damage in one blow, as per p18 Sect 3. An arm taking 25 damage in one blow can only affect total HP by Arm HP x 2, certainly (it would be maimed though). Sect 2 does say "Further blows to that arm will affect the HP of the character", which implies that limbs don't have a max limit of x2 in total, only per hit. Rumble in the Rubble, Horus takes 6 points to his arm, enough to incapacitate him. We note "Left Arm: 6" When he casts Heal 2 it changes to "Left Arm: 4". that's still enough for his arm to not be working. If total damage exceeds total HP dead, agreed. Again, when you take a hit to a location, note the wound and reduce General HP by the same amount. Look, I'm not saying everyone who has ever played has misinterpreted the rules, I'm saying it is a valid different way of looking at it that isn't contradicted by the rules, and it might be an interesting way to think about it.

More than 2 x HP from a single blow, so I only need to know if it is incapacitated or not, and track the wound. Location HP + 6 = maimed/severed. Sec 2 (p18) says "Further blows to that Arm will affect the Hit Points of the character"

Yes, exactly - interesting, and achieves similar results without a lot of bookkeeping for the GM.

It sort of does under "Two Weapon Use" p 26 where is says two weapons can be used for 2 attacks, 2 parries or 1 attack and one parry. But I agree it's not explicit. Plus the section on Splitting Attacks on p 23 does say that you can't parry a foe more than once in a round even with 100%+ skill. The location HP thing I think is an interesting interpretation, doesn't break the rules, makes PCs a bit tougher and is easy to implement. It also makes it a hell of a lot easier for the GM. I'm not saying that's what was intended (everyone me included) played with ablative location HP. It's just that it still works and is straightforward to implement. Realistically, although you could take 19 1 point hits to the left arm, it's unlikely enough to not be a worry. Even if you did, it's unusual enough to be an interesting story...

Interesting that you say it makes PCs a bit more resilient. I was assuming that would be the case. As you say, also less bookkeeping.

I was quite surprised too a few years ago when I reread RQ2, especially as the examples don't make it clear either. Of course it could easily be that the intention was that HP are subtracted, but I thought it was interesting to consider it as thresholds. Dunno, four 5 point hits to an arm sounds pretty nasty to me. Besides I can imagine being killed by 19 wounds of 1 point each... I also think it reduces the large effect of +1d4 or +1d6 damage bonus.

Well all they say is do the damage points exceed the location HP, or more than twice, or 6 more than available. The fact that Healing works by location I think doesn't really apply, for example I would just record wounds as "Left Arm 3, Abdomen 4, Right Leg 3" etc and then apply Healing to them when necessary.

Sure, but mysteriously RQ2 does not actually say that HP are subtracted from location HP. That's the way everyone has played it, and presumably the intention because that's how RQG does it, but I thought it would be interesting if it was a threshold to see if locations are disabled/severed/maimed or not. You would still reduce general HP per wound of course.

Yes of course I would let NPCs choose afterwards if the PCs can. I agree with what you say about defender needing to roll something. Easiest way is to pick a default that they will do if they don't pick anything else. Instinct makes you do something. Parrying is way the better option and that is historically reasonable, it just means that Dodge won't really get used, or it will get used by some but they won't live for long.

Which is more interesting in the game? 1: GM: I attack. Player: I dodge! GM: I got a critical to the head. Player: Oh I need 4% or less to dodge that...crap I'm dead 2: GM: I attack. I roll a Critical to the head. Player: Hm, my Dodge is 80% so I've got a 4% chance of avoiding it, if I parry I can deflect some of the damage. My parry is 50% so I stand a good chance that my weapon/shield can take some of the damage and maybe break. Ok I'll parry...

I don't see it that way, it's part of the game part of an RPG. Similarly I feel that making people specify exactly in advance what they are doing over 12 seconds with no chance to react is far too constraining - adventurers should have the ability to read the situation and react accordingly. If I have to specify Dodge in advance knowing that I've got to match the opponent's level of success, as opposed to parrying which will block some damage as long as I succeed, then I see no point in choosing dodge unless I absolutely have to.

Err, yes that's my point, I don't think you have to decide it that closely - you decide Parry or Dodge at the time you need to decide. I don't think you need to say in declaration of intent at all, but I'd like to know if I know the attackers roll before I choose Parry or Dodge.

So how does the fact that you get a cumulative -20% on parry and dodge work with that? Do I have to say I will Dodge twice and Parry three times? I can't see how that works at all with the rules as they stand at the moment. If you have to choose at the start of a round I'm never going to pick Dodge unless I absolutely have to. Which may be the intention.

The Dodge skill definition has changed though to allow dodging from multiple sources and many times in a round both at a cumulative -20% penalty. I think Parry and Dodge might be a bit much TBH. Deciding Dodge or Parry at the time of the attack is pretty much the only way to go, however as for Dodge you need to match the level of success of the attack, do you know that level of success when you roll, or do you have to decide beforehand? If beforehand then you're pretty much only going to Dodge things that would kill you. Which may be reasonable, I don't know.

Sure but the point is that's not what the sequence says, and if so, it forces you to go to an SR by SR situation involving engaged and unengaged characters and NPCs. Which is a PITA for the GM.