smiorgan

52 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Because a single location may be covered by two different types of armour. Depending on the number rolled on the unit die, you hit the toughest one or the softest one - or an unarmoured part (ouch!).

Example: my warrior has a mail coif 5/1+ and a helm 8/6+. If you hit me on the head with a 7, you hit the helm (gong!). With a 3, you hit the coif (maybe you can hurt me). With a 0 (always and advantage in Revolution) you got me straight in the face.

Wow! That's detailed combat.

19 minutes ago, MOB said:

As outlined here, we are building the new version up from RQ2, incorporating concepts learned from RQ3, RQ6, Pendragon Pass, Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld, and the unpublished Epic System and RQ Dragon Pass campaign. We won't just be updating the RQ2 text if that's what you mean. It will be a new edition of the rules (RuneQuest), not RQ 2.1 or whatever.

No, this is not what I meant, but I stop bothering you. Probably, I can't explain myself in English. It's not that important: the important thing is that you create a fun game!

4 hours ago, MOB said:

Don't forget, RQ2 came before BRP...

MOB, please, that is stating the obvious. 

My question was more on the specific way you are going about to build the game. One thing is starting from the RQ2 manuscript and updating it, another thing is starting from a draft that was based on RQ6 and revert stuff back to RQ2.

But, nevermind...  

31 minutes ago, MOB said:

...

>Is BRP Essentials to be based on RQ4 aka RQ7?

The other way round.

Thanks a lot for the answers about BRP and Mythic Iceland. It's great that Mythic Iceland remains on the cards.

I was under the impression that RQ7 was bein developed starting from the RQ2 manuscript rather than on the BRP essentials draft, as per Jeff's post below.  

13 hours ago, Jeff said:

We are big believers in starting from first principles whenever we do a book, and in the case of RuneQuest, RQ2 is that foundational document. 

But I get the general vibe and I appreciate the updates.

1 hour ago, Baulderstone said:

I get impression that stat blocks from this system will carry over quite easily to whatever RQ6 is going to be called.

Oh! That would be quite funny! 

If I were Chaosium I would rather not do that. I'd either stick to RQ6 as is or if I really have to do a new version  I'll do something whose stat-block maps pefectly onto RQ2 and RQ3.

Why? Because the hugely successful RQ2 Kickstarter will create a metric ton of in-print RQ2 material. A new version that maps onto RQ2 and RQ3 will be immediately super well supported by the RQ2 reprints and by future RQ3 reprints.

But, I'm not Chaosium and this is baseless speculation.

8 hours ago, hkokko said:

We have a house rule - use RQ6 Improvement rolls (only a certain number of improvement possible) but only on skills you have used. This has worked well with us. There are couple of interesting suggestions above to add to that (critical + common knowledge or some specific knowledge or even insight.. roll to gain extra improvement). 

That's a very good rule, which seems to take the best of both worlds. I like it a lot.

3 minutes ago, smjn said:

Inciting rebellion in his home town he may attrach the attention and ire of the local nobles he's trying to undermine, therefore he's taking a much larger risk than the thief who's keeping to the shadows and never seen. But even when the bard is just chatting up people in bar to get some information, if he fails his Human Lore he may insult people in a way that escalates into something he is unable to deal with. And for Human Lore he doesn't even get a tick even if he succeeds...

BTW, a house rule I used was to allow to tick all skills, including knowledge skills. When you use knowledge it becomes clearer and more solid in your head. And (depending on the situations) you might also learn new facts.

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

2 hours ago, smiorgan said:

> We are big believers in starting from first principles whenever we do a book, -> So, can we call it RQ7 now?

FWIW, we call it internally RQ4, as it is the 4th version of RQ that will carry the Chaosium logo. 

I say that with all respect: RQ4 is a terrible name. It creates a ridiculous mess with numbers and it conveys a terrible, divisive message: MRQ1, MRQ2 and RQ6 never existed. Which is kinda sad because these were official versions licensed by Greg Stafford.

I can understand why you call it RQ4 internally. But it's a terrible name.

Smiorgan

43 minutes ago, MOB said:

http://www.chaosium.com/blog/some-qa-about-whats-happening-with-runequest

Good. How does all this affect the plans for BRP?

Are BRP Essentials and Mythic Iceland 2 confirmed? Is BRP Essentials to be based on RQ4 aka RQ7?

Is the RQ6-based draft of BRP Essentials discarded? 

1 hour ago, NickMiddleton said:

Throw away lines in convention seminars lead to wild speculation and rumours: how unexpected...

seriously? You drop fractions of information in limited circumstances, DONT follow up with a definitive "official" announcement / press release, and are then surprised that the rumour mill runs rampant?

Cheers,

Nick

LOL indeed!  As someone working in a Communication faculty, I have to agree with Nick. That's Communication 101.

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Many interesting things...

....

Here's my first reaction

> We are big believers in starting from first principles whenever we do a book, -> So, can we call it RQ7 now?

>  RuneQuest, RQ2 is that foundational document. -> That's surprising but not bad at all.

> RQ3, RQ6, Pendragon Pass, Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld, the Epic System, and the RQ Dragon Pass campaign -> Fascinating. I'd say that the Basic Roleplaying BGB already contains a distillation of some of the above sources, plus interesting Stormbringer bits.

> Sandy Petersen and Ken Rolston -> like it. Argument from authority works.

>  RuneQuest incorporates many elements of RQ6, combined Attack & Parry skills: like it, it was in BGB as well.

> opposed rolls -> like it and totally necessary these days, this also was already in BGB

> combat styles -> like it

> hit locations instead of general hit points -> kind of indifferent to that, I could do with locations + general hp just fine

> 100%+ scalability -> like it, but worked just fine in Elric! and BGB (at least for me)

> adding two characteristics to determine the starting values of skills -> like it a lot. Of course it was already in Mongoose RQ1

> while keeping the rhythm of RQ2 combat. -> I like it quite a bit. I'm sure, however, this is going to be the main bone of contention with true RQ6 fans. By the way, the BGB combat, in its strike ranks version, is already a kind of modernization of RQ3 combat.

> RuneQuest is NOT generic -> That's a clear vision. And it's good to know what you want to do. So, I like it.

> should reinforce and reward the player's interaction with the setting -> I'd call this the Pendragonization of RQ. I'm in.

It's clearly one vision of RQ. I hope you create a fun game.

This is a surprising turn of events. But it's not clear exactly what it's happening. So, let's keep calm.

It's ironic that less than two months ago these boards were in turmoil about Chaosium "shelving" Magic World and the Basic Roleplaying gold book to base all BRP on RQ6. Now it turns out that Chaosium splits from the RQ6 crew ....strange.

Relax and keep calm...

Tick-hunting has never been an issue in my games. Maybe it depends on the players. And the GM can make it clear that skills are checked only in real stressful adventuring situations.

The main strong point of the Chaosium experience system (it was used by all the Chaosium rpgs including Pendragon) is clear: it feels organic and ties advancement to the story. Memorable successes become enshrined in advancements. This is what I like.

I like the system as it is. But, maybe it can be improved. One can imagine a hybrid awarding a minimum of skill rolls to everybody, then bonus skill rolls for significant successess and significant failures. Criticals and fumbles should both automatically result in ticking the skill, plus the GM can adjudicate which other events are memorable.

Note that I don't want to ruin anybody's fun. I just happen to like this experience system. Not for "whatever reason" but exactly for the reason detailed above. If I'm in the minority I'll make my charsheets with boxes to tick myself .

EDIT: Sorry, when wrote this I had not seen the news on RQ Glorantha not being RQ6. Now, I'd write my posts differently.

10 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Train wreck...

3 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

Please bring up the experience system suggestion over on the RuneQuest forum.

Done!

Sorry for derailing the thread!

Hi,

This came up in the BRP forum and Rick Meints suggested me to post in the RQ forum.

I was thinking that a great mechanic that I'd love to see back in future incarnations of RQ is the experience system based on skill use (or characteristic stress). It was and is brilliant.

I'd love to see a version of it in the upcoming RQ Glorantha to be released by Chaosium in 2016. At least as an optional rule. I don't think it would disrupt the RQ6 rules.

It was great to tick all those boxes on the character sheet!

Just my two cents!

Smiorgan

I have a question (or two) on character sheets ...

Will the character sheets included in RQ classic reprint be an exact reproduction of the Sapienza sheets of RQ2?  

And most importantly, will the snake sheet be included?

We need more snake sheets. 

P.S.

Did you know that in Italian Sapienza means wisdom, learning or lore? It was great to play with the sheet of lore!

8 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

I can't help but notice that we are discussing a RuneQuest mechanic under a BRP topic. That's the beauty of the underlying mechanics. RQ was where it started, and even though the "Magic Book" is a BRP title this a RuneQuest book, and a RuneQuest discussion. I say that with all respect.

Mr. President,

RuneQuest is the mother of all BRP. No doubt about that. RQ was a rules design masterpiece. Full stop.

Now, a great mechanic that I'd love to see back in future incarnations of RQ is the experience system based on skill use (or characteristic stress). It was and is brilliant.

I'd love to see a version of it in RQ Glorantha. At least as an optional rule.

It was great to tick all those boxes on the character sheet!

9 hours ago, bripi said:

Probably won't play it - only backing for nostalgia.

My heart is with RQ6...

I hope I will have enough time to play BOTH RQ2 and RQ6 ... a man can dream...

They both have their own distinctive charm. To make an analogy, supercar fanatics can rave about the latest LaFerrari hybrid monster and still be in awe of the austere beauty and brutal power of the 1987 Ferrari F40.

Thanks for your perspective! It seems than not many people know this book.

What does it add to the Dreamlands book as source material?  

2 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I do like how in RQ2 your Characteristics play a role in your base skill chance, I think it makes them more important. I never understood why RQ3, CoC, Elric etc didn't do it this way. Despite being a big RQ3 and CoC player, it wasn't until MRQ and now RQ6 that I thought there had been an improvement in this part of character creation.

Actually, RQ3 is like RQ2 in this respect. It's CoC and Elric which drop skill category bonuses derived from characteristics.

3 hours ago, MOB said:

Update on progress in the KS here - whether you're going to play it or read, some classic supplements have already been unlocked as Stretch Goals and there are more to come: http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/4166-rq-classic-kickstarter-update/?do=findComment&comment=64464

I'm looking forward to the 80,000 threshold to get the RQ Companion!

On 19/11/2015, 03:34:50, Questbird said:

It was done pretty well in Corum too; no actual magic just perfectly crafted objects.

I like the rest of your list though.

Now that I think of it, Law in Corum was even better! Contrivances!

3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

 A lot of stuff...

Makes sense. Definitely. The whole thing seems rather robust. 

3 hours ago, deleriad said:

That is an edge case. Most normal RQ6 attacks take fewer dice rolls than any other edition of RQ.

RQ6. Roll attack. Roll parry. If parry successful no need to roll for damage or hit location because damage blocked.

True. I've picked an extreme (yet genuine) case. But, you also took a one particular case: a succesful blow succesfully parried by a non-critical parry with a big enough parrying weapon. The perfect tie, so-to-say. If the attack goes through we have most of the times one or more special effects and many special effects require rolls (typically opposed rolls against original attack) and of course rolling the hit location and the damage.

I'd say RQ6 makes makes combat more fun and interesting, but also adds a little bit of complexity on average. I wonder whether it can be streamlined further by making most (if not all) combat effect deterministic, i.e once gain an effect you choose the effect and apply it without further rolls.

The RQ6 parry rules that you mention are indeed very elegant. 

You are right in pointing out the fiddly things you have to keep track of in RQ2 and RQ3. If I really have to nitpick, I'd say keeping track of points is not dice rolling. But I get your point.

3 hours ago, deleriad said:

Nostalgia is a powerful force when you're a 50 year old gamer whose first game was the GW box set of RQ2. 

 Nostalgia runs strong also in this 45 years old. I remember vividly the day I bought RQ2 at the Strategiochi shop in Milan. RQ3 box was already out but it costed a fortune. So, the shop owners pointed to the slender RQ2 booklet with the Louise Perenne cover in glorious color. I was immediately hooked.  I remember the sense of wonder of reading about Glorantha, the Aldryami, the Trolls, the Tusk Riders (for some reason I liked a lot the tusk riders), bronze and iron weapons.. 

2 hours ago, ajtheronin said:

 

Heck, I'm considering buying Borderlands and Beyond now, starter reading and starter a campaign in January. 

Borderlands & Beyond is pure gold.