klecser

I see what you're saying. I'm not opposed to challenge driving creativity and role-playing. As I've said before recently, this group of gamers doesn't seem like the type whose going to say *scoffs* "you've built this wrong!" I've encountered that kind of gamer frequently and I'm a bit sensitive to it. It's part of the reason why this Community seems to be a breath of fresh air for me. Next question: Picking Runes. Clearly there is some "back planning" that is involved with this, right? I picked "Moon" for one of my high-level runes and I'm not finding many Moon focused Rune spells for Sartar/Orlanth. I have Air, which seemed obvious, and I picked Movement as one of the 75s. But it looks like Moon isn't going to really do anything for me. So, the actual question/realization is: Characters should be picking Runes that are aligned with their culture and deity so that they can actually use them. Correct?

Woah. I'm surprised no one else mentioned this. As a Call of Cthulhu player, I was not aware that you can gain characteristics. And I now see that POW has a check box! I'll read some more. Thanks to everyone above for responses! My current plan is to complete my character and I'd like someone to check it, if possible. Like, not a detailed point-by-point check, but just look at it for glaring errors. I'm looking at the numbers for pre-gens and my characters numbers are WAY lower than the pre-gens. I don't know if this means that I'm leaving out bonuses or if I'm just picking kinda random choices that should be more "stacked" bonuses. I picked Hunter for my Occupation and I see that this is not recommended for a Sartarite. I see that there aren't really video guides on YouTube for character creation. That leads me to want to make one on my Channel, but it would be a "Watch a New Player Mess This Up!" video, not an actual guide.

So, total newbie and I have a literal crap ton of rules questions. I don't want to be the guy that starts a billion threads and maybe there is a better place to ask small questions than here? Let me know. What if new players posted very simple questions in this thread so they were all in one place? I'll start simple with a few: 1) I picked Orlanth Adventurous as my Cult/Subcult because it seemed logical to start Sartar. The rulebook says that you get +20 to one cult skill and +15 to another. Can one of those bonuses be stacked with the "+10 sword skill" for Adventurous? Or do I have to pick Orate/Sing/Stormspeak? 2) The rules refer to additional Rune spells being attainable by "sacrificing POW." So, if I start with 12 POW, I could go down to 11 to get another spell. How exactly does POW regenerate? Coming from CoC, so sacrificing POW is something I would do if I were trying to get my character to go insane. Do people tend to pick high POW scores at creation and immediately buy it down for a bunch of spells? What's "typical?" 3) I see the benefit of the family history section and I plan to do it when I have more time. Sartar has three bases passions. The "skip family history" box says to "add three passions." Is this IN ADDITION to the base Sartar passions?

Thanks for the correction on the hit location table. I didn't mean to say that there isn't armor at all in CoC. I can see how what I typed doesn't match what was in my head. What I meant is that you don't regularly track armor and hit points for individual body locations as a regular part of CoC like in RQ. A CoC investigator doesn't gear up with a head piece, vambraces, leg pieces, etc. That may exist as a variant rule in Dark Ages. As you say, someone might be wearing a vest, and you check to see if the vest is hit. But it doesn't alter the fact that your hit point total is what would be reduced, not a chest region hit point value. TC clearly wants to know if they are similar and I think it is fair to say that they are not.

CoC does not have hit+locations nor armor for separate locations, and as far as I know not even optional. As someone very experienced with CoC and a veteran role-player for quite some time, the elegance of Runequest's utilization of BRP was immediately interesting to me. I've never seen a game do so much with so little. And I mean that in a complementary way. I don't think RQ and CoC combat can be fairly compared. CoC is, by its nature, a very anti-combat game and the mechanics reflect that in their hyper-simplicity. I do think that the TC should pick up the RQ quickstart because it sounds to me that they will like RQ combat based upon the bits they like about CoC combat.

I think they also do them in order of consumer purchase. I don't know that for sure, of course. I basically have started to schedule time to purchase within an hour of release to be part of the "first wave" of shipments. The sooner after orders open that I purchase the quicker I've received product. I know that it isn't always possible for people to do that. If you can purchase lickety split after it opens it may increase the chances you are in the first "wave" of shipping. That obviously doesn't help anyone right now. But for future releases...

Oh, I understand. This isn't an issue of ignorance. It's an issue of how big of a curtain or wall people want in their games.

I've started ordering direct from Chaosium for new releases not only to support them as much as possible, but also because of those PDFs. Access to digital files makes handouts so much easier. And regarding that map issue, I take a total "action figure mentality" to it. I have my physical copy to keep it pristine, and then use the PDF to print color versions of maps that can be risked at the table. As a teacher, the thought of a botched lamination job (they happen) makes me feel sick, but to each their own. I very much prefer physical books for reading/research/display and PDFs for the practical stuff.

"Yes", Yes, but..." and "Yes, and..." are the sentence starters of all successful GMs. You bring up a really good point (and here I am hijacking my original thread LOL). Is the feel that something has endemic to the game, it's system, or the GM? Let's think of the original designers. My impression is that Greg Stafford had a great attitude when he made his game. I look at this game with fresh eyes and I see someone for which role-playing and story-telling mattered. DND started as a Chainmail ruleset. I'm of the opinion that DND's culture continues to be haunted by Gary Gygax. Gygax was a "no" GM who seemed to revel in player failure. And to be fair to him it seemed as if his play groups liked to be challenged that way. He was not a model for aspiring Gamemasters, in my opinion, because very few role-players prefer that style, in my experience. I'm not meaning for this to turn into a DND bashing thread. If I were to phrase it positively, it is that Yes-focused immersive storytelling is what has drawn me to Runequest.

I intend to run the overall FEEL of Classic Cthulhu in my games. But I also often find myself throwing in Pulp elements to drive excitement in the game. There is only so much time to game and if I followed the tome rules to the letter players would never have any feeling of accomplishment studying them. So, I frequently accelerate tome rules to be more story-driving than story-grinding. This has the added benefit of increasing the risk rapidly too. My players love that. They are totally addicted to it and a solid 10% of all of our games is preparing for and cleaning up after tome decisions. I respect the power of slow burn and slow reveal, but if it is all slow, all the time, patience can run thin. I have a player who is an Engineering professor who has learned a lot about alien tech. Far more than what many would consider "typical" in a Classic CoC game. I draw on the core Pulp rules and The Two-Headed Serpent a lot for ideas for this, since we have a Serpent Person-themed campaign. The conventional wisdom of "you found this weird thing, you don't know how it works, and probably never will" adds mystery for a while, but can get frustrating. Role-players like when "things happen." Finally, I think it's pretty hard for a lot of people to not imagine Indiana Jones when they are doing "archaeological stuff" in a Classic Cthulhu game. I've always considered it a bit asinine for me to deny players some Indiana Jones-style encounters every so often to keep the interest high. TL;DR: You can do both. Every group is different. I think a big thing that holds back a lot of Keepers is the misconception that they have to play a game "a certain way." And they just end up hamstringing their own effectiveness in reaching their table.

So, I'm totally new to Runequest and posted a video with an unboxing in which I erroneously implied that MB Heroquest is connected to the Heroquest RPG. I just assumed they were because how could two companies use the same name for products? How is it that Chaosium has Heroquest RPG and MB published a completely unrelated board game with the same name? How did the copyright/trademark shake out on that? Thanks in advance for the history!

I'm glad I posted this because I think it's revealing a couple of things and I want you all to know that I don't take them for granted: 1) This is a giving board. That is not lost on me. I've been on the internet since the early 90s and I've seen some awful, awful, awful stuff, as I'm sure many of you have. It's always refreshing to find a discussion space where people are willing to take tough questions seriously. 2) Part of the reason why I decided to invest in Runequest is that I had a gut instinct that Runequest stories were very rich stories, and I think this thread illustrates it. This is advanced story-telling, and I understand what you all are saying. That's why I asked. Remember that my fantasy role-playing experience is DND and I'm learning right now to code switch between the two. I'm not trying to imply that DND can't have rich stories. At the same time, we all know that certain games attract certain styles of role-playing. I'm liking the style here.

Any media you like. Thanks for the correction @PhilHibbs. I guess I don't understand how the copyright/trademark works on that. How did it end up getting to Chaosium if MB had the name? Not trying to hijack, so I'll post a question in the Heroquest forum.

Here's my unboxing: I'm a devout Call of Cthulhu Keeper, have been role-playing for 25 years, had never heard of Runequest until the 4th Quick Start was released (!), and didn't decide to buy the slipcase until three days before it's release. I made the right decision.

I just want to say again that I appreciate the reasoned takes and explanations that people are giving. My goal here was to have a better understanding as a novice GM/player to this game. You all have not disappointed me. Thank you for taking my question/concern seriously and giving me some specific examples of how this particular mechanic fits into the setting!

Thanks for the serious reply. As I thought about it more I realized that having "prices" allows a framework for players to seek non-violent solutions for rescuing slaves. I also appreciate the other examples you gave. I'm certainly not for "sanitizing" historical realities. I just always want everything to be handled with discretion. This is why I asked experienced GMs! Thanks.

Everyone on this forum knows Runequest better than I do. I am new to the game and its history. I was reading through the PDF, and (still) eagerly anticipating my slipcase when I was surprised to see game mechanic prices for slaves. I understand that this is a Bronze Age mythic game and slavery features heavily in early human history and mythic stories. At the same time, I'm like: Why? Why do we need game-stated prices for slaves? Even if they are part of the setting? It seems to cross a line to me. It implies that player characters are going to have characters that purchase slaves as a "regular" part of the setting. I'm not trolling and I'm not looking to start a fight or anything. It just crosses a line for me as to what we should be doing in role-playing games. I'm wondering if people with more experience in the game have some sort of justification for it, because I don't see it. Your rebuttal may be that role-players don't think twice about rampant murder that exists within gaming, and that is true. I know I have the power to draw an iron curtain. It just doesn't sit well with me that a player would purchase slaves, even if part of a story. The same reason why it doesn't sit well with me to have players whose characters rape or abuse, even if part of a fictional story.

This is a very helpful thread. I didn't even know RQ was a thing until recently, despite being an active role-player since AD&D 2nd. When I stumbled upon the hype train for RQ 4 recently it caught me. I am very interested in the concept of more Conan/Clash of the Titans/Elric myth-focused fantasy right now. But I'm also not into 2d20 and I'm not crazy about Modiphius' Conan. I'm deep into CoC and I love the idea of a world that is more foreign than DND's settings. So, here I am. I took the plunge. Bought the slipcase and looking forward to getting the books in hand. I REALLY like what I'm seeing in the PDFs. I like the Battletech-esque hit location/specific consequence aspect of the combat. I also really like how what would be "secondary" races in DND are really given strong prominence as playable options in RQ. Plus, the whole "everyone has access to and uses magic."

Wow, thank you. I'm no Seth Skorkowsky or Bud, but thanks nonetheless!

I'll be unboxing the slipcase on my YouTube Channel (RPG Imaginings) as someone who has never played Runequest before. I think it will be interesting to see how it looks to someone with fresh eyes. I'm very attracted to Runequest as an alternative to the "mainstream" fantasy RPGs.

I'm just waiting for the order link!

Why tell people how they should feel about/interpret something? Why must there be an "entry fee" (in this case, "canon" interpretation) to love and consume something? How do we ATTRACT fans to a hobby?

Eric, you're always quick to jump in with quotes from HPL's writings as if they, in of themselves, should be justifications for a position. I think it's worth noting that not everyone treats his writings as gospel. Nor should we in this case. Remember how HPL was pretty racist himself? That is kind of the whole point. Authors are writing these scenarios because they want to make it very clear that, while we love HPL's writing and his contributions to literature, we don't support his personal ethics. The "turn the Mythos on its head" movement is deliberate and it has multiple goals. "Abiding by canon" is not one of them. None of us should be looking to HPL for moral codes or primers on engagement on social issues.

I consider this the definitive edition. There is only so much work you can put into tweaking anything before it becomes splitting hairs. Pleasing every gamer is an impossible goal and unrealistic. Let's just celebrate that we got a fantastic product that will pass the test of time.

As with any product, if someone doesn't desire the product, they just don't buy the product.