SDLeary

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Now I'd love to see RQ3 show up as a PDF on Drivethru or some such, they way most other Chasoium stuff has, but I think that that the  Avalon Hill deal probably plays a factor here. Chaosium probably can't just re-release the RQ3/BRP monograph they way they can with all the old stuff that they own outright. 

This would really be all that was needed, though printed is always better. And, Chaosium owns the text, they own the Trademark. The only thing that might prove troublesome would be finding artists and getting them to agree.

SDLeary

8 hours ago, g33k said:

I (strongly) suspect that when you add up the reasons NOT to do this, Chaosium's best estimate is that they "should not" do it (from a business POV)... that there is no way to produce this project -- up to the Chaosium standard -- with any reasonable hope that it make money.

And they're not willing to damage their rep and the Chaosium & RQ brands with a substandard product.

But again:  I am not Chaosium, so this is just another random internet opinion, worth every penny you paid for it!

I'll be honest. From my point of view, Chaosium's production standards are way over the top for game books. It's as if they are producing for collectors and not for players. But making EVERY book a coffee table edition, you increase the price and fewer people can afford it. Initially, this may draw in people that wouldn't have looked at your stuff before, but once that bump is over, you will probably sell to fewer and fewer over the long haul.

Now don't get me wrong, for prestige items like the Guide and for Special Editions I can understand it and encourage it. And in the other direction AH's standards, such as... gah... Elder Secrets and others, they really needed more. 

<snip>

Anyway... rant for another time and thread.

SDLeary

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Say rather, "they might... but it's not an urgent or immediate issue."

At the wrap of the RQClassic kickstarter, the "do it again, but with RQ3" idea was bandied about.

I remember. Whenever the question is brought up though, the general bent feels like "but why, we have this shiny new Runequest". In don't like it, but I do understand it.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

I believe that their experience of the last RQC stretch-goals dragging on and on and ooonnnnn has made them less-interested in KS projects; but I am not them, and may be misunderstanding.

Yes, I get that impression too.

SDLeary

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

My point is why bother to try and turn the BGB into RQ3 when you can just run RQ3 instead? The inter-system compatibly among BRP games measn that if someone wants to use RQ3 as thier core ruleset and port over something from the BGB, Stormbringer, CoC, etc. they can do so. 

Because you don't have access? If you want to start RQ3 these days, the buy-in is fairly steep. The "monograph" editions mitigated that, though they did lack the Gloranthan information from the fifth book.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The very GMs who appreciate the toolkit nature of BRP as the same ones who could , and mostly likely already have, mixed and matched various elements of pre-existing Chaosium (and Chaosium related) RPGs into thier previous ruleset. Probably long before the BGB every came out. 

I wholeheartedly agree. But not all GMs have the ability, or time, to collate and produce a coherent pamphlet that is detailed enough for their players. We do, because... well we are... different! 😉

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

While I'm not all that happy with the direction  the new Chasoium has gone, and have been quite outspoken about it, I have to give them credit for giving RuneQuest the sort of support it hasn't had in decades. 

 

I have to give them credit too. It is certainly nice to see what has come out of their effort.

SDLeary

And... Time for out semiannual bump! 

SDLeary

14 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Heck, the last version of BRP prior to the "Big Gold Book" was RQ3 with all the Glroanthan stuff taken out.

Yes, but people that want to scratch that RQ3 itch have to do a lot of work to do with the BGB, mainly because Stormbringer was used as the core. When you start piecing things together, they don't really fit well, as Barak points out. Its much easier to convey to a player what rules are, if you hand them in a handy volume they can browse though when creating their characters, rather than having them look through a tool book with option boxes stuffed here and there. Jason did an excellent job putting things together, but Chaosium should have planned for a second edition that ironed things out a bit more, and made those options fit together a bit easier, either by tweaking them, or by providing more guidance for integration.

As for now, now that Chaosium doesn't support the BGB, I'd like to suggest that they simply bring a classic edition of RQ3 back, the way they did RQ2. 

They won't, but a guy can dream.

SDLeary

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Tangential...

What about dividing up shields more, not only by size, but shape as well ?

What are you thinking of that would make shape relevant?

SDLeary

6 hours ago, coffeemancer said:

dang, I kinda really like that idea

It's cumbersome, but it can work if the game provides a large pool of skill points, and if players are given enough time to craft their character. 

SDLeary

1 hour ago, g33k said:

IIRC, one of the versions of BRP did something like this... Ringworld, maybe?
I recall it from a forum-discussion, but it's something I had never actually read; that one, I saw (once, in my "impoverished student" era) but no more...

So, I'm going on what I recall now (years later) of what I understood then, of whatever issue that poster was trying to make...

 

Somewhat. In Ringworld, there was no category bonus. The category values represented the highest a skill could progress (the Root Maximum) before having to declare a Branch skill.

Melee weapons (Archaic Melee Weapons) fell under Agility, and the Root Maximum for that category was STR + DEX. So Joe (STR 12, DEX 13) could train in Archaic Melee Weapons until he reached 25%. At that point, he would have to declare a specialty in order to keep advancing. The specialties were Swords, Axes, Maces, and so on, so with this example it wouldn't necessarily get too far into the weeds. But you can imagine how cumbersome this approach would be in a fantasy game where we are debating the differences of sword length, blade curvature and the direction thereof, and so on. 🙂

SDLeary

33 minutes ago, icebrand said:

My problem with this is that a guy that has 120% sword would never, ever be at 30% on anything.

Timing, measuring distance, footwork cannot be the same for a world class fighter than a random that never actually fought.

If you give Francis Ngannou an axe, he sure as hell will be leaps and bounds better than someone who doesn't know how to fight, even though he most likely didn't wield one before.

Agreed. Perhaps the "skill" is Close Combat (specialization), where the specialization is one of the weapon categories. Similar categories are at a malus (though never less than 1/2 skill), dissimilar categories at 1/2 skill? This, at least, would encapsulate basic hand-to-hand concepts into a single skill that would carry over to other weapons. And if you wanted to know another weapon category, you could always learn a new specialization starting at half Close Combat skill.

SDLeary

17 hours ago, svensson said:

OK, first thing's first, every weapon listed in the RQ rules have techniques involved in them. You fight a 2h Axe and a 1h Axe entirely differently, even if it doesn't look like it. This is even more pronounced with swords. A shortsword is not fought like a rapier is not fought like a broadsword is not fought like a greatsword. Most of this is physics. It's question of how to achieve a killing result with the least expenditure of energy... force minus resistance equals injury.

Kind of... While you are somewhat correct about Rapiers (and their descendants), straight single and double edged 1h swords, of varying lengths, are all used much the same way. They tend to be cut and thrust. There is some variation to this because of local/regional design of blades (some pointy points, some rounded points), but the basic fighting style is the same. Even Bronze Age rapiers can be used in this way.

We think shortswords are different, because of the Romans and the way their legionaries employed them. They intentionally trained to use it primarily as a thrusting weapon. This was thought unusual enough that this is commented on in primary sources, and how difficult it was to accomplish this; but Livy (Macedonian Wars) also comments about how Macedonian soldiers were horrified at the dismemberment of bodies caused by this sword. We don't hear (to my knowledge) about Greek soldiers using the Xiphos in the same way (primarily thrust).

17 hours ago, svensson said:

All that being said, I don't have a problem with swords being subdivided and I think that other weapons ought to as well. A warhammer requires the wielder to control the angle of the strike in order to put the striking surface onto the target, just like an axe or a sword does. A mace doesn't. It may appear to be the same, but I can assure you it's not.

You don't want things to be too divided though. I would keep 1h sword for most, and only call out those that might be outliers, such as the falx, by giving them low base chance. I would even leave rapiers in this category unless you are thinking of them in the later European context. Hammer and Axe should probably be in the same category of "1h hafted". Single handed maces should be placed in a "club" category, though given a lower base skill chance.

SDLeary

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

The classic method for cavalry was to use their higher speed to flank the pike line.  More effective however was the skirmisher, who used mobility to stay out of range of the slow moving formation while hitting them with projectiles.  The roman method involved hitting their shields with pilums whose tips bent, rendering them off-balance, and then slipping under the pikes to close.  Fear could sometimes cause a formation to break.  

Another method, and one which PCs could employ if faced by such, is terrain. Pike formations do NOT like rocky or soft terrain. 

SDLeary

6 hours ago, TheophilusCarter said:

I noticed that the BGB PDF was updated a few days ago.  Anyone know what's different?  Recent errata incorporated?

My guess is Chaosium updating the copyright info on the title page. I would be very happy to be wrong though.

SDLeary 

EDIT: There may be something more going on, but at first blush the changes I see are a change in Chaosium's book number (now 2026 rather than 2020), and the ISBN has changed.

2 hours ago, g33k said:

Harder to justify denying that same extra parry to a dual-weapon fighter, though; and then it's back to "why a shield instead of..." ?

 

How about... a person with a shield, gets the extra defense instance without a modifier; while a person dual wielding weapons gives a defensive penalty to the person they are facing? 

SDLeary

EDIT: upon reflection this could work, but would work better with combined rolls, as in Pendragon.

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

Interesting, the Charter excludes Revolution D100 because Revolution does not use the SIZ Characteristic.

 

Also excludes Delta Green, and all its progeny.

SDLeary

And it looks SOOOOO purdy! Very very easy to read, even on a screen! 

@lawrence.whitaker (I keep wanting to type Loz), what are we looking at here? This doesn't quite look like Warnock 10/12... but its really really easy on the eyes!

SDLeary

Ahhh, nice! Brings back fond memories of some of the RQ utilities on the old Soda archives!

macOS has a BSD userland. Think there could be any issues installed there?

SDLeary

8 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I believe it is Earth, Mastery, and Pamalt (aka Power) runes.

The RQ3 spirit magics were: Comprehension, Coordination, Endurance, Glamour, Pamalt's Touch, Strength and Vigor.  The RQ3 Rune spells were: Command Earth Elemental, Earthtouch, and Gnome-to-Gargoyle.

I'd expect these to remain as-is for RQG.

 

 

Also... organization is a bit different. Initiate and Shaman, as stated on the tin, though Shaman cannot later become Chieftains. Acolyte, priests who are not Chieftans. Chieftain, top of the heap. Cult Priest and leader of the social group in one.

SDLeary 

5 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

One interesting example here are the Sofali, who are turtle Hsunchen. Not sure if they change shapes or have some other relationship with Sofal. Iirc, Sofal made an oceanic journey during the Lightbringer quest, so at least they cover some kind of aquatic turtle, wether it's a sea turtle or a freshwater one. 

Anyway, interesting confluence of Sea and Earth (if we lump them together with reptiles for sake of ease). 

Still lays eggs on land though, so maybe merely a "guest" of the sea.

They descended from turtles:

Quote

(from the Campaign Log of Sandy Petersen's Pamaltela campaign)

According to the legends of the turtle people, they did not descend from humans, but were rather turtles who acquired the power of speech and became human in shape. The leader of the people, a turtle, comes to the surface only once a year. The people themselves dispense justice by not talking to the offender if the offense is minor, or driving him away if it is major.

 

Non-cannon, but fun. I don't remember it being said that they could change into turtles, but they did ride them, and IIRC, they reincarnated into turtles.

SDLeary

On 4/5/2022 at 10:57 PM, Nerun said:

Hi there,

Somebody know if these covers are official? Mongoose have published revised / updated book covers?

Hmmm, not sure. The first one, I think, was used on an OpenQuest publication. @Newt ?

I do believe that I read somewhere that Mongoose was reworking Legend though, so its certainly possible. 

SDLeary

P.S.: the first is similar to the OpenQuest cover in 2010, though on it there was a dwarf instead of the closest human, and a duck.

18 hours ago, Nicochan said:

In order to give a more pragmatical idea to players, is there a canonic equivalence in sounds, grammatical rules, lexicon, etc.. like:

Sartarite = ancient greek 

If so, I'd consider Theyalan languages a versions of "greek" that was really really ancient. Probably based more on Minoan.

18 hours ago, Nicochan said:

Lunar = Latin

More a language from the Fertile Crescent... so more like Mesopotamian, or Assyrian

18 hours ago, Nicochan said:

Troll = an african click language

It might have some clicks and clacks, but I think its much more than that. Deep notes and vibrations from the back of the throat or gut. Notes that project out to somewhat fit in with Darksense, which seems to be a form of echolocation.

18 hours ago, Nicochan said:

Tarshite = ancient french (d'oc)

Tarshite is a Theyalan language, so see above.

Just my 4¢ (damned inflation)

SDLeary

6 hours ago, Morien said:

It can be, especially if you can combine it with a Passion. Sure, if your skill is 15, then you are better off with an armor. However, if your skill is 20+, it might be worth it to hunt for those critical hits.

Let's say two skill 20 knights wearing chainmail (10) with shields (6) and swords, doing 5d6 of damage. If they both fight in armor, it is basically 50/50 which one will win. However, if one of them takes off his armor and gets +5, the odds shift. Now it is 20 vs 25. The 25 will crit 30% of the time, and wins the round about 3 out of 4 (I didn't run a full simulation, so this is ball park on 1d20+5-1d20 >= 0, since a draw works for the unarmored one, too). This means that he is even likelier to land a critical hit before the other guy lands a regular one, and a critical (using RAW) does double damage so on average 35 points. This is 19 points past the armor+shield, and almost a certain major wound and automatic knockdown, meaning that the next blow is likely to be a critical as well. In other words, a fight ender. Even if the skill 20 knight lands a hit, the average damage is 17.5, so 11.5 past the shield, likely not a major wound, and only 50/50 or so chance of knocking the skill 25 guy over. In short, your odds are better if you ditch the armor, and that simply does not seem right. (6d6 would make a major wound more likely on the unarmed guy's side, but on the other hand, 26 points past the armor is almost certainly a straight to unconscious hit, too, and a certain knockdown.)

Sure, if you are expecting to be in an arrow storm, or fighting whilst outnumbered, you want to have your armor on. But if you are in a duel, any rule that makes it worth while to take off your armor is a bad rule, IMHO. Especially when the reasoning for the rule is that since you have trained to fight in your armor, you are suddenly even better when fighting without it. Off the top of my head, I can't come up any situations in the stories where the knights deliberately stripped their armor off for combat, but I can come up with plenty where they specifically armored up before fighting. Two of the top of my head: Prince Lanceor going after Balin since the was the only one in armor at the time, and Lancelot yanking one knight into the room to steal his armor when confronted by Mordred and Agravaine and their cohorts for adultery. (In Le Morte, Lancelot armors up and then fights in the corridor, not near-naked as in GPC.)

What the fighting without armor should do is to tire you less. Most fights seldomly last long enough for this to be an issue, and battles usually allow for breathers. But if someone really wanted to model this, an easy way would be to give fatigue points equal to CON/3* when in heavy armor with an enclosing helmet, CON/2 in heavy armor and CON when in light armor or no armor. Once you cross the threshold, you take -5 penalty due to huffing and puffing. Each round you are not fighting at all restores 2 points, each round Defensive restores 1 point. Something like that. Mind you, that is too fiddly for me, but something like that might work, if you want to get all realistic about the downsides of wearing armor.

* Low value chosen for this effect to show up in melee, since they seldom last too many uninterrupted rounds.

Or, one could simply adjust the Armor table (Table 6.1, p.139). Change the "Heavy Load" heading to "Load". The load for Clothing and Heavy Clothing stays at N. Padded and Leather Armor becomes L(ight), and Hard Leather and above remains H(eavy). 

At the end of a fight, the GM can require the PKs to roll CON to see if they have "tired". The multiple of the roll would be based on how encumbered the PKs were. Perhaps N could be CONx5, L could be CONx4, and H could be CONx3. You could have, say, a penalty of -2 Movement. And, you could have it so that this is cumulative, should the PKs find themselves in several small combats, or a running battle.

As far as the Movement Bonus for those unencumbered, I'd say leave it. Not so much for those that want to Buckle Swashes, but for those instances when rowdy villagers or townsfolk decide they have no other option.

SDLeary

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Except... We're forgetting the myth and magic of the world.

What GM would say a DI from a Humakti Sword couldn't halve the weight of a shield?

I'm not sure having the weight of a shield would be something looked fondly upon by Humakt. "Get used to it and stop whining, or just damn well use your sword more!"

SDLeary

1 hour ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

Wouldn't a solid metal shield of that size be very heavy? You've got to manouvere the shield to parry.

Large shields were sometimes reinforced with metal which should give some sort of bonus to shield HP but they weren't solid metal if for actual use I think.

And, on occasion, there were metal sheet surfaces attached to a wooden structure, such as the Battersea Shield, and some Aspis.

SDLeary

2 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

The concept of a Humakt DI shattering an opponent's sword seems very wrong.  Assuming that the opponent is behaving vaguely honorably.

Except... Humakt. He loves shattering swords as a sign of displeasure, so it doesn't seem all that wrong. It shows that the one that asked for the "favor" was in the right.

SDLeary