Psullie

2 minutes ago, Mac said:

In the mail to ajs!  The Thread is dead!

as I imagine would many of ajs's PC's in Scorpion Hall

36 minutes ago, Colgrevance said:

Excuse me, but where exactly in the rules is this spelled out? I was wondering the same thing as roberrober...

As Phil pointed out I was carrying that over from the Quickstart... mmm

1 hour ago, Zit said:

Are Durulz mammals ? I'm asking because of the breast armour the duck is wearing.

The big duck secret is that they are actually platypus - therefore egg laying mammals 😁

1 hour ago, Tigerwomble said:

My players are old and cynical and as Jeff said, of the D&D tribe. Maybe being young they are more accepting. Great to hear anyway.

Have your players run onto a group (flock?) of veteran zombie hunters - if they don't respect them maybe they'll fear them...

it's what he's armed with that interests me.... 

aye don't throw them out, some here would get use out of them.. 

Scan v Hide - with a Success v a Success or Special v a Special result the Highest dice roll wins. 

Combat uses different rules when comparing Success v Success, so a Successful Dodge wins over a Successful Attack, your adventurer is safe.

8 hours ago, simonh said:

I’m interested because I’m semi-house bound at the moment but I’ve not run a game virtually before. What are the pros and cons of Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds or any of the other options?or just doing it via Hangouts?

I should say if I do run a game, my first choice would be for a party of Lunars. I have a particular long term mission in mind.

I ran a test game with Roll20 last January, it was great fun and it really benefits by taking the time as GM to set up maps, handouts, mood pictures beforehand and avail of the shared screen, and the dice rolling macros are fun, easy for instance to create a hit location button. My only gripe was frequent audio dropouts which would result in players missing bit which can torpedo the pace the game. We alternated between R20 & discord for audio and saw no real difference. 

Phil, superb work here, thanks!

1 hour ago, deleriad said:

Except that is not the rules as written and would be a house rule. There are very good reasons why it is written as it is because if you start applying some modifiers before the split and some after,  you're in for a whole world of confusion. It's perfectly fine as a house rule that lets you tweak the game to the way you want it but bad for a rulebook rule because you end up having to write follow up rules, clarifications and so on. 

From a purely rules as rules perspective there are no lack of problems with splitting, high skills modifiers and strike ranks and how they all interact in a horrible mess but that's a whole other issue. In terms of what is in RQG then basing the split on "natural skill" (a term that is never defined or used anywhere else) is probably the best way to go.

Fair enough, but how does it work the other way. If my 'natural' skill of 100+% is reduced to less than 100 do I lose the ability to make two attacks? Also if, for example my skill of 150% is attacking a mook with 60%, then my choice is attack once with 100 v10 (happy with this) or is it two attacks at 75v60 or two at 50v10?

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Which would lead to exactly the time travel loop paradox that I described. You'd need to know what the opponent is going to declare before you can declare yourself, and vice versa. The RQG rules don't have that problem. I'm not entirely happy with having two mechanics for solving the same problem, but I have yet to try it out in game, and skills over 100 are not something I typically come across in my games anyway so I'm not worrying about it too much for my own sake.

I'm not conned about the Statement of Intent phase as I view this as 'subject to action' any way so as a GM I've no problem with 'you dive in hoping to make two attacks but the xyz are far tougher than you anticipated so you only get one'. I'd like to start including powerful NPC's with skills 100+ because I like the whole concept of they are really good so your chance of success is less 

I'd be inclined to reduce any skills before the spilt. So my 130 v 130 would reduce my combat to 100 with two attacks at 50/50 not 35/35 or 20/20. If the opponent was good enough to reduce my skill below 100 then that would prevent me from making two attacks as both need to be 50+ 

7 hours ago, styopa said:

You enjoy a luxury of spare time then.  /envy

We play one Saturday every 2 weeks and I am sometimes literally scrambling Friday evening to convert something published to RQ.

This week a pretty interesting one: Dark Clouds Gather.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Clouds_Gather 

The UK module were great - I've always wanted to run Sentinel and Gauntlet as a RQ game

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

You all are aware that this is essentially the exact same rule for skills over 100% from RQ2? In RQ2, skills over 100% was exclusive to Rune Lords, now it is a rule of general application. 

Yep, but now with Augments and a much better chance of actually playing high powered characters the opportunity for this rule to come into play has increased 

Not saying I'm correct but I'd GM that Broo encounter slightly differently. but you raise a valid point

First off I'd suggest that the Broo are highly skilled and will reduce your attack skills. But still offer the option of two attacks.

Assuming two attacks then 140 -> 100 & 130 --> 90 - both of P1's attacks are at 50% v's Broo Parry of 90 

As for P2 - he's already engaged with two Broo with A & P so his skill is 110 - 30 = 80 so doesn't have the chase to spilt attacks.

They way I see it is that it is never good to be outclassed - attacking opponents whose skills are 100+ and greater than yours reduces your characters options. 

Old White Dwarf magazines (in the UK) used to do RQ scenarios, they occasionally come up cheap on eBay

From what I understand Chaosium are going to produce a host of supporting material including new scenarios, not to mention that the HQ material is easily ported over. 

What about the reverse, when your middling character with 85% parry runs into a serious nasty with an Attack of 130%. Sure you lose 30% off your parry but the incoming chance of a crit is lowered. Or worse when your character blows an augment and takes a 50% penalty and your opponent crit's theirs... I think there would be ample opportunity to explore this rule before the PC's hit hero level.

I'd like to play it as is for a while though before I make any house rules - especially in non-combat situations 

Community involvement and one adventure per season is about playing the long game in a similar way to Pendragon. But with Pendragon there was a well structured existing timeline to follow so it was easy to run a campaign for several game years in only a few months real time. RQ however (currently) has a much narrower campaign time. Even going from RQ1 c. 1619 to RQG c. 1627 we only cover 8 years, so the idea of generating a character now (1627) and playing until 1640ish needs a substantial amount of work from the GM not to mention source material.

Wind Lord Shield 130 - 120 = 10% parry v' Monro's 220 - 120 = 100% means that yes it is a tough fight for the Orlanthi. 

As for the troll, yep the skill difference means that the Troll would need a crit and/or Monro to fumble - or Monro could attack twice at 110% each (with reductions to 100 v 80) 

I think that the point is that characters with hero stats like this are not concerned with minions and it is better to focus the action where it matters. Monro would likely just wade through hordes of trolls before confronting their rune lord in one-to-one combat 

well 90% in a Lore skill is pretty knowledgable, easily PHD level so seven years seems appropriate

I'd imagine that it may vary slightly from region to region I think a few pages on cult ceremonies; weddings, funeral rites, initiation etc would be a really useful addition to upcoming Gods book.

and pretty awesome it is too!

8 hours ago, styopa said:

Then again, their paradigm was based on adventuring once per season, meaning essentially every session would start with a full roster of points recovered.  My game will be much faster paced, so rune point recovery will be a major balance factor I have to work out.  I also will think about some mechanic to gate npc use of their rune points, to throttle (outside of my gm arbitrary control) the natural tendency of npcs to blow their points in every encounter to the detriment of players (npcs often have no tomorrow).

This is a good point and one I hope gets significant treatment the GM's book

1 hour ago, styopa said:

**the bestiary says "broos".  I thought the singular and plural of broo was ... broo?

I always thought the plural was 'run!' 😁

15 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Adding a frame or sticker "You will find sample scenarios and sample monsters on our website" is fully acceptable. The Quickstart scenario fulfills a first step for "scenarios", but there should be one or two more. A blog series "encounter of the month" (or possibly even week) with some narrative or myth and the stats, possibly a mini-scenario, would of course be a good way to add freeby stuff and to keep people returning to your website. And content for this could  be created by customers.

Chaosium is only a handful of people and RQ is not their primary game. The Cult of Chaos here has a ton of stuff, scenarios, advice for Keepers etc all for CoC and contributed by the fans but gets no love from RQ fans - so if you all want lots of free stuff start putting up there yourselves.