Jump to content

theotherrhialto

Member
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    My first game was AD&D in 1982. I soon tried Runequest, Call of Cthulhu and then a lot more. A lot. I have tried most of the games published in the mid 80s to early 90s. I developped some amateur systems, I ran a rpg forum for a few years in early 2000s.
  • Current games
    D&D5, Call of Cthulhu, Tales From The Loop, Coriolis, Psionics (my own) In The Shadows (my own) Black Door (my own), Heroquest.
  • Location
    France
  • Blurb
    I love the basic system. James Bond rpg is still my favorite all around system, can be used for about anything.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

theotherrhialto's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/4)

7

Reputation

  1. It would depend on the contract the artist has with Sans-Détour. Is his work connected to the license, or is it the full property of Sans-Détour or limited in time... If it's in any way connected to the fact that Sans-Détour has the use of the license, then the art reverts to the artist who could make a deal with the new publisher. Or directly with Chaosium. In any case and at the very least, this artist, unless he has an exclusivity contrat with Sans-Détour (and once again it can be connected to them having the license) can very well go to make new beautiful graphics for another publisher. It would also be an editorial choice from the new publisher of course: since this art is very much connected to the Sans Détour books, will they want to continue on this visual identity or create a new one.
  2. I discovered RPG with D&D in 83. The unlimited potential of imagination and creation. And then I bought Runequest, the first box set I acquired and I discoverered world building. Mr Stafford brought to RPG the same thing JRR Tolkien had brought to me in litterature. Credibility, coherence. An example of a convincing and believable universe outside of ours. He made it true. He made it possible. He made it like he was the narrator of a world that did exist, and not the inventor of a fantasy world. I never got to meet him, but I feel like I've been sitting beside him at the campfire while he was speaking of heroic tales that touched us, and opened our eyes to... more. And for this, forever, I am thankful.
  3. Right, I read a bit too fast when I went to check the story of the franchise. On the site I read it was actually MRQ1 that was called RQ4, thus me mixing up OGL and a wrong date but they also mentioned a "Runequest Slayers" in the 90s as unpublished, in between the 3rd and the 4th edition and having gone from Avalon Hill to Wizards. A quick online search seems to indicate it has not much to do with the other versions of RQ and also indicates that RQ adventures in Glorantha was also originally commissioned by AH but never published commercially. I wonder if it shared the same system as slayers since they both originate in the same company in the same time period. Details of course and irrelevant to the conversation. The 90s is the decade when I went rpg dormant so I missed quite a few chapters in the evolution of some games I liked! But as a consequence, to me it feels like this new RQ comes right after the RQ3, so it's cool.
  4. It might work when keeping it simple. If you plan to counterattack that might mean you could attack first but you don't, and make a combat action accordingly. So if the 12 sec round with its SR is an abstract of all combat actions, it still means, when you attack first, that you might have let the slower opponent do his flourish and then strike back and hit him even though he didn't roll an attack, because you positioned yourself in such a way that his attack would be irrelevant. You could assume there are feints, flourishes and tricks on both sides, but the one who gets to hit first is the one with the best SR. As for change of intent, use the old rule: you can cancel an intention (not strike at a target that isn't there anymore) but not change it (change target). The problem really comes when acting in the same SR. Do you strike or parry. But then it is settled by the dex difference. So it comes to the same, even on the same SR, if your dex is inferior, you are reacting. I would make it simple again, that in that case you have to parry. And you can strike on the next SR. You just lose 1 SR because you had to parry. I think it is simple, you can get hit, killed, incapacitated, disarmed etc... but if not you can still attack, just a little bit later than you hoped for. It does become more complicated when equal SR and equal Dex. That means everything happens at the same time. So does it mean two attacks without parries, or two attacks and parries played before the resolution of the outcome? Two attacks without parries would really be dangerous, and considering there are only 12 SR and odds will be many attacks will occur on the same SR it would be deadly without giving a chance for one of the opponents to parry instead of strike and stab each other at the same time. It might be realistic and deadly though, you just launch at each other hit at the same time and kill each other without a chance to block or dodge. I'd take the two attacks and parries, roll the dice and see who comes out on top. But in this case, like what I mention above, it uses SR as an abstract notion of speed and not as a 1sec segment in a 12 sec round.
  5. Thanks. It does make it clear. I'll remember that.
  6. As I said before, I also like this system except that in my mind it doesn't fit with a 12sec round. But I do like the tactical choice of weapons and whether to use a parry, a dodge or take it all and ripost if you use a 1h weapon. Just seems more "real" on a shorter time period. I can see it in a very short round, but it is harder to imagine just parrying during 12sec. I guess it comes to the same feeling that is being discussed about multiple missile attacks on another thread.
  7. I think it makes sense in the end, I agree with your and Psullie. A shield protects you from missiles and absorbs more damages. A main gauche not much and it doesn't fit in the Gloranthan style. The edge would really be either in duel with the same kind of weapon, or with multiple opponents so it would be a case by case but in general not necessary unless you are really proficient with it. And it certainly wouldn't be of much use against a troll's club.
  8. Yes, sorry, I get confused about this too sometimes. But it's because the goose is officially named as RQ2 so I'm not sure what is what when people mention RQ2. As for me, I'd call it RQ5, with RQ1 being indeed the 78, RQ2 the one I played with and I quoted, RQ3, the Avalon Hill, RQ4 the 1993 OGL version, RQ5 the Mongoose, version 1 and 2 (the version 2 being the one officially named RQII), RQ6 the Design Mechanism one and now we are onto RQ7 or RQG. It's just a matter or talking about the same thing. As for me, I started playing with the RQ 80s, the 2nd edition UK box version with the purple sides then used the AH box set but haven't tried any of the later versions so I'm more than happy to come home.
  9. Wow, thank you for the errata! And the historical lesson. I didn't take time trying to look into other versions like the gw print of RQ3 because I don't have them at hand but I remember we kept the old rule when playing with the AH version. Cheers!
  10. Thank you Paid a bod yn dwp. If I may stir some more troubles re: the rule of RQ2 about 1h weapon not able to attack and parry in the same round. After digging into my old book rules (I am a bit rusty, I haven't played RQ since 1988 I believe). I find that in what I call RQ3, the Avalon Hill edition, there is indeed a mention that the adventurer "may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two-handed weapons, however, can be used to attack once and parry once." P48 of the player's guide. However, in the 1980 RQ Chaosium Rulebook by Steve Perrin and Ray Turney (I guess it is considered as RQ1) P22, Rurik's Saga, example of fight. We have Rurik, wielding a one handed cudgel, against Herkan fighting with a rapier. And both attack and parry in the same round with their weapons. (I quote ' Second melee round, Herkan rolls 14 and Rurik's parry of 43 is another miss. The hit location is 9, abdomen, and Rurik feels the metal of the rapier enter his side. It's a shallow wound (only 2 points rolled for damage). Rurik misses his return attack and Herkan misses his parry. - I am too lazy to copy more, but on the third round, Herkan hits, Rurik misses his parry and Rurik succeeds in attack and Herkan misses his parry and gets hit. So both characters attack and parry in the same round.) Meaning one handed weapons could be both used to attack and parry. And it couldn't be argued that the weapon can be used to attack or parry in the same round because it misses its first action since, in the example I give, an attack hits, and then, the character is allowed to parry with the same one handed weapon in the same round. So in the original RQ 1 handed weapons could be used to attack and parry in the same round. Things changed with the Avalon Hill RQ and, obviously, with the RQ2 from Mongoose. So I guess it might make sense for Chaosium to go back to the Chaosium version, i.e. RQ1, but with of course a few modern improvements. Personnally, I can work with both, although I do prefer the 1h weapon can attack and parry in the same round. The AH version forces the character to forfet a parry if he wants to strike back when he has a slower SR than the attacker, which is very risky, or use dodge to avoid an attack instead of a parry when you are slower and still want to attack in the same round. It makes sense also, although in a "realistic way" I would see it happen in 3 or 6 seconds round and not 12, because it feels weird that you parry for 12 sec without being able to strike back. But in a shorter round unit, it feels more natural to choose between engaging your weapon in a parry or in an attack based on your speed or action/reaction.
  11. We agree on that. If a 1 handed weapon can indeed attack and parry in the same round just not in the same SR, I see the fact of being able to attack and parry on the same SR becoming crucial in a fight with several opponents, allowing for the character to attack one foe and parry another who would attack him during the same SR.
  12. Thank you for your answer. Yes, that is indeed the main point of confusion for me. It would appear, when reading about the rules for two weapons fighting, that it does imply that a 1h weapon can attack or parry in a round and not both, as per the RQ2 rules you quote, and it would thus seems logical that using two weapon has the first benefit of allowing one attack and one parry in the same round. However, I am under the impression that the QS, and RQG are now allowing for a 1h weapon to attack and parry in the same round, (just not in the same SR), although, as simple a thing to settle as it is, one way or the other, I didn't see it clearly established. So I could very well be mistaken. But it would be very easy to clarify by one of the authors.
  13. Greetings to all. I have a little question. I have seen that in the quickstart, a rule for 2 weapons fighting indicates the two weapons can be used for 2 attacks, 2 parries or 1 attack and 1 parry. However, I understand (or I think I do, I could very well be wrong), that a single weapon can be used for attacking and parrying except, it would seem, that it cannot both attack and parry on the same SR. A parry can be done at any time as it doesn't count for any SR. What would therefore be the advantage of two weapons fighting in that terms, if any? Seems to me the main advantage is being able to parry a different attacker on the same SR the character is attacking another and thus has his attacking weapon engaged. But then, I get confused: could the attacking weapon still parry, as a single weapon would? Thus it wouldn't really be one attack and one parry but more like one attack and two parries without malus. Or two attacks and two parries without malus. It's this expression, "one attack and one parry" that confuses me, because it feels like it should be something different from the one weapon use, but with one weapon you already can perform one attack and one parry, and also, with one weapon, attack and parry are done at the full skill level, but if not trained with a second weapon, the second weapons actions are done with a serious penalty, which makes it even less attractive. Or am I mistaken somewhere?
×
×
  • Create New...