Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About DSC1978

  • Rank


  • RPG Biography
    RQ3 since 1989
  • Current games
    RQ, PN2, COC
  • Location
  • Blurb
    40 yo, having roleplayed for almost 30 years
  1. What was your favourite version of RuneQuest to date

    No game is perfect. But if there is a real need to House Rule, then I believe the game is flawed. The background and the rest of the system should be enough to prevent the GM and players from houseruling. In my humble opinion as usual. When I purchase a product I don’t want to have to change it to make it usable. But just my two cents...
  2. Status update?

    That’s something we’ve been discussing a while ago, and the concern was that by going back to use a system from the 70s you might be missing on new players/buyers. RQ is a great game, but with an environment which could be perceived as playing under LSD those days; a few things didn’t age that well, and it was the opportunity to do a complete overhaul with this version. It seems more like a reedition than a new version to be honest, from what we can read, but we will see I guess when a proper draft will be released... but don’t expect this product to bring new gamers...
  3. RuneQuest Glorantha Gen Con 50 Preview edition

    I, for once, won't be complaining about this choice. I don't think it was bringing much to the game (even if I understand that some people might see that as a lack of options).
  4. Weapon Damages

    Ok, and if I were to demonstrate actually that from a system point of view, a 100% skill in archery is far more efficient than a 150% skill in swordsmanship, what would be your explanation i actually don't care about whether one weapon is better than another one, but I would welcome a bit of uniformity as far as I am concerned (sorry to make this point again).
  5. New RQ Design Note #18 - New Logo

    Do you really believe the logo is that important nowadays? 30 years ago, people were buying I guess based on the logo and the front cover. So I would have said yes, it was vital. Those days, with internet, people document themselves before buying anything. You can actually see a lot of small companies successfully editing games through KS where the layout/format is actually atrocious, but the concept is excellent, and people buy it. just my 2 cents anyway.
  6. New RQ Design Note #18 - New Logo

    The discussion on logo is quite funny actually and very similar to the system/rules discussions. On one side we have the players/GMs who are longing for RQ2 and would like the new edition to be actually RQ2 with a bit more background. And on the other side you have the people who wants something a bit different as if they wanted to play RQ2, they could as it was reprinted recently. I don't care much about the logo personally. Much more interested by the actual content.
  7. New RQ Design Note #18 - New Logo

    +1 Was in France last weekend, and came across the box on my bookshelves. My first role playing game *sigh*
  8. QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

    Thanks. My point exactly. I rest my case.
  9. QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

    I am still wondering whether a master at 50% is still a master as he will actually struggle to hit... Not sure where we were on that, but did we say that multiple parries would be allowed at -20%? This would mean that Bob the master swordman (120%) attacks Zac who is a better than average fighter (60%). Are we saying that a master swordman will do 60 vs 60 on thr first attack and the. 60 vs 40? seems broken to me here. Especially if the starting characters are in 75% + in their combat skill as it seems to be the case in the quick start - your master will be able to do two attacks but he'll never hit if he doesnt't have a score above 150% (plus the fact that I have always been bothered by skills above 100% ; I think it doesn't make any sense).
  10. My review of the RuneQuest Quickstart

    It might not be broken (even if I still have an issue with multiple attacks for ranged and hand to hand attacks), but it certainly shows its age and is fairly "heavy". I reserve my judgement until I see the final result, but I think it will be a missed opportunity to come with something really modern and driving the d100 system.
  11. Runequest is for giants

    Thanks guys.
  12. Runequest is for giants

    Using this thread instead of opening a new one ; is it normal for some of the elementals to have 0 movement?!? When it comes to the rest of the discussions i would go personally for level 1, 2 and 3 elemental and apply level instead of cubic meter for the effect...
  13. QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

    Entirely agree with you there. Was just speaking about the full skill rate for every shot which seems overpowered. But I think I said what I wanted to already. Don't get me wrong, it's just because I want this RQ to be the best one ever and flawless. Which is why as the Chaosium team checks this forum I thought I might give my two cents and got registered. I am not pretending to be right or representative of the majority of gamers. Have a good evening all, the sun is coming down on the old world
  14. QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

    There again, I hear you, but I think that there is a difference in between firing 2/3 arrows in a round, on a fixed target at 50m, and firing under pressure, in battle, where your life is on the line. If bows were that great, they wouldn't have been replaced by crossbow (ok, better penetration results but much slower and burdensome to carry, not even speaking about the price to make them) and later on fire arms (where it was taking forever to reload). Bows can be powerful, like every single weapon in the hands of à well trained fighter. But taking the view that multiple fire will be at your skill rate is just not realistic/logical. And I defy anybody to tell me the contrary. It's a bit like hand to hand combat. In my view, the perfect system should be an opposed test - let me explain myself, let's say we both start a fight, and we are unskilled (i.e. 25%), one of us is bound to hit the other one within a round (unless we are too afraid to try :); but 50% of the time my blow will connect, the other 50%, it will be you ). We might not deal each other a lot of damages, we might not be able of martial prowess, but I guarantee you than one of us will manage to punch/kick the other one. Now, let's say that you are actually a skilled fighter (i.e. 75%) my chances to hit you become very thin - but one of us will anyway end up winning the round (25-75 in this exemple). I think these kind of systems are elegant because they are fast, when dealing with NPC, the player makes most if not all the rolls, which is a bit more amusing and dramatic. As I said, I am not interested in a simulationist system, but just something a bit realistic otherwise my players get fairly quickly bored - people might like or dislike a system (number of dices, complexity etc.) but as long as it's logical, they will buy (into) it. When it comes to D&D or AD&D, this is why I always had a major issue. The background might be cool, the possibilities unlimited, but why on earth would you die from a single arrow at lvl 1, and be allowed to look like a porcupine still in good shape and fighting form at lvl 10?!? Just doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't appeal to me (please note, personal opinion ; if people like it, then fine). One of the best RPG when it came to that was shadowrun 3 ; it wasn't very scalable at high level, but there was a certain logic (even in the background). RQ has the same potential; yes we have ducks etc. but we also have a rich, well written and logical background (and by logical, I don't mean realistic here, but it makes sense). So not having a set of rules to match such a wonderful universe is just a bit sad (but I haven't seen the rules, so I accept completely that my rant might be without any basis). We are not in the 70s and 80s. RPG has evolved and there are a lot of avid players out there. RQ has the chance to reestablish itself as a modern reference. I just hope that the team is aware of it, and is not trying to please the old guard with just a few cosmetic changes, but nothing too heavy as we don't want people to be lost. And don't get me wrong, I am not asking for the baby to be thrown with the bath water... there are a lot of original mechanisms you can keep and I think there has been a lot of really good input (especially on the runes). For me it's a bit like watching a movie with massive holes in the scenario... it ruins it for me. Just my two cents...
  15. QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

    Greetings all, I registered to this forum just because of this thread. I disagree with the above statement. Where it is true that archery and hand to hand combat are completely different in real life, I still think that the main purpose of RQ/BRP is not to be a realistic game system, but one which allows realistic results. What I am trying to say here, is that what is important is the fact that the combat ends up being deadly, with severe consequences. It is not simulationist by trying to describe realistically every step of a fight. But I also believe that archery is being grossly misrepresented - if you could shoot twice per round basically at your skill rate, history would have been full of archers. And guess what, it is not the case. I know for a fact that the main issue I will be facing with my players at one point or another will be a sense of unfairness if using a bow gives an unmatched edge. I saw that in previous versions (last one being the Moon Design one) where it was actually easier just to go for a two hands weapon than anything else in close combat (and no, my players are not into character optimization, but they don't want to see their characters being killed because the system is flawed). And yes, there are ways around that for a GM, but it just show that you end up artificially addressing an issue with the system, instead of allowing normal play. I think therefore that the rules need to be aligned for both close combat and distance attacks. There are several ways of doing this: Archery to follow the same rules as close combat (second attach halved if skill >100%; all articles I have read lead to believe that archers being able to fire multiple times had a certain level of mastery). Hand to hand combat to be aligned with archery (you just use your full skill for the second attack at a different strike rank; bow has still an edge as you don't need to be engaged and you still have initiative - but this would be quite stupid as it would go against the way BRP has been evolving over the years) Or something a bit more innovative: second attack at -20% (for both, or archery only? your hand will start shaking because of the effort, depending also on the size of the bow, the distance, wind conditions etc. - more modificators to be taken into account?), huge edge to defenders with a shield big enough (should almost entirely negate the fire power of an archer)... Should you halve the skill only if you attack (whether hand to hand or long range) a different target, and have otherwise just a -X%/extra attack if you carry on the same target? Where I understand that RQ is not simulationist, I would hate having a flawed system just on the basis of "this is how it was done in 2nd ed/3rd ed/whatever". This is the perfect opportunity with this new version to make of RQ the perfect RPG to be honest, and all the communications I have seen so far are very encouraging and promising. But please fix this, as it doesn't make any sense and seems grossly overpowered for no particular reason (that being said, as I haven't seen the quick start nor the beta version of the rules, I accept that there might be already safeguards in place to address this point; but from the posts of some of the people involved in the new RQ in this thread, I sincerely doubt it). I am very excited about the new RQ, but at my age, with the little time I have to play, I can honestly say that I won't go and buy a flawed system anymore. I expect to have something working reasonably well without me having to tweak/rewrite some of the rules.