Jump to content

BWP

Regulars
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

83 Excellent

About BWP

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Started off with AD&D (1st) and Traveller back in 1981-ish, upgraded to DragonQuest and RuneQuest (2nd & 3rd), and have GM'd/played many, many other games since. Most notably/frequently Call of Cthulhu (1st through 6th), WEG Star Wars, D&D 3.5, Bushido, Aftermath ... generally I like my games crunchy.
  • Current games
    Running a WEG Star Wars campaign, playing in a RQ3 campaign
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Blurb
    Melbourne, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

505 profile views
  1. How is thinking that a rule will cause problems is "selfish"?! Let's play a mind-game. Let's suppose you're reading a manual on electrical repair of small appliances, and you come across a section that says: "First, fill your bath-tub with water. Now get in the bath-tub. Now plug in the device you want to repair into an active electrical outlet. Now start stripping the wires." Do you think it would be "selfish" if you think to yourself "you know, I don't think I like these instructions, they may lead to a situation that I will find undesirable"? When you read rules, you
  2. No, it means "I think that this was poorly thought out because the implications of the new rule lead to poor results". When a new rule is introduced and it causes obvious (to me) problems, then that's a problem with the rule; and it logically follows that therefore there was a problem with the process that brought that rule into existence. I certainly don't expect that you will agree with me, but accusing me of just spitting out a "I don't like it, so there!" response just makes it appear that you have no interest in criticism (or perhaps more likely, you don't have any interest in my opinio
  3. I agree. "CHA = the gods smile on you" doesn't make much sense with the species values as they are presented (and also, more critically, doesn't make much sense with the existence of the POW attribute). Yet another poorly-thought-out RQG rule that I can safely workaround by house-ruling out of existence. (That doesn't mean that CHA can't still have importance. I don't hate it as a limit on the number of spirits you can simultaneously keep under control, for instance.)
  4. So what you are saying is that creatures (i.e., entire species) with low CHA are incapable of getting "divine favour". That makes sense for some species, certainly. For others ... not so much. As I said ... a change whose consequences were not thought out. To implement this change for the reasons you state, what was needed (and clearly not done) was to examine each sentient species and make sure that the CHA statistic for that species was appropriate for this new definition of what CHA is. Instead, what was actually done was that old CHA values from RQ2 were copied, RQ3 APP values wer
  5. Sorry, I thought others had already addressed your questions .... Yes. Although I guess there's enough latitude in the wording of the rules to permit various interpretations, that's certainly how we've always done it. For each SR of movement, you decide what sort of movement you want to do (within the limits of what is permitted in that particular tactical situation). For example, you might want to move at a run (2 x base speed) or flat-out (3 x base speed), but you can't do other stuff whilst you're moving like that. We also have a house rule (at least I think it's a house rule) t
  6. Not the same thing. D&D makes it very clear that the game consists of three core books, and if you don't have access to the three core books then the game is not complete and you won't be able to play it. (They also go to some trouble to point out that it's really only one player -- the DM -- who needs access to all three books.) That is not how RQG is promoted. I'm not questioning the need/desirability of making the Bestiary a separate volume. I'm only commenting on the marketing decisions. Mind you that's only a tangential consideration to the issue of why the RQ3 rules were su
  7. So I have to read the book before I buy it to discover that buying the book won't give me the game that the back cover says I'll be getting when I buy it? Huh. I think you've missed the point of my argument. There are few games that don't suggest "there's more, if you want it". That is light-years away from "this is not a complete game, even though we claim it is". The Quickstart rules are not included in the core rulebook, nor is it supplied with the core rulebook, and if you see it on the shelf of your FLGS next to the core rulebook it would cost you additional mone
  8. I didn't say one word about "price". I'm talking about what you got when you bought RQ3 as opposed to what you get when you buy the RQG, which is advertised as "all you need" when clearly that is not even close to being true. In terms of rules (as opposed to setting info, etc.) RQ3 was a very complete package. Someone not interested in Glorantha could get up and running fairly quickly if they wanted to. (And the RQ2 rules were pretty self-sufficient, too.) FWIW, my copy of the RQ3 Deluxe set cost me A$90 in 1984. I was broke for quite some time afterwards!
  9. Well, APP back to CHA obviously. I've heard the arguments and I don't know that I disagree, except that now we have the obvious cases of ugly critters now having limits on their magic etc., which I think is yet another clear example of "let's write a new rule and not really think about the consequences". Sensible hit point calculation and location distribution. Sensible skill bonus calculations. A better way of determining species characteristic maximums. Missile target locations. A more integrated combat system that incorporates movement and other tactical options.
  10. That's your list of "awful lot" of similarities? I'll grant you the skill stuff. The rest is pretty ephemeral. The changes to INT/SIZ had become standard in just about every BRP-based game released post-RQ2, so saying that it's a "RQ3 change that was incorporated" is misleading at best. I'm reminded of a situation from many years back when one major Australian car was released (with a new name) by a different manufacturer (under a business agreement that was presumably beneficial to both companies) the "new" car was not "just" a copy of the original, there were literally hundreds of di
  11. I wish someone would say what they are. All I hear is people asserting that they exist, honest. I can't see them. While I have tremendous respect for Greg and Sandy, I think they were mistaken.
  12. Umm ... I keep looking and all I see are the good RQ3 rules that are missing. I can't recall noticing any RQ3 rules of note in RQG, and certainly nothing that would constitute "a good mix". It's not a lie from where I'm sitting. What are these "awful lot" of RQ3 rules that you're referring to? There's an entire thread (that I started) on "how much RQ3 is in RQG?" and the answer boiled down to "not a lot, and that was a deliberate choice". I'm not disputing any of that. The RQG core is still RQ2, and that's a fundamental problem with the game. You can put nice sauce on a ba
  13. Undecided? Here's what I wrote in a thread about "favourite version of RQ" from a couple of years ago (before RQG was actually released, I think): "I started with RQ2, which I liked just fine, but it always felt a little incomplete ... but I like my games crunchy and detailed. So when RQ3 came along, offering a lot more "crunch" and (mostly) refining what I already liked about RQ2, it quickly became my favourite system." The design of RQG was a backwards step -- unless, of course, you're really keen on reselling all of those old supplements. It doesn't help that, having decided to
  14. You've touched on the really good bits of RQG (and I'd also add the new character generation stuff), but have not mentioned the horrors of, well, nearly everything else. Fortunately, those good bits are really, really easy to incorporate back into RQ3.
×
×
  • Create New...