Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

59 Excellent

About BWP

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • 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

230 profile views
  1. BWP

    Facing and Positioning in RQG Combat

    Where would you derive that understanding from? You might well be correct, but I don't know that there's ever been a poll taken? We don't generally bother with setting up the miniatures if the combat positioning is very "obvious", but any time the positioning or maneuvering gets even slightly complex, then we turn to the miniatures. (This is true for any game we play, not just RQ.) Positioning was is certainly important in RQ3, with a bunch of important modifiers that can apply. I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that little if any of that is to be found in RQG. It's increasingly clear to me that any time there's a question of mechanics (as opposed to character background info, world building, etc.) -- or, if you like, "hard" vs. "soft", or "how" vs. "why" -- then the RQG rules should at best only be used as suggestions. Or, to put it another way ... if you think a situation deserves some sort of special penalty or bonus, don't look for an answer in the RQG rules -- just go with whatever "feels right" to the people at the table. As long as you do it in a consistent fashion, there should be no cause for complaint.
  2. BWP

    House Rules

    Good grief, is that silly rule still in the new game? Wait, of course it is, because RQ2 was flawless and nothing must be changed. Next you'll tell me that Xenohealing is still a thing. RQ3 sensibly ditched it (because Heal 6 is hard to get and expensive to cast, while severed limbs are hardly uncommon). Under our usual house rules we also ditched the doubled healing costs for different species because the only thing that encourages is adventuring parties made up of a single species -- i.e., the opposite of MGF. "Yeah, our duck friend has two wooden legs and a hook for a left hand because we don't go on missions backed up by Chalana Arroy priestesses. Also, he's such a useful party member, you don't want to eat him all at once."
  3. BWP

    That Charming Sword...

    I don't think that's the reason why a lot of things are "a little muddled" in the new rules, but that's probably a separate discussion .... IMO successful RPG systems are a synthesis of a few things, primarily cool roleplaying ideas and well-executed mechanics. Consider, for example, the long-term success of the older D&D systems. Prior to 3.0 the game had (mostly) dreadful mechanics, largely because the original rules were written by people who didn't know how to write good game rules. However, the game was positively seething with ideas and I think the attraction of that overcame the rules difficulties for most people. It was a relative minority who responded by coming up with alternate rules to express those same ideas (hence the original RQ and of course many other game systems). Game balance only became an issue as people became accustomed to the older rules sets and began to realise that certain game choices were much better than other game choices ("better" in the sense of "my character can grow more powerful/influential/etc."). This in turn led to greater analysis of game systems and resulted in the various new systems and editions. Personally, I don't think that game balance is that important if you consider that the role-playing group is a combined synthesis of diverse elements trying to make their way through the game world, achieving some collective goal -- so long as every member of the group has the opportunity to meaningfully contribute (which is not the same as "contributing equally"). On the other hand if your role-playing group is a collection of individuals who happen to work together for mutual convenience, then "balance" becomes a lot more important, as each individual requires the same opportunities for advancement. I like that RQG has a diversity of cults, because that's how a real world should work. Ideally players will choose their cults for role-playing reasons, and the characters will develop accordingly. The only real requirement is that the cult exists "logically" in its environment, by which I mean, if the cult has "puny" magic, what stops it from being wiped out (or fading into obscurity)? It's only logical that players will mostly gravitate to "powerful" cults because players mostly want their characters to be significant in the game world. Now, if you have a situation where you have a supposedly "powerful" cult that can't attract any interest from players because it's very difficult to get anywhere with it, then you may have a problem with the way the cult is designed.
  4. Will the new books include appropriate character generation rules (family history, etc.)?
  5. BWP


    My specific concern is that it I don't want to waste time and money on a product that won't advance my knowledge of Glorantha. (That's why I'm not paying attention to any of the Mongoose products.) It sounds like HW and then HQ1 jumped onto a different set of tracks from what had been previously "known". It also sounds like the current HQ:G products are back on the right track? I'm still not completely clear how to identify a "good" HQ product from a "bad" one. If the "safest" answer is just to avoid HW/HQ completely, then I'm OK with that.
  6. BWP


    I'm still trying to work out why HQ and RQG have different Glorantha canon. Different game systems, sure. But different background info? I had been planning to buy a bunch of the old HQ supplements (I already have a few of the even older HW books) but now I'm thinking that there doesn't seem any point. (I have absolutely no intention of actually playing HQ.)
  7. I'm not sure what the point of your post was. I was indicating my disagreement with this new "accepted wisdom". I neither needed nor wanted a change here. Of course you're free to disagree with my disagreement, but I wasn't talking about your Glorantha, was I? Everything you wrote here just reinforces my opinion that the whole "morokanths are vegetarian" concept is incredibly dull. I don't want my Glorantha to be a dull place.
  8. BWP

    elf sea creatures

    Or, they're the same devious carnivores that they always were, because that's considerably more interesting.
  9. BWP

    Runequest Beastiary impressions

    I think most people would prefer that a bestiary provide an illustration for every entry in the book. I get why that is not always possible or practical. However, I don't see that complaining about people who are praising the book is very helpful? You don't see a lot of people wishing that Dave Dobyski could have done more illustrations for Elder Secrets, etc.
  10. BWP

    Pike and Shield in RQG

    There's nothing wrong with that if the subject matter requires it. WW2 combat was a complex thing; I'm immediately suspicious of rules that make no effort to reflect that complexity. Of course I know that there are gamers who like their RPG combats "crunchy", and those who want it as simple as possible so that they can move on to the "good stuff" quickly. I came to role-playing via wargames, and my tastes reflect that. RQ, regardless of edition, was always a game system that celebrated detail and tended to attract like-minded players. Yes and no. From the miniatures perspective, yes, and too many people thought that miniatures were required and thus avoided the Deluxe sets. As an alternative to the regular ASL boards, and to simulate particularly complex close actions that would get very unwieldy on the regular boards, DASL has remained popular with many players, just using the regular counterset and not a miniature in sight. Just this year four brand-new boards were released. @AtgxtgThe "Deluxe" appellation was always referring to the "presentation", not a whole different set of rules. Avalon Hill had nothing to do with the writing of RQ3, that was all Chaosium. The point of the deal between the companies (as I understand it) is that Chaosium got better distribution of their games, and were relieved of many of the burdens of publishing -- and thus could concentrate on producing content. Avalon Hill got an entry into the (perceived to be) lucrative RPG market that already had a known name value, and they didn't need to dedicate much in the way of staff time to produce. They did dictate some unfortunate choices -- the confusing array of available versions, for instance -- but otherwise had no say over the content. In a sense, it worked -- at least to a small extent. I know wargamers who saw all the RQ3 advertisements in the pages of the General magazine, and thought it would be worth checking out, even though they had limited (at best) interest in role-playing games prior to that point. Few, if any, of these people became full-fledged converts, but they represented sales that Chaosium would never have seen otherwise. I don't think these guys objected to the rules (or the settings), they just weren't into it as a long-term activity.
  11. BWP

    Pike and Shield in RQG

    Where's this disdain for ASL suddenly coming from? Yes, it has a big rulebook. Many RPG systems have bigger books, and are less well organised. I don't think that anyone who can properly digest (say) the RQ3 rules would have any trouble learning the ASL rules. Most of the rules in that big rulebook are "special cases" and only a subset of them are ever in use at any one time .... I play ASL all the time (and have contributed, in small ways, to its design) and am happy to discuss it with anyone who wants to learn more about it -- in a more appropriate forum than this thread, of course. http://www.multimanpublishing.com/Products/tabid/58/CategoryID/4/Default.aspx
  12. BWP

    RuneQuest Dice from Q-Workshop

    I never said that I was "expecting" anything. I was commenting on how useful (or not) I thought that particular die would be on my gaming table, and I gave my reasons for it. Surely I don't need to justify my comments to you or to anyone else? I never said that I was talking about your Glorantha -- I explicitly stated what I would be doing in my game. You're entitled to think that. I think (from the discussions that I've seen here) they've rejected almost all of them. (IMO RQ3 was a clear improvement over RQ2 in pretty much every important respect, and the tack that RQG has taken just utterly baffles me.) It doesn't matter; there's room enough for both of us and more besides. [My initial thoughts were that I would run RQG with a lot of house rules imported from RQ3 (and my RQ3 already had a lot of house rules of its own!). Now I'm thinking that I'll probably run an even more customised RQ3 with a lot of stuff imported from RQG. As long as we're all having fun, who cares, right?]
  13. BWP

    RuneQuest Dice from Q-Workshop

    More likely they're expecting it to be used as a marker. "What SR is it now?" The Hit Location D20 is pretty useless IMO. Firstly it's only useful for fighting humanoids. Secondly they've left off the missile location table. (Yeah, yeah, I know ... RQG doesn't use the missile hit location table. Yet another RQ3 improvement that was dumped for no good reason. My games of RQG will have the missile locations.)
  14. BWP

    Active Fireblade?

    The RQ2 rules explicitly state that Fireblade was an active spell because it was so powerful (presumably in comparison to other battle magic spell combinations). So really it's just there to stop the game from getting unbalanced. The only problem with that is that it was nonsense; the balancing factor for Fireblade was the POW cost. In actual play Fireblade wielders were rare because of the cost, and because other combat spells (primarily Bladesharp) gave better "bang for the buck" in most situations (and were typically easier to get). Fireblade was the spell you kept up your sleeve for "special situations" (like fighting gorp) -- ideally it was kept in a spell matrix, not in your head. Also, to be honest, I'm pretty sure that we usually ignored the "lose it if you take damage" part of the spell description, although it's been an awful long time since I played a game using the RQ2 rules and I can't really remember any specifics. Clearly this was realised for RQ3, when no spirit (or divine) magic was classed as "active". There doesn't seem to me to be any sensible reason for RQG to follow RQ2 here and not RQ3 (other than the new game's inexplicable reluctance to adopt any improvements from RQ3, of course).