Mankcam

Yep, will do when I get back to my PC later tonight

I get that 'do not trust this security certificate' warning if I try to access BRP Central on my desktop PC using the Google Chrome web browser. However I typically check in using my mobile device, an iPad, and don't get that warning via the Safari web browser. I sometimes browse via my smartphone which also uses a version of Google Chrome, and it gets a similar warning. It may be a Google Chrome issue.

Setting looks cool, and I want to support RD100 as much as possible. Ok, backed! Added to my never-ending list of KS gaming products

I really dig BRP, my longest running RPGs have been two sprawling house-ruled BRP campaigns: 1. 'Pulp Adventures' - previously used CoC, BGB, + imported rules from White Wolf's 'Adventure!' rpg. However it now uses CoC 7E + Pulp Cthulhu book and I'm pretty happy with the recent conversion, it plays really well! 2. 'Gloranthan Epics' - a sprawling series of adventures which has evolved over many years since initially using RQ2 back in the early 1980s - my final rule set used the BGB as a foundation, with a liberal mix of RQ2, RQ3, RQ6/Mythras, and HQG. The flavour for my Gloranthan Epics campaigns have been very RQ2 in atmosphere, which now segways nicely towards the current interpretations of Glorantha; so I'm pretty happy. The upcoming RQ looks like its going for the same atmosphere I like, and depending on how it plays, RQG may well replace my own Glorantha house rules. Good days ahead!

.

I'm in the same boat in the fact that I often throw my toes into the waters of other systems, only to return to BRP at the end of the day. I'm happy to play almost any RPG, but BRP tends to tick most of my boxes when I want to GM. I love Glorantha however, so the upcoming edition of RQG will be a big winner for me. Unfortunately the setting just doesn't feel right to me with HeroQuest Glorantha. I kinda like my fantasy and sci-fi settings to be a bit more nuts 'n' bolts than what HQ provides; so I prefer to run these settings with a version of BRP, including Glorantha. In regards to HQ, as a set of narrative rules, HQ totally blows me away for a joint storytelling experience; for me it's perfect for Pulp Action, Crime Fiction, Murder Mystery, Super Heroes, etc, I really want to see another print copy edition that focuses more of these settings, with the same quality production as the HQG book. If I don't want to hand-wave a setting, but rather 'construct' a setting, then the BRP BGB is still my treasured 'go-to' book sitting on the shelf. However I have Revolution D100 laying here on my coffee table, and I am very impressed with what I am reading so far. In fact the more I explore RD100 the more I can see that it could be a viable replacement for the BGB. In many ways it feels like a more modern take on the BGB, I really want to see RD100 prosper. I kinda know what I like now, and I can pretty much say that I'm well settled either running a version of BRP or HQ. BRP is the perfect traditional RPG for me, whereas HQ is the best narrative game I have seen - most 'narrative systems' merely are rules-lite systems that pose as narrative games; whereas HQ really emulates the storytelling process in a way that surpasses many others. Many other games have pretty art and such, but as systems go they often just don't float the boat for me, although some other games are great to mine for ideas. Even some rule sets come close (ie: Taslislanta is not bad set of rules and setting, I am backing the reboot; Monte Cook's world settings are great, etc). Some really good settings are so immersed with the game mechanics that often it's easier to play them RAW if you don't want too many challenges (White Wolf World of Darkness springs to mind), so I don't convert everything to BRP or HQ. However I have found that the majority of settings I can either construct with BRP, or hand-wave with HQ. Both keep me coming back here, its hard to go elsewhere; most other systems just don't do things as good where it counts at the gaming table Plus its a great little online community Yep, welcome back Pansophy!

Could potentially be covered by a Knowledge skill perhaps ie: Knowledge (Horsemanship), Knowledge (Drive Automobile); Knowledge (Pilot Aircraft) etc

For a simple game like what is proposed, I would possibly consider combining as many skills as possible Eg: Spot, Listen = Perception Sneak, Hide = Stealth Brawl, Melee, Ranged = Combat Sleight, Devise = Manipulation Athletics, Dodge = Agility Then I would possibly allow specialisation bonuses for particular actions within the scope of that broad skill: ie Combat (Swords), Combat (Bows,etc), Agility (Climb), Agility (Dodge), Stealth (Sneak), Stealth (Hide), Manipulation (Lockpick), Manipulation (Pickpocket) etc. This way the core skill list remains concise, yet it is flexible to allow some focus in particular areas. It also makes every skill consistent with how the knowledge skills work ie: Language (German), Lore (Archaeology), Survival (Desert), etc I would probably introduce an Etiquette skill, and get rid of the Streetwise skill. Streetwise could be covered by Survival and Etiquette, depending upon what the needs are. For example, Survival (Urban) should cover some things, and Etiquette (Streetwise) could cover others. Other specialisations of Etiquette could be Etiquette (High Society) or Etiquette (Corporate Workplace), for instance (just spit-balling ideas now...) As usual, some skills would not be able to be rolled without a specialisation (such as the knowledge skills, etc). The trick would be not to allow for too many specialisations, otherwise it defeats the purpose of having a concise skill list. Just an idea.

One of the best Shield house rules I have used over the years has been in relation to the BGB culminative -30% modifier for defensive actions. With this house rule, small shields had one additional 'free parry' before the negative modifier kicks in; medium sized shields got two additional free parries, and large shields received three additional free parries. This tended to be a very effective advantage for shields, it really worked well against multiple combatants. Again this rule was not my creation, it was one I read from an online post many years ago, I'm cannot remember if it was a variation of an official rule or not. It worked well when used for BGB rules, so it should work just as well for MW or SB.

I have always preferred RuneQuest for Glorantha, just personal taste I guess. But for a Pulp Action, Crime Investigation, or Super Heroes game I think HQ would be absolutely PERFECT. So jealous !!!

HQ Supers sounds really cool!

'Runeslinger' is probably one of the best YouTube rpg reviewers I have come across; I always keep an eye out for his reviews and unboxing videos in my feeds Its good to see he has some of his work published with Design Mechanism His explanatory series on playing Mythras (well, RQ6 back then) is exceptionally good for GMs preparing to run a RQ6/ Mythras campaign Parallel Lines looks interesting, I think it will be very handy for Luther Arkright GMs. Quite an emotive little video this time

lol

I totally agree. One of the strengths of RuneQuest (and Mythras) is the tactile nature of melee combat. Most other games I have played seem to feel lacking with this feeling, so I would consider Hit Locations an essential part of any setting which has a focus on hand to hand combat. These days its not so much about having one system to do everything, its more about matching game mechanics to setting and flavour. We used to play completely different systems for this, but these days we can stick with BRP as a core system and go to many different varieties of the system and use it for whatever setting we want to run. Great days indeed. I am unsure if I would use Mythras for an investigative game, or even a pulpy or action-paced game. I am not saying that it cannot do these things, but it's strengths lay elsewhere. For a setting with a focus on hand-to-hand combat, it really does shine, just like RuneQuest does; perhaps more so with the special combat effects. Mythic Britain is the perfect example of this, with all the muddy and bloody glory of a Bernard Cornwell novel or HBO Vikings series. So if playing any setting like this with Mythras, then Hit Locations are a must-have in my opinion.

Besides the Sapienza article, I wonder how much is different from the Runemasters section from Gloranthan Classics: Borderlands & Beyond? I have that in print and pdf form, so I'm a little reluctant to pay for the same content again. However it will be very handy for those who missed the Gloranthan Classics compendiums.

Yeah Magic World as a title was a throwback to the 1980s Worlds of Wonder box, which had three different genres, with Magic World being one of them. The most recent releae of Magic World had nothing to do with the Worlds of Wonder rules, except that it was BRP based, I was very unhappy about that. However it was a good idea to get the Elric/Stormbringer mechanics back in print. For me the strength is the ease of char gen in the most recent addition, and the fact that alot of the Stormbringer stuff found it's way into print again via the MagicWorld book or the Advanced Sorcery supplement. I was never a big one on the variable AP + MW Table over the RQ Hit Locations idea, so I wasn't looking at porting to it. However the char gen was so quick, that was an excellent idea. It hinted at a reasonable high fantasy setting, but that needed to be more realised. Having more of an edge to setting flavour would have worked well. A grim Dark Ages setting like The Brothers Grimm Tales would have been good, or something a little gonzo (think Terry Pratchett/Brian Froud mixing with Fritz Leiber) like Fighting Fantasy's world of Titan could have worked as well. I think the biggest issues with it was definitely the game's name of 'Magic World', and it also needed more eye candy - title pages should of had colour plates, for instance. I am glad I have the book however, it is still a great little fantasy version of BRP, and IMO it's perfect for converting old D&D scenarios into better mechanics

In my Pulp CoC 7E we use good optional rules for this: Typically we only roll the Hit Location Table if a Major Wound is scored (half HP). Then the PC makes a CON% (really a CONx5%) roll; failure indicates some form of impairment or incapacitation, depending upon what Limb location is rolled. No specific Limb HP at all; just Total HP. It works well for this setting, as most melee combat is much quicker like this; it's mainly fist fights and bar room brawls, so it doesn't make sense to keep rolling Hit Locations here. However when using firearms there is a reasonable chance that a Major Wound is scored, so then it becomes important where someone got shot, and how capable they are after that. So it works really well for in a Pulp Action setting, and I think you could do it with Mythras just as easily as with any of the other BRP games. However for settings that focus more on gladiatorial style melee combat then I would definitely keep Hit Locations as they are, it feels much better for me.

Yes, especially seeing that many of us only linked in with the greater rpg community within the last decade or so. As a high schooler and uni student, geographically I had limited access to the original fanzines and posts back in the 1980s and 1990s. Like many others, my group of rpg friends were isolated to our own experiences, as most other gamers we came across weren't into RuneQuest back then. With the increasing presence of the internet in the 2000s I stumbled across some prominent fan sites as well as the online Gloranthan Digest; although most of the posts was archival by that time. So it's really only the last decade that I have been able to directly access the wider Gloranthan community through online forums such as this. It's always fascinating to see where the differences lay, but more often than not I see that we have often approached certain concepts from similar directions. BTW I remember when the term 'grognard' was almost derogatory, meaning someone who was a 'stale old gamer'. It seems since the OSR we have embraced the term, encompassing it to mean 'rpg consultants'. Or perhaps its just because we ARE actually stale older gamers now, heh heh

Once you see it, it cannot be overlooked, heh heh

Matrices were discussed in RQ2, and in RQ3 they were used interchangeable with Enchanted Items. I always felt the rather objective term of 'matrix' may have been a God Learner title, and perhaps many of the more theistic or animistic cultures referred to these items as being 'enchanted', instead of being a 'matrix'. Basically a matrix is an item which holds spells, and grants the user to cast those spells as if they had the knowledge to do so. Given how long these games have been in existence, like many people I ended up playing Glorantha with a mix of RQ2/RQ3/BGB, as well as my own homebrew rules. So this is one of those YGMV posts. Glorantha strikes me as a mix of a high-magic AND low-magic setting. Everyone can cast some folky low-magic (which fulfills the role of Feats/Talents in more pulpy settings), and the more proficient and prominent people (Runemasters) have access to more potent magics. With magic being known everywhere, sometimes limits need to be placed so not to detract from the importance of the Runemasters. One thing I did stipulate in my Glorantha was that matrices/enchanted items had to have their spells imbued into either Crystals or Truestone in order to contain permanent magic. This excluded unique magical items which had magical properties created from magical resonance, or were holy/mythic items from other Planes etc (so this gave a rationale for many of the unique items from RQ2 Plunder, for instance). When enchanting an item other than Crystals or Truestone, the item was merely 'charmed', and only held one-use magic, which was expended upon use. For permanent magic which could be replenished, the item needed to have POW, which Crystals and Truestone have as natural properties. So for charms, our characters had to roll under their spell casting skill and their Enchant skill, and spend double MP, and then the item was charmed with a one-use version of that spell that anyone could use (unless specific additional conditions were placed on use, an extra MP per condition). For permanent enchantments, the character had to transfer a number of POW into a crystal or piece of Truestone. The POW equaled the MP used in the spell, and they were also required to roll under their spell casting skill and their Enchant skill, and then the crystal had a permanent version of that spell. The crystal had its own POW, which was the maximum that could be filled with POW from the character used for a spell. In its natural state, a crystal's POW could be used as additional MP for an attuned character; but this POW could also be 're-purposed' if a spell was imbued into the crystal. So for example, a crystal with POW 7 would have naturally been able to be used as an additional 7MP to an attuned character. But it could also be re-purposed to contain Heal 3 and Befuddle 2, with 2 POW left-over 'unenchanted'; thus being able to be used as an additional 2MP supply for the attuned character. So I often had crystals built into items, and decreed if the item was associated with the intended purpose of the magic, then that spell was easier to enchant into the item. So a crystal which held Bladesharp 3 would often be crafted into a sword, for instance. This led to crystals being quite valuable, as they had all the typical properties of RQ2/RQ3 Crystals, as well as the exclusivity of being able to hold permanent spells. This also kept the game from getting bloated from every commoner running around with heaps of magic items. Given that crystals are actually the crystalline formation of the Blood of Dead Gods, it really felt quite Gloranthan. I should point out that this was not my idea. It seemed to develop in the minds of many, I have read it before numerous times in mailing lists, forums, game table discussions etc. I was unsure if any of the official writers elaborated on it or not, but it was a great way not to overbalance the magical economy, yet still felt very Gloranthan.

In a sense most significant hunts could be a ritual ( which has the side effect of replenishing magical energy). Hunting day to day quarry like fowl probably would not qualify, but going out and being encamped in a hunting party after major beasts could all considered participation in a ritualised event. In this case the hunting party could be considered sanctified, rather than any specific location.

Wow, that looks really good

Guess we won't know too much more until the published info comes out. We know that MOB has been involved with formulating some Gloranthan resources on Casino Town & God Forgot, so I guess this may show up in that work. Interesting stuff.

I really love that RQ2 map, one of the best maps for flavour anywhere. Up there with a good map of Middle Earth I reckon. However I'm holding out for the one from HQG, which looks like a more colourful version of Wilm Chuch's map. Then Redbubble gets my money! (Although the b&W one may actually be more readable on a coffee mug...hmmm)