Mankcam

With CoC 7E I was mainly just referring to the Characteristics being expressed as a %, which is at odds with every stat block in BRP, although easy enough to translate however. Very happy to hear about the back compatibility with RQ2 and RQ3

MRQ2 and RQ6 have brought many innovations in BRP to my gaming table, and I'm a big fan. I'll keep playing RQ6 for some time I expect. However as much I love the RQ6 mechanics, I also would have preferred to have less conversion with my old RQ2 and RQ3 resources. I'm pretty happy that the new RQ will have be able to use the back catalog of RQ2 (and probably RQ3 as well by the sounds of it). That was my biggest gripe with the MRQ SRD in the fact that it was a little cumbersome to convert old scenarios on the fly - not that it was actually hard to do, but it was a little cumbersome at times. Back compatibility is one of the things that has made Call Of Cthulhu so great over the years, the fact you can run a CoC 6E game using Masks Of Nylarthotep from the 1980s - not sure if the changes in CoC 7E have been so great in this respect. I'm very happy that back compatibility is being considered with RuneQuest Glorantha*, this is quite a good move I think. * (I can't call it RQ4, its too disrespectful to the DM, I'll have to call it RQG or just the new RQ).

I backed the RuneQuest Classic edition kickstarter out of nostalgia and I thought that it may also be a quick source of income for Chaosium. Despite such, I would like to see any new Gloranthan scenarios and setting books to be made for the upcoming RuneQuest Glorantha rules, otherwise there would be little point even publishing a new set of rules. It may make sense if the new RQ stat block is at least 90% - 95% compatible with the RQ Classic stat block, allowing those who want to keep using the RQ Classic rules to play any new material. However, having said this, I guess all BRP stat blocks are generally at least 80% compatible anyway. I used to easily re-trap Elric/Stormbringer scenarios for RQ and so forth, and I tend to do this with the current licensee products as well.

Before I jumped ship to RQ6, I tended to just use the Luck Roll from BRP BGB, except I house ruled for a Power Point cost to be used with that roll. For generalised Luck rolls as described in BGB, I requested for the player-character to spend a Power Point. This kinda equated with general rolls for which no skill seemed appropriate for, perhaps even a re-roll of a failed non-combat skill, and bog-standard stuff like that. Greater expenditure of Power Points beyond this allowed for more 'Extraordinary' Luck Rolls. I can't remember my exact ruling on the amount of Power Points used, except that the more Power Points gambled on the Luck Roll, the more extraordinary the outcome could be determined for succeeding with the Luck Roll. I do remember I used to have a scale written down from 1-10 for fantasy/sword & sorcery settings, and 1-5 for Pulp Adventure/Cinematic settings, with the idea that less PP was expended in a Pulp setting, allowing for the mechanic to be used more often. It seemed to work pretty good, and it gave Power Points a use for non-magical characters. I even remember that I formulated a list of Talents/Feats for my Pulp Era game which all followed the same mechanic; basically just allowing a reduction in Power Point cost for use with Luck Rolls associated with particular actions that the character had a knack for. I never got the Talent system off the ground, but I think that would have worked well with this Luck Roll mechanic.

Very true, and that's where compromise is the key. The players need to have fun, but not at the cost of wrecking the world that the GM is creating. At the end of the day, whether it is Skill Checks via Ticks or Skill Checks via Improvement Points, the GM should ultimately only allow what is plausible for the genre and the character, even if there may be haggling involved at times. Whatever works for the GM and troupe I reckon I would be happy whichever route Chaosium goes with for RuneQuest Glorantha. Tick Boxes are very classic, but Improvement Rolls are also pretty good; they are both just unlocks to the Sklll Check Rolls. I think the main thing is that the Skill Check Roll itself remains the same. I have always really liked that actual skill increase is never a certainty, and that even the skill point gain is a variable roll. This core mechanic is iconic and a hallmark feature for BRP, one of the really cool things that shows how innovative the system has been, and currently remains so.

Well spoken. Being a GM shouldnt mean being a HR Manager. Each troupe is different, and everyone needs to compromise. The key is to find the group's mojo and hum with that

If similar ethnic groups are separated by geographical location I would also expect some variations and interpretations of their cultural and religious practices. Also I think you'll find culture-bleed influences everywhere throughout Glorantha, just like it was in the historic ancient world.

HQ would be a good fit for Pulp Era and Super Heroes I would think. I'ld rather see that system with those genres actually, and leave fantasy for more gritty rules like RQ

Well if you're playing any kind of Pulp game, you'ld want to make Mook rules for default opponents, and only use typical combat rules for notable encounters and villains. So this would be separate for the Superpowers rules, but if you were wanting to play the comic-book style superheroes you would have to use Pulp Mooks rules as the default and then mix that in with whatever else you come up with for the Powers system.

More scenarios would be great!

I just don't see how it can be worthwhile if the page count is down to 32 pages. Might as well have a 10 page-or-less free pamphlet pdf to download off the home page instead, Even though I'm a big fan of RQ6, I usually prefer simplified rules for core rules. I love the size of Renaissance, OpenQuest Basics, and even GORE. I would like BRP Essentials to be a quick few pages of basic rules within 10 pages (or less), and only available as a free pdf download from the Chaosium site. Effectively a replacement for BRP Quickstart. Would not need magic at all, and have a minimalist weapon list, and it would not even need set skills, just have 'skill suggestions', etc. I would also like a pdf and print set of rules called BRP Core (or something to that effect). This could act as a replacement for the BGB, but in a smaller page count, something like 100 pages would suit. A nice slim hardcover about the size of Renaissance would do the trick nicely. But that's just my wish list.

I agree with this. In my Mythos sessions, the actual villains are predominantly human. The cultists, priests, psychopaths, etc. There's so much horror in the darker side of humanity that this can be more unnerving than a googly-eyed B-grade movie blob. Having notable human villains and intelligent arch-villains is the key. I have the PCs uncover evidence of otherworld or supernatural happenings with ancient texts, grissly murders, residue, debris, dreams, etc So the actual mythos skirts the corners of the game, elusive, and not wanting to be revealed in its glory. Bizarre shrieks in the night, followed by screaming, then dismembered bodies being found, that kind of thing. When I do eventually bring direct confrontation with a Mythos entity it is a really Big Deal, and even then its mainly human level horrors such as an animated corpse, a ghoul crawling out of the earth, or aquatic hybrid village-folk. I only look at direct involvement with a major Mythos being once or twice in a campaign, and even then its often towards the campaign climax. Keeping things happening in the dark so only part of the enitity is seen at any given time really helps the feeling of otherworldly horror. I have torches splutter out and electrical equipment malfunction beforehand, and even increase the chances of firearems malfunctions etc. You don't need to explain why these things happen in the presence of Mythos beings of such level, and it all adds to the frantic atmosphere. I have found that you need to reveal less to get the most out of the Mythos.

There are rules for 'Rabble' and 'Underlings" in RQ6, and Astounding Adventures (Pulp supplement) has 'Mooks' for BRP. It's easy enough to make up something on the fly as well :-)

If in doubt, terrorise a caravan or settlement with a Dragon. Then if the PCs manage to fend it off, mess with their heads and tell them that wasn't a Dragon; it was just a Dragon dreaming. It gets them every time

Well if its a Chaosium project then I guess it may use the upcoming RQ rules. I would rather she produced it for the RQ6 rules myself. The upcoming RQ rules will likely be Gloranthan-specific, whereas TDM already have a near-generic rule set just sitting there

If you are using Pirates & Dragons then I thought the Talents system would cover the 'Splats-Feats' that you described. Also as already mentioned, the Faction rules from Renaissance can certainly go a long way to providing background colour as well. I tend to think most differences are in the way a character behaves rather than a list of abilities. Sometimes this can be re-enforced by a game mechanic. RQ6 uses Passions for this. They work quite well for portraying character motivations. Easily portable into Renaissance system. Failing that, just ask the player to choose a primary Personality Trait to give to their player - no %, just a descriptor. If they use that to good effect you may want to give them a bonus for a situation (equal to +25%). If you think it could be over-used, then attach a 1 PP cost to using it, but GM discretion is the best way to monitor such things. Conceptually this Personality Trait mechanic would be similar to the role of Passions to an extent, except more based on a enduring trait rather than fluctuating motivations and relationships. Other than that I think the best thing is to encourage characters to roleplay their differences rather than rely on stat differences.

The HQ books are 90% stat free, so as a RQ player I'm pretty happy with the Pavis and Sartar books purely for the content alone, as its easy enough to port over. I would be happy if most of the setting books came out with no game mechanics stats so they are equally useful for whichever system you prefer. The campaigns require game mechanics, but the setting books themselves can be pure content in my opinion. You won't waste your purchases regardless of whether you play HQ or RQ. I bought Hero Wars when it came out about 15 years ago and upgraded to HeroQuest for the sake of it a few years later. I found it novel but not to my tastes, so I never bought HeroQuest 2. However I did purchase HeroQuest Glorantha when it was published, just to support Moon Design as I was so impressed with the G2G. I must say I like HQG much better than the earlier editions. I'm unsure if I will ever play it, it will depend upon the right troupe. However I think the more recent volume presents the rules much better, and its packed with Glorantha flavour. As an aside, I think the narrative game mechanics of HeroQuest would perhaps be more suited to Pulp Era Adventure or Detective Noir genres rather than fantasy, although it does Mythic Fantasy rather well. I tend to prefer my fantasy more down and dirty, so RQ hits the spot for me, its just a preference and not a criticism. I would love to see the HeroQuest mechanics set for the Adventure Era genre one day, I think they would be a great marriage of setting and rules. From memory I would not think you need Sartar to be able to use Pavis, although it may provide good grounding, considering New Pavis was settled by Orlanthi colonists, and also is a haven for Orlanthi & Lunar exiles (or outlaws). I would buy the HQ Sartar book first, then HQ Pavis, then perhaps the HQ Sartar Companion. The content in these books is amazing. Then after that you may want to track down RO2 Big Rubble, then move onto nearby settings (RQ2 Borderlands or RQ3 River of Cradles, Sun County). They are all good

This made me laugh so much I spilled my coffee lol

That pretty much sums it up. From a narrative perspective, when you lose HP in a game like D&D 5E it is more of a reduction in one's ability to remain capable in melee, so characters are more 'battered' than 'injured', at least until you get below 0 HP and start making the death saving rolls. As far as recovery goes, the regular rolling of Hit Dice is more like 'rallying' which is a mixture of fatigue recovery and morale. In the BRP family of games, HP loss simulates actual physical injury. Recovery is the healing process, which is why it takes much longer in game time to do (weekly rolls unless magic is used to assist). It makes every single HP count, and this alone tends to make players think of ways to avoid unnecessary combat or think of creative solutions to gain advantages in combat. It makes gritty combat scenes, although if you would like a more cinematic experience then use mook rules (or the double HP option suggested earlier). As previously said, when I run a more pulpy game I use Mook rules until I want the combat to be the main scene, then I switch to the standard combat rules. It seems to keep the pace that I want, and characters are not maimed early in the scenario. It really depends on whether you want a gritty or a cinematic session, the rules are great for both.

Yes, it would be good if Chaosium allowed TDM to have a pdf publication of AiG at some stage, as an 'alternative' vision. I would totally understand if this was a year or so after publication of Chaosium RuneQuest Glorantha, to not affect sales with their main line. It seems the title 'Adventures in Glorantha' is cursed, never to have true publication. It would be nice if the RQ6 fans could see what could have been

If I had any smidgin of talent I would be helping you mate, but I'll leave that for the artists amongst us to step in here. However it's this kind of project that goes a long way to maintain a strong fan presence for games past and present, and I totally dig the grass roots flavour of these things. Good on you tooley for flying the flag

I have a feeling I will probably like RuneQuest Glorantha. I love what Moon Design have done with the Glorantha setting so far, and content wise I am certain it will be a great read. I'm unsure how it's game mechanics will be, but I really like some of the things that have been mentioned so far, such as characters having beginning skill chances based on adding Characteristics, having hit locations, and having combat styles. So if it plays like some mix of RQ2, RQ3, and RQ6 then I'll like it. It also doesn't sound like it would be an issue to convert on the fly if I play Glorantha using RQ6 either, so its no biggie for me either way. Finally bringing Questing and Runes to prominence in regards to game mechanics also sounds quite promising. I'm looking forward to reading this.

That's a pretty good idea SDLeary, and I was also considering something like that once, except I was going to call it 'Psyche'. Sounds like it works okay for you.

heh heh the less said at conventions prior to press releases the better I suspect, look how last week went lol

I would go with ReignDragonSMH's suggestion, except just slow the SAN loss pace a little - possibly just drop the ratio to 1 SAN pt loss per every 2 or 3MP used in Sorcery, depending on your tastes. Remember that the outcome of a spell may also cause additional Sanity Loss if it's particularly nasty. For example 'Breath Of Death' is purely intended to cause suffocation, so watching that occur to the recipient should incur SAN loss, as it's certainly a hostile act designed to harm or kill. Another example is 'Curse of Sorcery', which horribly disfigures a recipient with some gruesome or monstrous quality, so seeing that would certainly incur some significant SAN loss. Should work pretty well I reckon :-)