frogspawner

Certainly. It just occurred to me that this way would be simple & generalized:

Award points for Allegiance to the standard Traits. Then calculate Allegiance to any religion by adding up it's specific Virtues.

There's only 13 standard Traits, and you wouldn't even have to use them all for every character. Any 'new' religions would slot-in easily just by defining their Virtues. Thoughts, anyone?

I think if I bring Allegiances into my setting, I'll simply allow characters to accrue Allegiance Points for acting acccording to the Deity's virtues, and I'll deduct Allegiance Points for behaviour contary to those virtues - the more adverse the act, the greater the reduction in Allegiance Points (not to mention other narrative measures to portray the effects of contary or 'sinful' behaviour).

Do you mean you'd do it like this...?

Award points for Allegiance to the standard Traits. Then calculate Allegiance to any religion by adding up it's specific Virtues.

That seems like a very neat way to do it. Especially considering that you don't need to record points for Traits that aren't really significant for that character - so the character sheet needn't get clogged up with all 13 standard Traits (or however many it is).

...a very, very good chance of having RQ stats available as a separate download for HQ Glorantha books.

Oooo - Glorantha rehabilitated!

But there is plenty of time to discuss this

And still get it published by "early 2012"? I don't think so!

Better get another thread started. Someone...?

Its definitely RuneQuest 6th Edition, which, as the sixth published edition of the game, its quite entitled to be.

Of course. Best of luck with it! Good News.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

*whatever* you [do] don't call it "runequest" or "runequest III". ...

Fear not! Clearly, as the 7th version of RuneQuest, it's going to be called "RuneQuest 6". So no confusion there!

Er, surely it's 7th?? Or are MRQ and MRQII conflated into one (5th) ? That doesn't seem right!

PS: Just in case... RQ7 !

Darn. My own version is going to be trumped... *again*!

PS: Good and Fast, please!

... RQ2 had Max + 1 for every D6 or bonus up to 3.

Oh yes.

Or rather, simply Max + Number of Dice (co-incidentally the same as Min when the only option was 3d6).

Max+Min was invented for RQII, where all the stats were 3d6 (for humans). But the neatness of that idea broke down when "2d6+6" style stats were introduced.

How about Max+3 (or plus the number of dice, if more than 3) ?

As Roosevelt said, always talk softly, but have a cow in orbit.

Don't have a cow, man.

Mongoose has said it will be the beginning of next year.

Ta. No good putting it on my Christmas List, then...

PS: Any assurances the rules won't be changed (just the name)?

So....

When do we think "Wayfarer" will be coming out under that name?

I'll happily buy it, if they've resisted the urge to jigger-about with Loz & Pete's rules.

...if we differentiated between parries and blocks...

OK - how?

They cant divide or multiply by 2... What makes you think they can multiply by 20? (i HOPE 5 is fine)

OK to test for a critical, multiply the roll by 10 and double it. They won't know 'doubling' is the same as multiplying...

(I would say 'and halve it' for specials - but that'd get us back into rounding...)

I have a player in my group who would quit roleplaying if there were any more complex calculation that addition and subtraction, even the 10% crits in MRQ2 make him nervous.

The worst offender in my group is a well-qualified accountant...

For goodness sake! You don't need to calculate critical/special thresholds or do any rounding! Just multiply your roll by 5 (or 20) and if it's less-than-or-equal-to the skill% then it's a special (or critical)...

(OK, this probably doesn't match the official break-points - but since they're not consistent anyway, what the heck?)

No, they do not make sense...

I suspected so, being aware of Mr Nash making a combined sword&shield skill in TGFKAMRQ2. (Gosh we need a shorthand for that - maybe a symbol? Movement Rune? ) But I also suspect many people like having separate Attack/Parry skills (for the apparently realistic detail?) - so a few more opinions from RW practitioners wouldn't go amiss...

If you have been trained to use sword&shield, and you do not have a shield, you are at a disadvantage in the real world - the stance and moves when using a shield are totally different.

Hmmm... but presumably the reverse is also true: if trained in sword only, picking up a shield would give a disadvantage? Could be hard to persuade people of that!

Just a quick note to say I'll be on the RPG Designers Seminar panel at UK Games Expo in Birmingham this weekend...

Darn! Missed it, when I could've gone! (I really must check here more often...)

Yes [bRP has an option to combine Attack & Parry], but only with the same weapon. If using a different weapon or a shield to parry, the skills are separate.

Just trying to clarify things. I think a large part of this recurring problem is there are various different options it has to be solved for - in different ways.

Maybe if we first decided which is the 'best' (most realistic?) combat-rules option...

... and solve this problem for that, then tweaks for alternative options that some people prefer might be easier to work out.

So - a question for those who 'do it for real' - do separate Attack & Parry skills actually make sense? E.g. If you trained up in Sword-and-Shield, but lost your shield in combat, would your sword-parrying then be noticeably inferior? Or would your sword (attack) skill mean you could still parry with that pretty well anyway?

No, still separate skills.

Actually, BRP gives the option of having individual Weapon skills combining Attack & Parry, which I suspect is quite popular. At least I use it.

...but rules 2. and 3. are rather unrealistic.

Rounding up and rounding down is easy enough to do in your head. What I did was to produce an Excel spreadsheet...

But, guys... no rounding is necessary. There's no need to find the exact special/critical chances by dividing the skill. A simpler way is to multiply the number rolled by 5 (or 20) - if the result is less than the skill, then it's a special (or critical)...

Also, it is [almost] exactly how it works in my new system.

Wow! Really? (Been too insanely busy recently to look - sorry). But with "bumps" instead or rerolls, I guess...

How about this... Characters have a few (say 3) personality traits, and Fate only allows them a re-roll while doing something notably in accordance with one of their traits - and/or Heroic, perhaps (if 'Fate' likes that sort of thing...).

My own attempt at this is available in the Wiki: http://basicroleplaying.com/wiki/doku.php?id=combat:major_wound_table

"S" denotes Serious wounds and "C" Critical wounds (though 'Grievous' may have been a better name, to avoid confusion with crit hits). What constitutes a Serious/Critical(Grievous) wound is a separate issue.

(I use a probably unusual system for HPs, where characters get only about half what's normal for BRP, but stay alive until -CON. In that -5hp is Serious and -10 is Critical/Grievous - and means they suffer the appropriate injury according to the location, and sub-location struck. But that's not necessary for using the table.)