Jump to content

Thyrwyn

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About Thyrwyn

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Started playing D&D with the AD&D PHB in the early 80's; discovered RuneQuest shortly thereafter. I've played just about every system out there at some point, but RQ and D&D have never lost their appeal.
  • Current games
    Currently running a weekly game that I've just ported to RQG. I also play a lot of Warhammer 40K and other GW games (Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Kill Team...)
  • Location
    State College, PA
  • Blurb
    Comfortably ensconced in the "wilds" of central Pennsylvania

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Exactly. It allows an option without having to change a core mechanic. Since the current system is neither narrativist nor simulationist, the option I’m proposing satisfies both drives without negating the current rules set.
  2. That’s exactly where I’m coming from. It could be. We’ll try it out and I’ll let you know how it goes. I’m satisfied that everyone’s seeing the same potential interactions this would have (even if we disagree on the merits). Only testing it out will tell if the penalty is appropriate or not. If anyone else tries out this or a similar rule, please keep us posted.
  3. 1) The only one I've considered addresses @PhilHibbs concern as well: the character would have to have the 20% to surrender. Narratively, I see this representing circumstances or an over-matched opponent preventing one from having an earlier opportunity. 2) You could act earlier, but because of the way combat skills over 100% work in RQG, you would be sacrificing other benefits. A superior combatant should be able to act more quickly and more decisively than an less experienced one. In my mind (and in my experience), the static SR system overvalues SIZ and Reach. I am considering this rule to allow skilled combatants a measure of adaptability in the face of larger or faster opponents, or longer weapons. But at a reasonable cost. I would include "must have at least x% skill" so that it is actually an exchange. A reasonable point, and one I've considered. But the current SR system really only makes sense - either narrative or simulationist - in the first round of melee. Once the duck with the dagger gets close to the giant, they should be attacking first. I could introduce rules for closing (similar to other systems and previous editions of RQ), but they are inevitably cumbersome, and introduce their own set of problems, edge cases, and inconsistencies. I'd like the rule to be as succinct as possible. Thank you all for joining the conversation! While I understand that not everyone would be open to this kind of rule, your feedback is helping me figure out what will work best for our table. Keep it coming!
  4. Simply stated: I am considering allowing characters to take a penalty to their attack in order to resolve that attack sooner. I was considering -20% per SR. Since the attack roll represents a series of maneuvers, not a single swing/stab, this rule would represent the character rushing their blow, rather than waiting to create or exploit the best opportunity. (by character, I mean PC or NPC) Does -20% seem appropriate? How frequently would you, as a player, use that rule?
  5. Thyrwyn

    Battleboard Scale and Grid

    Am I missing the modifiers for attacking from the side and rear in RQG? Could someone please point me to the page number on which they are listed? My understanding of the RQG rules is that there are no rules for facing except for shield walls.
  6. Thyrwyn

    Movement Rate

    Movement happens before Strike Ranks begin; If you use less than half of your MOV, you may do something else (Shoot, cast spells, etc...), but your SR is delayed by 1 for each 3m you actually moved, as long as you can get it done by SR 12. (p. 192 - movement of non-engaged characters). Characters which begin the round engaged, may not move that round.
  7. Thyrwyn

    Capping Battle Magic like RQ2

    I like the mechanic, but I would (and might) use CHA instead of INT, given the changes in RQG. This feels more appropriate, and keeps it distinct from sorcery - both in terms of mechanics and setting.
  8. Thyrwyn

    Battleboard Scale and Grid

    I use 1” = 5’ each MOV equates to 2”/10’ i use a whiteboard and we are pretty loose with movement; we’re all also Warhammer 40k players and so are used to using rulers.
  9. Thyrwyn

    Capping Battle Magic like RQ2

    1. Yep - so the OP stated, which matches my experience and (conveniently) reality. But the OP was asking for opinions about restoring the cap, so I was sharing my experiences with the cap: ie, everyone just learned the spells at the capped value, so the point of being variable was rarely significant. Once acquired at the cap, it was never cast at less then the cap (exception: Heal); the only reason to learn cast less than the cap was usually “new character syndrome”, and was corrected as soon as resources allowed and was never relevant again; the mechanical process of progressing to the capped value was, in general, just book keeping and not interesting from a story or character perspective. 2. I did mention mention that Heal broke the cap rule 3. Most definitely not. “No hard limits on variable spells” was one of my favorite changes form 2nd to 3rd. I was making the suggestion to the OP, that if you dislike having no cap, it would be more efficient to just remove “variable” as a battle magic spell type, and make all of the variable spells fixed. That was my concluding suggestion to the OP, based on my reasoning as outlined in my post, and repeated in #1, above. I prefer variable spells as they are, but if I were to consider a limit, I would just make them fixed point spells. That would make them easier to use and describe, and would speed up play without Changing the play experience significantly. “What does Bladesharp do? - It adds +20% to hit and +4 damage” done. I will try to be more clear
  10. Thyrwyn

    Capping Battle Magic like RQ2

    I started with RQ2, and my experience over the last 35 years is that everyone just learns the capped value. If the limit is 4, everyone learns 4 - any limits such as INT or ‘just a starting PC’, are circumvented at the earliest opportunity, either through matrices, money, or spirits. Such circumventions add nothing to the experience of the game, so: why not make the spells fixed in cost and effect? Make them all 4 point spells at the equivalent effect ; either allow Heal to reattach a limb or divide it into 2 spells (one stops bleeding, one reattached limbs). No one who knows [not counting Heal, which broke that rule anyway, and which had meaningful breakpoints at: 2 - stopped bleeding; 3 - for those with healing focusing crystals; 4 - for editions which halved healing cast on other species; 6 - for re-attaching lost limbs]
  11. Thyrwyn

    Movement Rate

    That's the hang up: movement rate has been divorced from Strike Ranks entirely - it happens before you start counting SR. A human can move 24 meters before SR 1; Strike ranks are simply a means of determining initiative for spells & attacks & other actions in "combat time"; If you've moved that round (and moved no more than half your allowed movement) you incur an SR penalty to your actions. At least, that's RAW, and it is MUCH faster than having to move everyone one at a time as you count through the strike ranks.
  12. Thyrwyn

    Is Sword Trance broken?

    Not at all what i am talking about. Not in the slightest. I'm talking about the fact that -all else being equal - there is a significant difference in power level between a Humakti Rune Lord who knows Sword Trance and one who does not. If they both have 10 RP and know 10 different cult Rune Spells, the one that knows Sword Trance has more impact on the game, regardless of which side of the story they're on. Not even if the other chose Sever Spirit - or even True Sword. That is the balance I'm talking about when I say something is unbalanced or under-costed.
  13. Thyrwyn

    Is Sword Trance broken?

    @atgxtg we have different expectations, and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you for the great discussion, though!
  14. Thyrwyn

    Is Sword Trance broken?

    it's a system. It's implied. If balance isn't an issue, why have different points cost for different spells? why track magic points? why base HP on stats when we could just give non-PC enemies as many HP as we wanted? It's implicit in the simulationist nature of the rules. It's good design. Because it means that the GM doesn't have to take on the added burden of designing encounters specifically to keep one character from overshadowing the others. Because playing Frodo gets pretty tiresome when Gandalf's at the table. But, most importantly, it makes the game easier to run and play because there is less of a learning curve; GMs and players don't have to experience catastrophic failure because of unforeseen traps or weaknesses in the rules set. Because, believe it or not, unintentionally poorly designed encounters screw up the story the GM and the players are trying to tell. When the players steamroll through the climactic finale, or the meaningless encounter turns into a TPK because the GM didn't realize that that one little spell or ability would be so effective/ineffective; or the players expected that resource-sucking spell/ability to pull its weight and turned out to be useless - all of those things make for crappy experiences, and make the time they've invested in the game and the story seem poorly spent. There are plenty of table top RPG's that allow for thematic, engaging, immersive experiences without requiring everyone at the table to have a PhD in rules mastery. It's why I stopped running/playing D&D 3.5 - planning a game for hard core experienced players was dramatically different than planning one casual or new players - even if both games were the same level.
  15. Thyrwyn

    Is Sword Trance broken?

    You do know you're not making it better, right? 🙂 Here's the thing: that's all true in your Glorantha. It may even be GAGI (Glorantha as Greg Imagined). But that is never going to be true for everybody's Glorantha. And, for a rules system which offers less than scant advise to new GMs about how to structure and scale encounters and opposition, pretending that a spell is balanced because only lunatic outcast characters will ever have access to it is...... naive at best. RP restrictions are not effective means of achieving game balance - they either get ignored or abused. I've been playing in Glorantha for 35 years, and I can guarantee that I have never been in a party that didn't have at least one follower of Humakt, Storm Bull, Zorak Zoran, Eurmal or the like - there's always someone eager to play the lunatic outcast - and there should be. That's why those cults exist. Don't even get me started about the Chalana Arroy ogre that attained illumination and wanted to be a sorcerer and a shaman, as well. She would have succeeded to, if she hadn't started using her trollkin wards as mine detectors... that sort of gave her away.
×