Jump to content
weasel fierce

Runequest 3, house rules, Borderlands and questions

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It's a forest  for the trees sort of situation. I jumped in this thread because it was a RQ3 thread and the OP wanted to port over the RQG stuff that he liked.  Then it got turned into a debate about the relative merits of RQG vs. RQ3, and we all kind of jumped in an backed our favorite horse for the win. It's just that the OP wasn't running a race between the two.  And we proba bly need someone wiser than  I to step in and tell us to go debate elsewhere and leave this thread for the OPs original purpose.

No, so far—with a lot of drift—we have handled this to a greater degree for ourselves, you  got the drift when I mentioned it... others of the community have stepped up and said in very polite tone, uhh guys drifting... There have been a few knuckle draggers that could not figure this out (like me, is this a bit of drift?... oops, shit, oops) but the moderators have snuck in and asked them to “knock it off” so... Always worth mentioning, when someone says "time for a change” and even if everyone agrees, It will still take a few posts to filter down through the email response hierarchy.

It could be woise!

—Miracle Max

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

What do you mean here? It seemed to me RQ3 was same as RQG in that regard: 3 meters per SR.

In RQIII, the move is per SR. In RQG, the move is done in 1 shot at the SR action.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

I also spotted some rules for long vs short weapons/close combat/etc.

Those are the close in maneuvers I spoke earlier. Very useful when used correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kloster said:

A lot of maneuvers: Attack on the run, closing in, pushing, disarm, striking the weapon,

I couldn't quite grasp the RQ3 rules about movement -- the wording wasn't clear at all to me -- until...

23 minutes ago, Kloster said:

In RQIII, the move is per SR. In RQG, the move is done in 1 shot at the SR action.

...which basically helped put everything in place. So the whole thing about "Attacking on the Run", for instance, which reduces your movement to 2m instead of 3m per SR, that's only for the SR on which you attack on the run, then, right? Like, in a melee round, you could be running full speed (3m/SR) for a few SRs, then attack an enemy you're running by (only moving by 2m on that SR) and then continuing to run in the remaining SRs until SR 10?

That's kind of funny to me that RQ3 is using these big, abstract melee rounds that are a dozen seconds long, only to actually use Strike Ranks as, effectively, smaller combat turns, down to a resolution of around 1 second. Basically slashing the granularity of combat down to a GURPS-like level of 1-second turns.

Doesn't that make combat combat much longer to play, as the GM needs to go through each SR one by one, checking with every player what's going on and how interwoven actions resolve exactly? Also doesn't that result in combats where characters are frenetically running around each other like a bad Benny Hill episode? What prevents me from always attacking and running away, then running back/attacking/running away again?

21 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Those are the close in maneuvers I spoke earlier. Very useful when used correctly.

Yeah like you might have guessed, one of my groups is composed of GURPS crunchy-loving players, and they really enjoy these types of tactical options. That's why I'm interested in various RQ rules throughout the ages :)

Edited by lordabdul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lordabdul said:

RQ3 was heavily criticized for its expensive price tag.

I didn't say one word about "price".  I'm talking about what you got when you bought RQ3 as opposed to what you get when you buy the RQG, which is advertised as "all you need" when clearly that is not even close to being true.  In terms of rules (as opposed to setting info, etc.) RQ3 was a very complete package.  Someone not interested in Glorantha could get up and running fairly quickly if they wanted to.  (And the RQ2 rules were pretty self-sufficient, too.)

FWIW, my copy of the RQ3 Deluxe set cost me A$90 in 1984.  I was broke for quite some time afterwards!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, prinz.slasar said:

If you read the RQG Core rules, you will find many crossreferences to the Bestiary and the Adventure Book - even to supplements which aren't out yet: e.g. Game Master's Book/Guide

So I have to read the book before I buy it to discover that buying the book won't give me the game that the back cover says I'll be getting when I buy it?  Huh.

 

11 hours ago, prinz.slasar said:

So right from reading the Core Rules it's obvious that there's more thant the Core

I think you've missed the point of my argument.  There are few games that don't suggest "there's more, if you want it".  That is light-years away from "this is not a complete game, even though we claim it is".

11 hours ago, prinz.slasar said:

Beside its flaws, the Quickstart has all needed informations for rules, pregens and critters to play the scenario without any other material.

The Quickstart rules are not included in the core rulebook, nor is it supplied with the core rulebook, and if you see it on the shelf of your FLGS next to the core rulebook it would cost you additional money to actually purchase it.  How is it relevant to any discussion about the contents of the core rulebook?

11 hours ago, prinz.slasar said:

RQG is like DnD

No, it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BWP said:

I didn't say one word about "price".  I'm talking about what you got when you bought RQ3 as opposed to what you get when you buy the RQG, which is advertised as "all you need" when clearly that is not even close to being true.

Yeah my point was that, for the price of RQ3, you could get the entire RQG slipcase, since you said you didn't like to be "forced to buy another book". If you were talking about the hassle of going back to the shop a second time, as opposed to the problem of paying more, then yes, I agree, Chaosium should have made that clear for potential buyers.... but it's probably more of a marketing problem than anything. There's a little known game from WotC that also puts things like creature stats in a completely separate book.

Edited by lordabdul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 12:38 PM, lordabdul said:

There's a little known game from WotC that also puts things like creature stats in a completely separate book.

Not the same thingD&D makes it very clear that the game consists of three core books, and if you don't have access to the three core books then the game is not complete and you won't be able to play it.  (They also go to some trouble to point out that it's really only one player -- the DM -- who needs access to all three books.)  That is not how RQG is promoted.

I'm not questioning the need/desirability of making the Bestiary a separate volume.  I'm only commenting on the marketing decisions.  Mind you that's only a tangential consideration to the issue of why the RQ3 rules were superior.  Lord knows that were plenty of poor marketing decisions surrounding RQ3!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BWP said:

Not the same thingD&D makes it very clear that the game consists of three core books

While, again, I definitely agree with you that Chaosium should fix the marketing of RQG, my joke about D&D wasn't totally off either. WotC doesn't make it super clear either: the PHB never states on the back cover that you need the other books (although it does reference them for "when you're ready for even more, expand your adventures..."). What makes it OK in the case of the PHB is that, for instance, it has an appendix with 8 pages of monster stats, so indeed you're not completely out in the cold with only 1 book, unlike RQG where there are zero examples of monster stats.

59 minutes ago, BWP said:

Mind you that's only a tangential consideration to the issue of why the RQ3 rules were superior.

Yes, and by the way I'd be grateful if you could answer my earlier questions about combat and movement!

 

Edited by lordabdul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Yes, and by the way I'd be grateful if you could answer my earlier questions about combat and movement!

Sorry, I thought others had already addressed your questions ....

On 11/26/2019 at 8:35 AM, lordabdul said:

So the whole thing about "Attacking on the Run", for instance, which reduces your movement to 2m instead of 3m per SR, that's only for the SR on which you attack on the run, then, right? Like, in a melee round, you could be running full speed (3m/SR) for a few SRs, then attack an enemy you're running by (only moving by 2m on that SR) and then continuing to run in the remaining SRs until SR 10?

Yes.  Although I guess there's enough latitude in the wording of the rules to permit various interpretations, that's certainly how we've always done it.  For each SR of movement, you decide what sort of movement you want to do (within the limits of what is permitted in that particular tactical situation).  For example, you might want to move at a run (2 x base speed) or flat-out (3 x base speed), but you can't do other stuff whilst you're moving like that.  We also have a house rule (at least I think it's a house rule) that you need to spend a SR at the lower speed before you can move at the higher speed, and similarly you need to spend SR to slow down (or risk falling over or worse).  Also the GM might rule that a particular terrain type modifies the speed in other ways (e.g., mud might stop you from running at all).  TBH, I can no longer remember how much of all that is in the RQ3 rules and how much we incorporated from other games that offered similar tactical movement options; the whole move-one-hex-at-a-time was part of DragonQuest and Aftermath!, and the effect of terrain on movement (and skill roles required to avoid accidents when moving fast in difficult terrain) is also found in the WEG Star Wars D6 rules.  We've always played out our battles on a hexgrid, since time immemorial.  You play umpteen different games over forty-plus years and they kind of blur together after a while.  As I've stated elsewhere, I like my games "crunchy" -- I was playing board wargames before I ever looked at an RPG, and the same is true for most of the guys I've gamed with over the years.

On 11/26/2019 at 8:35 AM, lordabdul said:

That's kind of funny to me that RQ3 is using these big, abstract melee rounds that are a dozen seconds long, only to actually use Strike Ranks as, effectively, smaller combat turns, down to a resolution of around 1 second. Basically slashing the granularity of combat down to a GURPS-like level of 1-second turns.

That's always been one of the attractions of RQ for me, ever since RQ2.  RQ3 was a refinement and enhancement.

I guess I kind of understand the idea of "simplification" of combat rules as found in many modern RPGs, with the aim of being more appealing to people who aren't very interested in tactical situations -- but it's not my preference.  My objection to the RQG combat rules is not just the dumping of the RQ3 improvements but IMO the attempt to turn RQ2 combat into something more "modern" has not been very successful and has led to a lot of confusion and dissatisfaction.  We know the BRP core has various expressions of how to do combat, and if the aim had been "modernising and simplifying" then one of the several other BRP combat systems would probably have been a better option.

On 11/26/2019 at 8:35 AM, lordabdul said:

Doesn't that make combat combat much longer to play, as the GM needs to go through each SR one by one, checking with every player what's going on and how interwoven actions resolve exactly?

Yes.  The people I game with have no problem with that.  (It is always possible to "simplify off-the-cuff" if a particular situation doesn't seem like it needs the full tactical execution to resolve satisfactorily.  Obviously that's a judgement call at the table.)

On 11/26/2019 at 8:35 AM, lordabdul said:

Also doesn't that result in combats where characters are frenetically running around each other like a bad Benny Hill episode?

Um, no, not in my experience.

On 11/26/2019 at 8:35 AM, lordabdul said:

What prevents me from always attacking and running away, then running back/attacking/running away again?

Um ... the rules and the situation, usually.  It's easy to get into melee, not so easy to get out of it again.  If you don't want to give your opponent free attacks you need to withdraw rather than move.  Also in RQ3 you normally need to spend 3 SR (or your DEX SR) between each action.  Also each SR of movement delays your other actions by an equal amount; if I normally attack with my sword on SR 6, but I have to spend 2 SR to move up next to my target, then I won't actually attack until SR 8.  If you do a lot of movement you won't be doing much of anything else.

That being said the rules are not perfect and don't cover all possible situations, and sometimes the GM has to make judgement calls.  Well, that's why he's there!

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies!

21 hours ago, BWP said:

flat-out (3 x base speed)

Looks like this is a house rule, I can't see anything about a x3 sprint distance.

21 hours ago, BWP said:

That's always been one of the attractions of RQ for me, ever since RQ2.  

As far as I can tell, this "call out Strike Ranks one by one" thing is only RQ3. RQ2 and RQG both have the old-school melee round split in 3 phases (statement of intent, movement of non-engaged characters, resolution of melee/missiles/spells using SRs). I'm seriously thinking of using some RQ3-inspired house rules here though, I'd like melee characters able to step around a bit so the combat environment becomes useful (like cornering someone).

21 hours ago, BWP said:

It's easy to get into melee, not so easy to get out of it again.  If you don't want to give your opponent free attacks you need to withdraw rather than move.

Oh right, yes, it would take another round before you can keep moving again, I forgot about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

As far as I can tell, this "call out Strike Ranks one by one" thing is only RQ3. RQ2 and RQG both have the old-school melee round split in 3 phases (statement of intent, movement of non-engaged characters, resolution of melee/missiles/spells using SRs). I'm seriously thinking of using some RQ3-inspired house rules here though, I'd like melee characters able to step around a bit so the combat environment becomes useful (like cornering someone).

In a decade of using these wonderful combat rules, that’s about as far as I can take the RQ 3 rules straight out of the box. As physics teaches all analogies break down at some point and this seems to  be the limit of RQ 3.without HRs That is being said, that is sill pretty crunchy. Perpaps not quite to the Fantasy Trips facing fetish, or C and S attention to detail not having played GURPS  or Rolemaster I can not comment but assume it is crunchier in combat order and moment as well ., 

Edited by Bill the barbarian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Perpaps not quite to the Fantasy Trips facing fetish, or C and S attention to detail not having played GURPS  or Rolemaster I can not comment but assume it is crunchier in combat order and moment as well .

I don't remember Rolemaster (haven't played that since high school... and I'm not gonna tell you my age!), but I've played a whole bunch of GURPS and I think GURPS actually gives you "more crunch for your buck", so to speak (IMHO of course). By going with just "1 round is 1 second", instead of the hybrid "melee rounds + strike ranks" systems, it makes things a lot simpler... although the downside is that, with such fine grained combat, some things like reloading or using unbalanced weapons might take a turn or two, which means characters skipping turns (equivalent to "skipping ahead" to later SRs in RQ3), and some players just don't like skipping turns. But stepping/moving, attack/defense maneuvers, weapons' reach, etc. is IMHO better modeled and more elegant in GURPS. If you like combat with tactical options, GURPS has the best and most playable I've encountered so far IMHO. But it doesn't model spear vs. shortsword the same way, for example, so some tactical gaming aspects will play vastly differently, which might not correctly emulate the narrative tropes that RQ is going for, or the way you want it to feel. It also doesn't have a very satisfying impaling rule, but that's easily fixed by mixing RAW and RQ.

Actually, since we're in the RQ house rules thread (more or less), there's an interesting thing about impaling weapons. RQG introduces a rule where an impaled target that moves around takes half damage while doing so. GURPS has a different rule where the target takes half damage when you forcibly unstuck the impaled weapon. If you want combat to be totally bad-ass and increase mortality rates, use both rules! Impale a trollkin on a spear, use him to bludgeon the other trollkins, and then take out the spear. Damage every turn! Yay!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

If you want combat to be totally bad-ass and increase mortality rates, use both rules! Impale a trollkin on a spear, use him to bludgeon the other trollkins, and then take out the spear. Damage every turn! Yay!

Wrong forum lad, this belongs in Hibb's Warning! Egregious munckinerry err trollkinnery!

Edited by Bill the barbarian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for not answering earlier but I was offline.

On 11/25/2019 at 10:35 PM, lordabdul said:

...which basically helped put everything in place. So the whole thing about "Attacking on the Run", for instance, which reduces your movement to 2m instead of 3m per SR, that's only for the SR on which you attack on the run, then, right? Like, in a melee round, you could be running full speed (3m/SR) for a few SRs, then

In RQIII, if I remember, attacking on the run meant doing a full move and having an attack because in the middle of your move, you attack (or were attacked). This was a special case.

On 11/25/2019 at 10:35 PM, lordabdul said:

Doesn't that make combat combat much longer to play, as the GM needs to go through each SR one by one, checking with every player what's going on and how interwoven actions resolve exactly?

On what I have seen, RQIII rounds were shorter to resolve, but we had years of experience with the rules instead of a few rounds. I can't really compare.

On 11/25/2019 at 10:35 PM, lordabdul said:

Also doesn't that result in combats where characters are frenetically running around each other like a bad Benny Hill episode? What prevents me from always attacking and running away, then running back/attacking/running away again?

I've never seen that. When in combat, you were moving 1m/sr and 3m/sr when outside, so I can't think a way to have such a strategy working.

On 11/25/2019 at 10:35 PM, lordabdul said:

Yeah like you might have guessed, one of my groups is composed of GURPS crunchy-loving players, and they really enjoy these types of tactical options. That's why I'm interested in various RQ rules throughout the ages :)

I like crunchy games: I am playing Hero (Champions in fact) since 1986, but even if I purchased GURPS 1, I've never played it (nor any other release). I can not compare.

On 11/26/2019 at 1:20 AM, Lloyd Dupont said:

Those were the days! :D

I got the French version at the time! :P 

Lucky guy. The Oriflam print was both much cheaper and nicer than the AH one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 12:39 AM, BWP said:
On 11/22/2019 at 9:41 PM, soltakss said:

RQ3 had an awful lot of RQ2 stuff in it as well.

I'd be interested in which RQ3 Rules you think have been dropped from RQG.

Well, APP back to CHA obviously.  I've heard the arguments and I don't know that I disagree, except that now we have the obvious cases of ugly critters now having limits on their magic etc., which I think is yet another clear example of "let's write a new rule and not really think about the consequences".

Sensible hit point calculation and location distribution.

Sensible skill bonus calculations.

A better way of determining species characteristic maximums.

Missile target locations.

A more integrated combat system that incorporates movement and other tactical options.  (I'm not really including the change back to 12 SR, since the number of SR in a round is an arbitrary value to begin with, and any particular arbitrary number is as good as any other, assuming that everything else related to SR calculations is adjusted accordingly.)

Combat and damage rules that actually make sense as written.  I'm not claiming that RQ3 was perfect in this respect, but it was better than the hot mess that's RQG.

Is knockback in RQG?  If not, then that's something that was dropped.

I don't miss the "Fatigue" rules, as such, because they were not a strength of RQ3.  The concept of Fatigue is not a terrible one, just a real bear to actually administrate.  I can't really remember the ENC rules from RQ2, but I don't recall having any real problems with it, but I liked the RQ3 rules better (when Fatigue was removed from consideration).  I don't know what the equivalent RQG rules are, if there are any.  (I don't think I've ever been involved in any game where encumbrance and carrying capacity was not kind of hand-waved most of the time, but I think that it's important for any game to address the issue in some way -- better to have a system you don't like than no system at all, IMO.)

Thanks, I'd have to check the RQG rules to double-check, to see how they differ from RQ3, if they do differ.

Some of those are very subjective, but I see what you mean. 

On 11/25/2019 at 12:39 AM, BWP said:

Related to the above, the complete absence of non-humans from the RQG book is ridiculous.  Not only does it mean you can't play anything other than a human, you can't even meet anything that isn't a human.  The bare minimum that should have been included is a short list of common animals, so your players could at least fight a rock lizard or something.  Nowhere in the RQG advertising does it tell the prospective new customer that "this is not a complete game, there's more stuff you need to buy before you can play anything interesting."  The treatment of non-human PCs is obviously worse in RQG (the basic rulebook), and similarly obviously worse than in RQ2, because that at least gave you stats for many non-humans, even if there was almost nothing related to character generation for them.  Add in the RQG Bestiary and we're at least back to the same as RQ3 -- no better, no worse; but RQ3 didn't force you to buy an extra book to get to that point.

Yes, I think that RQG was just too big to contain a lot of stuff about non-humans.

On 11/25/2019 at 12:39 AM, BWP said:

Finally, I've not looked at the RQG magic rules in detail, so can't really comment extensively, other than I am not yet convinced that switching spell limits to CHA is a good idea (as touched on above).  I need to study and compare the rules sets more before I can come to any firm conclusions.  I don't really have any problems with the other changes to the magic systems that I've heard about, except maybe sorcery -- I really like the idea of the RQ3 manipulation skills but the overall execution was horribly flawed.  I think I miss the idea of familiars and how they're created, too (again, though, the actual rules were bad).  I suspect a lot more work may be required to develop the RQG sorcery rules further.

To be honest, the RQG Sorcery rules look similar to, but different from, RQ3 Sorcery. As I have no intention of playing a Sorcerer, I won't check the rules, as they don't interest me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2019 at 4:39 PM, BWP said:

Well, APP back to CHA obviously.  I've heard the arguments and I don't know that I disagree, except that now we have the obvious cases of ugly critters now having limits on their magic etc., which I think is yet another clear example of "let's write a new rule and not really think about the consequences".

Actually, this is one that I did on my own some time ago, as a house rule in RQ3. 

CHA isn't beauty, so a low CHA character is not ugly, they are simply dull and unattractive; and a high CHA character is not beautiful, they can be the ugliest person you have ever seen, but they have the ability to draw people to them, people want to help them.

Now, I haven't made it thought to Magic yet, so I'm hoping that the limits that your speaking of only affects Shaman's, and other magic types when summoning or otherwise dealing with spirits.

SDLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Actually, this is one that I did on my own some time ago, as a house rule in RQ3. 

CHA isn't beauty, so a low CHA character is not ugly, they are simply dull and unattractive; and a high CHA character is not beautiful, they can be the ugliest person you have ever seen, but they have the ability to draw people to them, people want to help them.

Now, I haven't made it thought to Magic yet, so I'm hoping that the limits that your speaking of only affects Shaman's, and other magic types when summoning or otherwise dealing with spirits.

SDLeary

Correct. CHA is not beauty. It is a measure of leadership and strength of personality. It is the ability to say "Follow me!" and find oneself leading a charge. It is a sign of divine favour, and limits your Rune points and spirit magic spells.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is that creatures (i.e., entire species) with low CHA are incapable of getting "divine favour".  That makes sense for some species, certainly.  For others ... not so much.  As I said ... a change whose consequences were not thought out.

To implement this change for the reasons you state, what was needed (and clearly not done) was to examine each sentient species and make sure that the CHA statistic for that species was appropriate for this new definition of what CHA is.  Instead, what was actually done was that old CHA values from RQ2 were copied, RQ3 APP values were relabelled as CHA, job done, boy that was easy!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BWP said:

So what you are saying is that creatures (i.e., entire species) with low CHA are incapable of getting "divine favour".  That makes sense for some species, certainly.  For others ... not so much.  As I said ... a change whose consequences were not thought out.

To implement this change for the reasons you state, what was needed (and clearly not done) was to examine each sentient species and make sure that the CHA statistic for that species was appropriate for this new definition of what CHA is.  Instead, what was actually done was that old CHA values from RQ2 were copied, RQ3 APP values were relabelled as CHA, job done, boy that was easy!

 

Jeff and Co. are final arbiters for canon, but here I do differ with him. In RQ (with CHA, whether that's a home–ruled RQ3 or RQ:G), its the combination of POW and CHA that forms Divine Favor (I might even add INT in there).

CHA is simply the insubstantial facility to attract, interact, and influence others, including spirits of all sizes.  

POW is the strength of your characters spirit.

SDLeary

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BWP said:

So what you are saying is that creatures (i.e., entire species) with low CHA are incapable of getting "divine favour".  That makes sense for some species, certainly.  For others ... not so much.  As I said ... a change whose consequences were not thought out.

To implement this change for the reasons you state, what was needed (and clearly not done) was to examine each sentient species and make sure that the CHA statistic for that species was appropriate for this new definition of what CHA is.  Instead, what was actually done was that old CHA values from RQ2 were copied, RQ3 APP values were relabelled as CHA, job done, boy that was easy!

 

Because those values happened to work in the first place. Ducks, trollkin, Tusk Riders, runners - all for one reason or another lack the same potential for divine favour. 

Given that in RQ3 APP was a weird measure of physical appearance, and yet was simply a relabelling of the old RQ2 CHA values (which were explicitly not a rating of beauty in the RQ2 rules), I think you may have your argument backwards. 

We went around and around about whether CHA should be folded into POW or vice versa. but ultimately decided that the two characteristics were different enough (spiritual energy versus force of personality). It used to be that INT was the all-important stat, with POW shortly behind. Now it is CHA, with POW shortly behind.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Jeff and Co. are final arbiters for canon, but here I do differ with him. In RQ (with CHA, whether that's a home–ruled RQ3 or RQ:G), its the combination of POW and CHA that forms Divine Favor (I might even add INT in there).

CHA is simply the insubstantial facility to attract, interact, and influence others, including spirits of all sizes.  

POW is the strength of your characters spirit.

I agree.  "CHA = the gods smile on you" doesn't make much sense with the species values as they are presented (and also, more critically, doesn't make much sense with the existence of the POW attribute).  Yet another poorly-thought-out RQG rule that I can safely workaround by house-ruling out of existence.  (That doesn't mean that CHA can't still have importance.  I don't hate it as a limit on the number of spirits you can simultaneously keep under control, for instance.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BWP said:

I agree.  "CHA = the gods smile on you" doesn't make much sense with the species values as they are presented (and also, more critically, doesn't make much sense with the existence of the POW attribute).  Yet another poorly-thought-out RQG rule that I can safely workaround by house-ruling out of existence.  (That doesn't mean that CHA can't still have importance.  I don't hate it as a limit on the number of spirits you can simultaneously keep under control, for instance.)

Like so many of your recent posts - when you write that something is  "poorly-thought-out," it often seems to mean little more than "I don't like it, therefore it must be poorly thought out." It is fine to say you don't like certain rules or an edition. Please at least show some respect towards Jason, myself, Greg, Ken, and the many others who were involved in putting this together. You might not like a rule or its implications, but it is hardly correct to say we hadn't thought it through. 

As an aside, your constant negativity about RQG in a thread about "RQ3, house rules, Borderlands and questions" is getting into tedious troll territory. Please steer your conversation appropriately, or start a new thread somewhere else.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jeff said:

Like so many of your recent posts - when you write that something is  "poorly-thought-out," it often seems to mean little more than "I don't like it, therefore it must be poorly thought out."

No, it means "I think that this was poorly thought out because the implications of the new rule lead to poor results".  When a new rule is introduced and it causes obvious (to me) problems, then that's a problem with the rule; and it logically follows that therefore there was a problem with the process that brought that rule into existence.  I certainly don't expect that you will agree with me, but accusing me of just spitting out a "I don't like it, so there!" response just makes it appear that you have no interest in criticism (or perhaps more likely, you don't have any interest in my opinions).

20 hours ago, Jeff said:

As an aside, your constant negativity about RQG in a thread about "RQ3, house rules, Borderlands and questions" is getting into tedious troll territory. Please steer your conversation appropriately, or start a new thread somewhere else.

Well, I thought that I had been responding to questions that had been directly put to me, and explaining the reasoning behind my various opinions (some of which are actually very positive towards RQG), but I agree that it's wandering off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...