Jump to content
weasel fierce

Runequest 3, house rules, Borderlands and questions

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

knock on wood the only things i have lost are from lack of software support and companies/programs dying.

I actually had some files with a huge amount of weapons and vehicles statted up for the James Bond RPG, which I lost multiple times, as every floppy or hard drive that I would put in on would somehow fail. I'd spend hours retyping it all from my hardcopy only to see go poof withing a month or two, including the sudden death of of a PC, laptop, and an Atari Portfolio for no apparent reason, a stolen laptop, all leading up to the grand finale, a house fire.

I did discover a version of the data, formatted for the Portfolio, which while I can access, is not easy to work with and would need to be manually reformatted, and has somewhat outdated values. But is seems to be free of "the curse" as it's survived all these years without incident, and is stored on three hard drives, a CD-ROM, flash drive, and even an M-Disc, which allegedly should last until the next millennium. 

Still, if Google should ever really tick me off, I'll copy the files over to a more modern format and put them on a google drive and see how long it takes to crash Google!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I did discover a version of the data, formatted for the Portfolio, which while I can access, is not easy to work with and would need to be manually reformatted, and has somewhat outdated values. But is seems to be free of "the curse" as it's survived all these years without incident, and is stored on three hard drives, a CD-ROM, flash drive, and even an M-Disc, which allegedly should last until the next millennium. 

It sounds like you forgot to put them in a safe. 😉

SDLeary

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 9:46 PM, soltakss said:

What extra rules are in RQG? Off the top of my head:

  • Runes are used well 
  • Passions are really good
  • The Sacred Time Economy is excellent
  • The Resistance Table is better than before
  • The way that Runemagic and Rune Pools work is really good
  • It is slightly harder to lose a limb in RQG than in RQ2/3
  • Sorcery is redone, probably better than RQ3 but I am not sure, as I haven't really grasped them and won't until I play a Sorcerer
  • Shamans are a lot better in RQG than in RQ2 /3.

Even if I would have preferred more RQIII than RQ2, I completely agree with this list: All those points are new, and most of them are good to very good. You can add poursuit rules and a good abstraction of economy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 2:04 AM, Glorion said:

and the godawful, horrendous RQ3 sorcery system.

It worked (and I liked it). It was calculation heavy, though less than RQG's one, but it worked. It's main problem was that it was bland.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 2:16 AM, Glorion said:

Atgxtg: actually one area I totally agree with you is that the biggest thing wrong with RQ3, worse than anything else, worse than everything else combined, was trying to take it out of Glorantha, for which Avalon Hill has some but not all of the blame. We all hated that so much that in posting here, I managed to forget that. Well, that is fixed in RQG!

 

I personally think that bringing RQ out of Glorantha was a strength. I love(d) the system and each time I GM'ed RQ, it was outside Glorantha. As a player, I like Glorantha, though.

Edited by Kloster
typing mistake
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I personally think that bringing RQ out of Glorantha was a strength. I love(d) the system and each time I GM'ed RQ, it was outside Glorantha. As a player, I like Glorantha, though.

Yes, I think bring RQ out of Glorantha probably helped RQ, as a system, but it hurt Glorantha, a s did the the AH release rate for new Gloranthan stuff, especially adventures. Adventures tend to be the lifeblood of an RPG and the fact that most of the RQ3 Glorantha ones were updates of previously available adventures, already owned by most RQ GMs, didn't help.

Accessibility was always something that hurt RQ2 and Glroantha in general. People could pickup  Vikings or Land of the Ninja and have a decent understanding of the setting , and get some adventures to get them started. With RQ3 Glorantha, what you got was glimpses into a far more detailed setting, but not enough information to feel comfortable with it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have to disagree strongly, It is a great abstraction!

:)

Thanks Bill. You're right. I'm tired and did the mistake of thinking in French and translating, instead of thinking in English.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I personally think that bringing RQ out of Glorantha was a strength. I love(d) the system and each time I GM'ed RQ, it was outside Glorantha. As a player, I like Glorantha, though.

This. It worked well (for me) outside Glorantha... including Sorcery. I love playing outside Glorantha, I loved playing inside Glorantha, and by being restricted to one, it feels a bit confining. This is one of the reasons I periodically ask the Chaosium crew for updates on Mythic Iceland... because I'll get rules that  aren't tailored for Glorantha.

SDLeary 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, I think bring RQ out of Glorantha probably helped RQ, as a system, but it hurt Glorantha, a s did the the AH release rate for new Gloranthan stuff, especially adventures. Adventures tend to be the lifeblood of an RPG and the fact that most of the RQ3 Glorantha ones were updates of previously available adventures, already owned by most RQ GMs, didn't help.

Kind of... It was AH in total that harmed Glorantha. The Chaosium crew was responsible for producing Glorantha material  (at least early on), and they did. A good  chunk of Pamaltela was ready, among  other things... but AH was (iirc) layout  and  production. I have laser prints of some of that Pamaltela stuff, in layout but without  art.

SDLeary

Share this post


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

It worked (and I liked it). It was calculation heavy, though less than RQG's one, but it worked. It's main problem was that it was bland.

The blandness was annoying, but what I hated about it was "free INT." Modified into something better with RQG, though I as GM take that further. The calculation heaviness is OK in my book, sorcery really ought to be like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Glorion said:

The blandness was annoying, but what I hated about it was "free INT." Modified into something better with RQG, though I as GM take that further. The calculation heaviness is OK in my book, sorcery really ought to be like that.

Free INT was alright, although it did limit sorcerers based on INT something that they couldn't improve.  Sandy Peterson did do a alternate set of Sorcery rules that  helped with some aspects. I think the basic problem was that R Q 2 didn't have any sort of sorcery to draw upon. So the RQ3 Sorcery  system was sort of used and ignored by most people and was sort of the go to  for many new players coming from games like D&D.

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


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

Kind of... It was AH in total that harmed Glorantha. The Chaosium crew was responsible for producing Glorantha material  (at least early on), and they did. A good  chunk of Pamaltela was ready, among  other things... but AH was (iirc) layout  and  production. I have laser prints of some of that Pamaltela stuff, in layout but without  art.

SDLeary

I wouldn't doubt it. There might have been oodles of  stuff all written up that just never got out. Ultimately all I can say is that what Gloranthan stuff did get out was either a reworking of an RQ2 product, interesting but not applicable to a old style Dragon Pass campaign,  or came out too late. The non-Gloranthan line looked interesting but we never got other cultures to round out the setting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Free INT was alright, although it did limit sorcerers based on INT something that they couldn't improve.  Sandy Peterson did do a alternate set of Sorcery rules that  helped with some aspects. I think the basic problem was that R Q 2 didn't have any sort of sorcery to draw upon. So the RQ3 Sorcery  system was sort of used and ignored by most people and was sort of the go to  for many new players coming from games like D&D.

I actually wrote up my own sorcery system, the idea being that the limitation on sorcery wouldn't be "Free Int," but knowledge. Want to cast "Shape Metal"? What's your Metal Lore? Want to cast "Control Human"? What's your Human Lore? The RQG system has a cousinship to that, one of the reasons I like it. And, with the emphasis on runes, more Gloranthan than my idea, which would be better for nonGloranthan runequest perhaps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Glorion said:

I actually wrote up my own sorcery system, the idea being that the limitation on sorcery wouldn't be "Free Int," but knowledge. Want to cast "Shape Metal"? What's your Metal Lore? Want to cast "Control Human"? What's your Human Lore? The RQG system has a cousinship to that, one of the reasons I like it. And, with the emphasis on runes, more Gloranthan than my idea, which would be better for nonGloranthan runequest perhaps.

I like it! Does have one pitfall though. Introducing more skills into an already skill heavy system. 

SDLeary

Share this post


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

I like it! Does have one pitfall though. Introducing more skills into an already skill heavy system. 

SDLeary

No it does't. All those Lore skills were already on the RQ3 character sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No it does't. All those Lore skills were already on the RQ3 character sheet.

No, I mean more stuff for a budding Wiz-ard to learn.

SDLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, I think bring RQ out of Glorantha probably helped RQ, as a system, but it hurt Glorantha, a s did the the AH release rate for new Gloranthan stuff, especially adventures. Adventures tend to be the lifeblood of an RPG and the fact that most of the RQ3 Glorantha ones were updates of previously available adventures, already owned by most RQ GMs, didn't help.

Accessibility was always something that hurt RQ2 and Glroantha in general. People could pickup  Vikings or Land of the Ninja and have a decent understanding of the setting , and get some adventures to get them started. With RQ3 Glorantha, what you got was glimpses into a far more detailed setting, but not enough information to feel comfortable with it. 

It certainly didn't help sales. RQ2 did significantly better than RQ3 in terms of sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Free INT was alright, although it did limit sorcerers based on INT something that they couldn't improve.

Yes, exactly. There was solutions, but slow and expensive ones.

11 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I like it! Does have one pitfall though. Introducing more skills into an already skill heavy system. 

Yes, how true.

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

It certainly didn't help sales. RQ2 did significantly better than RQ3 in terms of sales.

I can't speak for global sales, but in France, what killed AH's RQIII was the price. I paid mine over 500 french Francs in 1986. This was well over than the combined price of the ADD PHB, DMG and MM.

Share this post


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

It certainly didn't help sales. RQ2 did significantly better than RQ3 in terms of sales.

It was a tough situation, almost a Catch-22.

On the one hand  if they wanted to bring in lots of new fans and grab a bigger share of the market they did need to make the game more accessible and put out a setting that most gamers and new combers  could understand. AH  was right about that.  On the other hand, they needed to continue putting out new, quality Glorantha stuff from the RQ2 fans, and that put Glornatha in competition with RuneQuest -at least that's what it looked  like. It felt like we got  non-Glorantha products instead of Glorantha products. 

I also think that the Non-Glorantha stuff benefited by being given the same sort of treatment that old RQ stuff had. We got a setting, scenarios, NPC stats, all in one set. A campaign Pack.  With RQ3 Glorantha, we got some adventures, mostly  rehashed RQ2 adventures, along with Soruce books that were even less accessible that the RQ2 stuff ever was.  Had they done a Dragon Pass boxed set, along the lines of Vikings or Land of the Ninja, they could have drawn new fans  into the world.

Most of the benefits of the deal that Chaoisum thought they were going to get from the deal never materialized either. I recall one of the reasons for the deal was that AH had this huge distribution network and could put the game into more places, at least that was the theory. In practice RQ3 only seemed to get in to the dedicated gaming stores, where RQ2 actually had managed to get onto the shelves of some book stores. I don't know if this was due to a conscious lack of support by AH (they did seem to wanbt to push P&P over RQ at one point, or maybe figured that like wargames that fans one one RPG would by another), or if thier distrubtion network dried up. Or both.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 8:36 PM, Bill the barbarian said:

Now we are getting to the nut of the situation and a tough nut it is. A fair sized group with a diverse cult membership could keep the holy days hopping off the calendar pages. I like the idea of the strategy of keeping track of the calendar days on paper but the reality could entail much more book keeping than I thought. Definitely granular, but all those holy days and associated cult holy days times adventurers. Wow!

"Break out the spread sheet app, Martha! This one’s goin’ ta be a bear!"

TBH it's just considered as part of the "resting" process for us.  You wake up, and if you're a Rune level that last hour before you start your day is a worship service.  We don't play it out any more than most of the mundanities of daily life.  (shrug).

On 11/11/2019 at 9:06 AM, Akhôrahil said:

I'm considering this as well - you have to sacrifice 10% of your income to the temple, but it's not clear exactly how this works out - is it net or gross?

Vagueness works here.  This is YOUR GOD.  They're not sitting on your shoulder counting your pennies, they're in your bloody head and heart.  (You invited them in.)

So if a Hykim and Mikyh Shaman (ie a RL role) donates 90% of his share of a big haul to the buying of properties in Sog City to basically make a vast city park/natural area/refuge for the animals of the city, I'd say H&M would smile on that.  

If she instead lets the "party" pay for all sorts of her own housing etc out of the group's kitty so that she has to pay less out of her remaining 10% share but meticulously donates the official 90% from the "official gross"...that's going to be a frowny face and maybe that next divine spell DOESN'T do everything it's supposed to...

On 11/11/2019 at 9:06 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Second, I would think that maintaining non-priest thanes and the war-band would not be included in regular Temple maintenance. 

Oh I'd certainly see this as possibly included for Stormbull, maybe Humakt mercenary company, etc.  For Flamal?  Yeah, no.

On 11/11/2019 at 10:11 AM, weasel fierce said:

As far as the repeated upselling of RQG - Thanks guys, I get it.

(snort)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 7:50 PM, BWP said:

Supposedly we're getting some sort of major errata/overhaul in the not-too-distant future? 

Please by Lhankor Mhy the ever-organized, please let there be at least some effort at version control and identification.  SOMETHING that says "this is version 6.  It was updated Oct 10, 2019" so as to distinguish it from "version 5, updated Sept 2, 2019" so people know when it's worth downloading a new version. And maybe even a changefile?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, styopa said:

Please by Lhankor Mhy the ever-organized, please let there be at least some effort at version control and identification.  SOMETHING that says "this is version 6.  It was updated Oct 10, 2019" so as to distinguish it from "version 5, updated Sept 2, 2019" so people know when it's worth downloading a new version. And maybe even a changefile?

This too. It’s unbelievable that you can’t easily tell which PDF version you’re currently on.

Hoping first for a proper ertata collection, and then seeing this incorporated into the PDFs, completely with a changelog.

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 7:16 PM, Glorion said:

Atgxtg: actually one area I totally agree with you is that the biggest thing wrong with RQ3, worse than anything else, worse than everything else combined, was trying to take it out of Glorantha, for which Avalon Hill has some but not all of the blame. We all hated that so much that in posting here, I managed to forget that. Well, that is fixed in RQG!

 

Amusingly, that was something I liked.

I liked that RQ3 was a gritty, 'realistic', d100 system that was portable.  Ran a campaign set in a fantasy Europe back in the day (but I will agree their default RQ3 quasi-Roman setting was a rubbish mess; Vikings was an amazing supplement as was Land of Ninja).

I've grown to accept it better over the years but I'll admit the heresy that I've never LOVED Glorantha as a setting.  It IS the most logically-consistent fantasy setting I'm aware of in which magic is really, truly, intrinsically linked to the setting - not just "faux Medieval with magic bolted on but not meaningfully rationalized" as in most cases.  But I'm a little too empirical to love it as much as some.

  • Like 2

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...