Jeff Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, 7Tigers said: Question: does the preview confirm that RQ3 separate location chart for missiles hit locations is dropped? If yes, I'm a bit sad and curious to know the reasons... Yes it was dropped. Frankly it mainly added an extra chart for special circumstances. It was something often forgotten by GM's and not embraced by many players. Worse yet, it's "higher realism" is pretty questionable. So we dropped it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Scott Posted September 6, 2017 Author Share Posted September 6, 2017 1 hour ago, 7Tigers said: Question: does the preview confirm that RQ3 separate location chart for missiles hit locations is dropped? If yes, I'm a bit sad and curious to know the reasons... We ignored it in RQ3 as in the heat of the moment looking at another table made no sense. It wasn't until years later that I got the adventurer sheets that it became sensible (I only bought it as it was £1 along with the non-human box of sheets, even then not a great investment). RQ2 was easily the best. RQ3 ignore them on the sheet! and with the boxed Adventurer sheets, the missile part was often obscured by hit point scribbles as well as being tiny. No I couldn't be bothered to design my own sheets. 1 Quote ----- Search the Glorantha Resource Site: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com. Search the Glorantha mailing list archives: https://glorantha.steff.in/digests/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankcam Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 Yeah I agree that losing the separate missile hit location is no loss 2 Quote " Sure it's fun, but it is also well known that a D20 roll and an AC is no match against a hefty swing of a D100% and a D20 Hit Location Table!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styopa Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 10 hours ago, Mankcam said: Yeah I agree that losing the separate missile hit location is no loss Oh I'd entirely disagree. There was a rather significant difference in results possible. We used that hit loc table for missiles, thrusting weapons, and spells (where needed) making the choice of such weapons/attacks a more tactically interesting one... /unsurprised it was dropped, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jajagappa Posted September 6, 2017 Share Posted September 6, 2017 11 hours ago, David Scott said: We ignored it in RQ3 as in the heat of the moment looking at another table made no sense. I think I completely forgot it even existed. Never used it during 10 years of play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beornvig Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 On 9/6/2017 at 4:55 PM, styopa said: Oh I'd entirely disagree. There was a rather significant difference in results possible. We used that hit loc table for missiles, thrusting weapons, and spells (where needed) making the choice of such weapons/attacks a more tactically interesting one... /unsurprised it was dropped, however. Yeah, my group liked them too, and had no problem using them, they're on the character sheets we use in the table at bottom right. I'm considering trying to retrofit some of the new passion/background rules in to existing characters to help flesh them out. My group has already forbidden any kind of mass move to new rules, but I'll buy the new rules/materials and see what I can house rule in. The challenging part will be character sheets. Everyone loves their classic character sheets from RQ3: Any reduction in complexity from the standard of RQ3 will be met with derisiveness from my group of wargame-centric players! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSC1978 Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 I, for once, won't be complaining about this choice. I don't think it was bringing much to the game (even if I understand that some people might see that as a lack of options). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 On 9/6/2017 at 4:55 PM, styopa said: Oh I'd entirely disagree. There was a rather significant difference in results possible. I'm with you here. In melee it makes sense that chest hits are rare, since it is one of the areas that will be best defended, and because arms are almost always in the path of any blows. With missle attacks, its different since the chest is such a large area of the body. By throwing out the changes to the game mechanics Steve Perrin made in RQ3, they also threw out all the improvements and bug fixes that came with it. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yelm's Light Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 48 minutes ago, Atgxtg said: I'm with you here. In melee it makes sense that chest hits are rare, since it is one of the areas that will be best defended, and because arms are almost always in the path of any blows. With missle attacks, its different since the chest is such a large area of the body. By throwing out the changes to the game mechanics Steve Perrin made in RQ3, they also threw out all the improvements and bug fixes that came with it. Hmm...you could say the same thing about shields vs. missile attacks. I never used that table so I won't miss it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said: Hmm...you could say the same thing about shields vs. missile attacks. Yes I could, and would. Quote I never used that table so I won't miss it. I did and will. Considering how many of my RQ players lost characters from impaling arrow hits, I think most of them will miss it too. Edited September 9, 2017 by Atgxtg Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styopa Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Atgxtg said: I'm with you here. In melee it makes sense that chest hits are rare, since it is one of the areas that will be best defended, and because arms are almost always in the path of any blows. With missle attacks, its different since the chest is such a large area of the body. By throwing out the changes to the game mechanics Steve Perrin made in RQ3, they also threw out all the improvements and bug fixes that came with it. (shrug) I personally will miss it, and will likely HR it back. I happen to already have tools that make generating NPC/Monsters with different HL tables for melee missile easy to use. That system will be what I tweak to work with whatever RQG ends up being, most of the HR probably being anti-reversions to the new rules. That said, for new players who aren't those of us committed to decades-old habits and practices, I doubt they'll miss that particular baby thrown out with other RQ3 bathwater. Hell, CoC is a successful game system and doesn't even have hit locations at all. D&D5e players will be stunned enough at just HAVING hit locations. Edited September 9, 2017 by styopa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankcam Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, styopa said: CoC is a successful game system and doesn't even have hit locations at all. Well, just being pedantic, but yes CoC has hit locations. They are considered an optional rule in CoC 7E. Just sayin' Edited September 9, 2017 by Mankcam Quote " Sure it's fun, but it is also well known that a D20 roll and an AC is no match against a hefty swing of a D100% and a D20 Hit Location Table!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al. Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 On 06/09/2017 at 9:55 PM, styopa said: Oh I'd entirely disagree. There was a rather significant difference in results possible. We used that hit loc table for missiles, thrusting weapons, and spells (where needed) making the choice of such weapons/attacks a more tactically interesting one... /unsurprised it was dropped, however. Agreed on all accounts It's one of those delightful quirks which crop up in D100 games which add an illusion of realism We used it for missiles, spells, spears and fists for years Nowadays I only use the (MRQ) Hit Location Chart for Major Wounds Rationalising down to one chart will do no harm (All IMMOO obvs.) Quote Rule Zero: Don't be on fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 13 hours ago, styopa said: (shrug) I personally will miss it, and will likely HR it back. I happen to already have tools that make generating NPC/Monsters with different HL tables for melee missile easy to use. That system will be what I tweak to work with whatever RQG ends up being, most of the HR probably being anti-reversions to the new rules. Yeah, I suspect for us ol' timers we can and will take the bits that we want and attach them to whatever version of the RQ game engine we prefer. Probably 80% or more of the various rules are compatible and/or interchangeable. 13 hours ago, styopa said: That said, for new players who aren't those of us committed to decades-old habits and practices, I doubt they'll miss that particular baby thrown out with other RQ3 bathwater. They can't miss what they never had. In order to miss it they would have to be aware of it in the first place. What I suspect they will do is raise the same sorts of questions and complaints people raised in the RQ2 era. 13 hours ago, styopa said: Hell, CoC is a successful game system and doesn't even have hit locations at all. D&D5e players will be stunned enough at just HAVING hit locations. Yup, but neither of those game are RQ, especially not RQ set in Glorantha. Personally I suspect that there is far too much that I prefer about RQ3 to want to revert back entirely to RQ2 rules. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 55 minutes ago, Atgxtg said: ... They can't miss what they never had ... Sure they can! Just roll above their %-Runequest skill. As low-skill n00b's, it's even the likeliest result! Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 14 hours ago, styopa said: ... I doubt they'll miss that particular baby thrown out with other RQ3 bathwater ... It's worth remembering that in fact, the RQ3 bathwater was NOT thrown out. RQG is a blend of maybe 60% RQ2 / 15% RQ3 (& 15% other games & 10% new content). There were just so MANY babies in the bath that Chaosium had to ... cull ... a few of them. Personally, I'd be interested in a short appendix of "alternate hit location" figures -- the classic RQ2/RQ3 figure, but with alternate d20-results; missile-fire could be one, and I am fond of skewing the R/L results when someone takes a strongly "sided" combat-stance. I think a flail might generate different table when facing a shield? And I'm not sure I'm satisfied with "roll hit location with a +10" for mounted-vs-unmounted. Then there is the whole size-differential thing... for example, a trollkin should be barely-able to hit the head & less-able to hit the chest when facing a nomal-human sized foe; and similarly head-and-chest should be easier for the human to hit on a trollkin. One of my most-memorable-ever combats in RQ was vs a giant, where the GM only allowed melee weapons to hit the leg (he rather ostentatiously flipped a coin for R/L instead of rolling a die), but smaller size-differentials should show up, too. Head out of reach; head & chest out of reach, etc... I'd love for Chaosium to take some time again with SCA/HEMA/etc folks (and maybe medieval/classical archeologists who look at war graves), to revisit and re-polish the combat; I bet the "state of the art" has advanced in the last 40 years!!! 1 Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard S. Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, g33k said: It's worth remembering that in fact, the RQ3 bathwater was NOT thrown out. RQG is a blend of maybe 60% RQ2 / 15% RQ3 (& 15% other games & 10% new content). There were just so MANY babies in the bath that Chaosium had to ... cull ... a few of them. Personally, I'd be interested in a short appendix of "alternate hit location" figures -- the classic RQ2/RQ3 figure, but with alternate d20-results; missile-fire could be one, and I am fond of skewing the R/L results when someone takes a strongly "sided" combat-stance. I think a flail might generate different table when facing a shield? And I'm not sure I'm satisfied with "roll hit location with a +10" for mounted-vs-unmounted. Then there is the whole size-differential thing... for example, a trollkin should be barely-able to hit the head & less-able to hit the chest when facing a nomal-human sized foe; and similarly head-and-chest should be easier for the human to hit on a trollkin. One of my most-memorable-ever combats in RQ was vs a giant, where the GM only allowed melee weapons to hit the leg (he rather ostentatiously flipped a coin for R/L instead of rolling a die), but smaller size-differentials should show up, too. Head out of reach; head & chest out of reach, etc... I'd love for Chaosium to take some time again with SCA/HEMA/etc folks (and maybe medieval/classical archeologists who look at war graves), to revisit and re-polish the combat; I bet the "state of the art" has advanced in the last 40 years!!! It is true that the hit location chart is not entirely accurate, but the truth is that "realistic" combat systems simply take to much time and effort to build and play. Sure, I agree that certain weapons and armor should have different bearings on what's Hit, but in the end it ends up boring the majority of the intended audience and being a hassle for the GM. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atgxtg Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Richard S. said: It is true that the hit location chart is not entirely accurate, but the truth is that "realistic" combat systems simply take to much time and effort to build and play. Sure, I agree that certain weapons and armor should have different bearings on what's Hit, but in the end it ends up boring the majority of the intended audience and being a hassle for the GM. It's not too bad for melee, and there used to be modifiers to hit location when dealing with large SIZ opponents. Quote Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Richard S. said: It is true that the hit location chart is not entirely accurate, but the truth is that "realistic" combat systems simply take to much time and effort to build and play. Sure, I agree that certain weapons and armor should have different bearings on what's Hit, but in the end it ends up boring the majority of the intended audience and being a hassle for the GM. I think having a bunch of alternate hit-location-charts integrated into the main stream of the rules would be an awful idea; but as a grab-it-from-the-appendices option or something similar, I can see sometimes really using such tables. Edited September 9, 2017 by g33k Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beornvig Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 On 9/9/2017 at 11:38 AM, g33k said: It's worth remembering that in fact, the RQ3 bathwater was NOT thrown out. RQG is a blend of maybe 60% RQ2 / 15% RQ3 (& 15% other games & 10% new content). There were just so MANY babies in the bath that Chaosium had to ... cull ... a few of them. Personally, I'd be interested in a short appendix of "alternate hit location" figures -- the classic RQ2/RQ3 figure, but with alternate d20-results; missile-fire could be one, and I am fond of skewing the R/L results when someone takes a strongly "sided" combat-stance. I think a flail might generate different table when facing a shield? And I'm not sure I'm satisfied with "roll hit location with a +10" for mounted-vs-unmounted. Then there is the whole size-differential thing... for example, a trollkin should be barely-able to hit the head & less-able to hit the chest when facing a nomal-human sized foe; and similarly head-and-chest should be easier for the human to hit on a trollkin. One of my most-memorable-ever combats in RQ was vs a giant, where the GM only allowed melee weapons to hit the leg (he rather ostentatiously flipped a coin for R/L instead of rolling a die), but smaller size-differentials should show up, too. Head out of reach; head & chest out of reach, etc... I'd love for Chaosium to take some time again with SCA/HEMA/etc folks (and maybe medieval/classical archeologists who look at war graves), to revisit and re-polish the combat; I bet the "state of the art" has advanced in the last 40 years!!! We just add + 10 to hit location if the bottom of the creature is not realistically hit-able. Is that a HR or an actual rule? I have no idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styopa Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 On 8/28/2017 at 4:01 AM, Mankcam said: I just wish there was some consistency with the current BRP rule sets, I think it makes sense that some rule mechanics could have been similar to CoC 7E; that way my players only have to learn one core system. On the other hand, I can see the benefits of RQG having back compatbility with the RQ2 stat block, so that the RQ2 reprints dont go to waste. As much as I look forward to this and would be/have been the first to fight for mechanics I like, imo this is a big issue with RQG, and with the primary goal of a "new rule set" being 90% Rq2 (or rq3, or any previous version). I know the goal was to not invalidate old stuff, but then again any really new rules set requires that, we live with it and move on. But to firmly set one's stance as looking backward instead of forward (and meanwhile missing an opportunity to harmonize as much as possible with other brp-family rules) will, eventually, be a cause for regret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamesmeister Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 On 14/09/2017 at 8:33 PM, Beornvig said: We just add + 10 to hit location if the bottom of the creature is not realistically hit-able. Is that a HR or an actual rule? I have no idea I seem to remember the Giant (Bigclub?) in Snakepipe Hollow used that rule, so it definitely has its origins in early RQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted September 16, 2017 Share Posted September 16, 2017 12 hours ago, styopa said: As much as I look forward to this and would be/have been the first to fight for mechanics I like, imo this is a big issue with RQG, and with the primary goal of a "new rule set" being 90% Rq2 (or rq3, or any previous version). I know the goal was to not invalidate old stuff, but then again any really new rules set requires that, we live with it and move on. But to firmly set one's stance as looking backward instead of forward (and meanwhile missing an opportunity to harmonize as much as possible with other brp-family rules) will, eventually, be a cause for regret. I don't see CoC7e as being forward or backward - merely a different direction in order to model a different genre and setting. Same thing with RQG - we went with RQ as the base, included the fixes to broken parts of RQ2 that were included in RQ3 (but without the broken rules RQ3 included), and then went on from there. What we did not include is any of the Mongoose-era rules (or Oliver's RQIV:AiG). RQ models a different genre and different activities than CoC7e does. We see no value trying to make RQ=CoC or vice versa. That they share common DNA is obvious, but CoC players coming to RuneQuest will have a more robust combat, personality, and magic systems, while RQ players coming to Cthulhu will have a lighter combat and magic system (plus a sanity mechanic) In both cases, it will require learning some new rules and unlearning some old rules. And that's just fine. I doubt people will have trouble recognizing that when they play bronze age warrior-priests who fight trolls, steal cattle, and interact with gods and spirits that they need to have a somewhat different rules set from a game where they play 1920s era investigators who search through secret collections in libraries, deal with police and bureaucracies, and go insane upon seeng the equivalent of trolls, spirits, or gods. Jeff 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
styopa Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 On 9/16/2017 at 5:57 AM, Jeff said: I don't see CoC7e as being forward or backward - merely a different direction in order to model a different genre and setting. Same thing with RQG - we went with RQ as the base, included the fixes to broken parts of RQ2 that were included in RQ3 (but without the broken rules RQ3 included), and then went on from there. What we did not include is any of the Mongoose-era rules (or Oliver's RQIV:AiG). RQ models a different genre and different activities than CoC7e does. We see no value trying to make RQ=CoC or vice versa. That they share common DNA is obvious, but CoC players coming to RuneQuest will have a more robust combat, personality, and magic systems, while RQ players coming to Cthulhu will have a lighter combat and magic system (plus a sanity mechanic) In both cases, it will require learning some new rules and unlearning some old rules. And that's just fine. I doubt people will have trouble recognizing that when they play bronze age warrior-priests who fight trolls, steal cattle, and interact with gods and spirits that they need to have a somewhat different rules set from a game where they play 1920s era investigators who search through secret collections in libraries, deal with police and bureaucracies, and go insane upon seeng the equivalent of trolls, spirits, or gods. Jeff Different settings, different systems. Makes perfect sense to me. It's just a different tack than the trail Chaosium used to blaze. The former Chaosium paradigm was that BRP was a simplified version of RQ, and the other systems (CoC, Stormbringer, Superworld, etc.) then were outgrowths from that but obviously effort was spent trying to keep them relatively close to the root system. The intent, evidently, was to have as common a set of rules as possible. Commercially, it doesn't seem a bad idea to give your customers a very low barrier-to-entry to your other product lines, I'd guess? Then again, while it sounded logical, maybe that was fundamentally a stupid idea - after all, capitalism didn't smile Darwinistically on former-Chaosium? The license-your-rules-out ecosystem did work pretty well for WoTC and d20. Hell, that alone could arguably be the seed-idea (their doing it, not Chaosium's) for the entire modern RPG Renaissance. Curious, that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Having recently played Stormbringer and Ringworld, I assure you the differences between those systems are about as close or far as between RQG and CoC7th Edition. Ringworld doubled hit points, introduced an impulse system, a radically different root and branch skill system, etc. Stormbringer had random armor points, etc. All clearly are related systems, but there was no effort to have as common a set of rules as possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.