RuneQuest Glorantha Gen Con 50 Preview edition

[soltakss]

I just use the stat blocks as they are, whether they are from RQ2, RQ3, RQMI, RQMII, Mythras or whatever.

So what if an NPC with the same characteristics has 4 HP in the head in one system and 5 in another? Doesn't matter to me. 

So what if a human in one system has different D20 Locations than another? I will either use the roll as per the stat blocks or use whichever hit location the player has hit. After all, players normally refer to their own PC's Hit Locatoin Chart when saying where they have hit a humanoid NPC.

[Mankcam]

Yeah at the end of the day I guess it's all pretty much more or less the same at the gaming table, all BRP is reasonably compatible.

I have retrapped many Stormbringer scenarios for RQ over the years, and it all ran well.

I guess none of it is a big deal for me, as for Glorantha I have been using a BRP hybrid rules for years, pretty much a RQ2/RQ3/BGB/RQ6 mix that seems to have worked well 

I'm quite eager to port to the RQG mechanics if it does the trick, but if not then I'll just keep my old house rules in play. Either that, or just throw it all into OQ for the sake of simplicity 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Mankcam

[Atgxtg]

Yeah, for NPCs it doesn't really matter all that much. In fact, that's probably why when they ported RQ2 adventures over to RQ3 they just used one set of stats for a sqaud of underlings rather than the indiviualized stats from RQ2. When all is said and done, the players really won't notice if one Trollkin has club at 27% and another has it at 28%.

[Atgxtg]

On 8/28/2017 at 6:39 AM, Mankcam said:

I'm quite eager to port to the RQG mechanics if it does the trick, but if not then I'll just keep my old house rules in play. Either that, or just throw it all into OQ for the sake of simplicity 

Ya know something, I think that is probably Chasoium's biggest problem here. It not that RQG has to compete with the other RPGs out there, but it also has to compete with all the earlier editions of RQ/BRP/Strombriger, etc. that the company has produced over the years. It could very easily wind up in a situation where people like it, but not as much as they like RQ2/RQ3/Mythus/whatever. Or they don't like the latests slant on Glorantha (like what happened to MRQ's 2nd Age Glorantha, and, to a lesser extent, HeroQuest).

 

But then, I suppose if we like the content, but not the rules we could always port stuff over to whatever version of the game we prefer. How hard would it be to port over the new chargen, passion, runes and and magic rules over to RQ3?

[Joerg]

12 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Ya know something, I think that is probably Chasoium's biggest problem here. It not that RQG has to compete with the other RPGs out there, but it also has to compete with all the earlier editions of RQ/BRP/Strombriger, etc. that the company has produced over the years. It could very easily wind up in a situation where people like it, but not as much as they like RQ2/RQ3/Mythus/whatever. Or they don't like the latests slant on Glorantha (like what happened to MRQ's 2nd Age Glorantha, and, to a lesser extent, HeroQuest).

It is quite possible that everybody will houserule much with this new edition of the rules. Still, we can expect gloranthafied Sorcery rules, gloranthafied Shamanism rules, cult write-ups we haven't had before, and scenarios and bestiaries with both old and new illustrations. Even if a different system gets played, people will want these rules as reference to adjust NPC and monster stats to whatever version they use.

We hppe for new blood to pick up these rules and the world. Such players are going to use these rules as their basis, although house-ruling will creep in. So what.

 

12 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But then, I suppose if we like the content, but not the rules we could always port stuff over to whatever version of the game we prefer. How hard would it be to port over the new chargen, passion, runes and and magic rules over to RQ3?

 

Given the way BRP rules work, it will be hard to tell which rules fragments you carried over to which edition - 3 to G or G to 3.

For those of us hoping to publish a RQ scenario or two, the new rules will be what our scenario should comply except for non-profit self-publishing on a website.

[styopa]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

It is absolutely certain that everybody will houserule much with this new edition of the rules.

Slightly edited to make it more correct.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

Still, we can expect gloranthafied Sorcery rules, gloranthafied Shamanism rules, cult write-ups we haven't had before, and scenarios and bestiaries with both old and new illustrations. Even if a different system gets played, people will want these rules as reference to adjust NPC and monster stats to whatever version they use.

I'm almost certain that my group will initially substantially prefer the rules we've been playing with for a decade or more.  I'd wager that's going to be most groups' experiences, it's just human nature.

HOWEVER, I've already been clear with them that we will be porting to RQG* as our base rule set simply because I personally want our group to be open and welcome new members.  Part of that is running a living game system, not a 34-year-old rule set that has been houseruled to infinity.  We want new players, and part of that is - if they enjoy what we're doing - that they can go to their FLGS and buy a copy of the rules for themselves.  

I'm an unabashed evangelist for RQ.  This is much harder if the basic rules aren't available to everyone.  That is in a nutshell my fundamental motivation for supporting RQG.

We'll try to absorb and adapt to the new paradigms as best we can.  Nevertheless I expect that I'll still have gobs of houserules.  

Still, that's far better than where we (my group) are today.

[Atgxtg]

I think he had it right the first time. While old RQers like us can and will houserule things, the people who are new to RQ are probably not going to houserule things much at all. And yeah the whole "living game system" is important as far as new blood goes - not to mention Chaosium's sales figures. It doesn't do them a heck of a lot of good if people are hunting down and buying  for 30 year old editions of RQ off of eBay or some such. 

 

[tedopon]

8 hours ago, styopa said:

HOWEVER, I've already been clear with them that we will be porting to RQG* as our base rule set simply because I personally want our group to be open and welcome new members.  Part of that is running a living game system, not a 34-year-old rule set that has been houseruled to infinity.  We want new players, and part of that is - if they enjoy what we're doing - that they can go to their FLGS and buy a copy of the rules for themselves.  

It's my opinion, as one of the people who has a GenCon copy of the new rules, that the new rules are basically a 34 year old rule set houseruled to this iteration. It's honestly pretty close to the OQ/BRP/RQ3 hack I ran prior to RQ6 dropping...and a lot of the things I did back then are common things a few dozen people mention in threads on this site.

There are some cool things bolted on, and one of the magic systems got an overhaul from RQ3, but it's really just RQ2 & 3 blended with a new paintjob.

I mentioned earlier (maybe in this thread?) that I had hoped to see something more along Mythras or CoC7's improvements on the legacy system, but that is not what is presented in the preview set. We were told that the preview system is pretty much what's going to print but in need of further editing.

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by tedopon

[g33k]

5 hours ago, tedopon said:

There are some cool things bolted on, and one of the magic systems got an overhaul from RQ3, but it's really just RQ2 & 3 blended with a new paintjob.

FWIW, that "bolted on" stuff is what most impressed one of my new-to-RQ players when I ran the Quickstart:  the idea that who you are -- as a person -- as a hero -- has substantial game-mechanical impact; the game rewards characterization & RP, not just mechanical success.

[tedopon]

19 minutes ago, g33k said:

FWIW, that "bolted on" stuff is what most impressed one of my new-to-RQ players when I ran the Quickstart:  the idea that who you are -- as a person -- as a hero -- has substantial game-mechanical impact; the game rewards characterization & RP, not just mechanical success.

I agree, but the rune affinity and passions were already in some form or another in RQ6 and Heroquest, and we've used them in pretty much the form they took in the new rules for a few years now.

The family history minigame is the only thing for which I don't see a preexisting direct analog in RQ. It reminds me of Traveler or FASA Star Trek. I really like it and will be designing my own, adds a neat little bit of backstory that isn't too detailed to make PCs feel restricted but still give some flavor.

I'm not dissing the game, just feel content to keep using RQ6 and backport the bits I liked.

[Jeff]

6 hours ago, tedopon said:

I mentioned earlier (maybe in this thread?) that I had hoped to see something more along Mythras or CoC7's improvements on the legacy system, but that is not what is presented in the preview set. We were told that the preview system is pretty much what's going to print but in need of further editing.

 

What some consider "improvements" others consider "change without improvement". We've said all along that this was going to be essentially RQ 2.5 (e.g., https://www.chaosium.com/blog/designing-the-new-runequest-part-6/). Most of the new components of the new rules were anticipated by Greg in one form or another long ago. If you prefer incorporating elements of RQ3, Pendragon, Elric, Mythras, or CoC7 into your RQ, by all means do it. But we expect most people will play it as written.

Jeff

[tedopon]

I'll state one more time here that it's my opinion that this will be a great game and I hope it's successful. Had this come around ten years ago, I would have foamed at the mouth.

I (like probably most of the people on here) am not getting any younger. I moved to RQ6/Mythras a few years ago after playing some iteration of RQ/BRP for many years, and it works for me and I'm getting fatigued with changing systems every few years. DnD is the worst offender, seriously if I had a nickel for every time I rolled my eyes at someone waxing philosophically about the new shiny, I would have a few dollars at least. The truth is, IMO with any game system, that for probably 4 out of 5 groups the system is going to not make that big an impact on the experience (no matter how crunchy or fluffy a game is, the at table experience for most groups is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes anyway). 

If you have something that works, use it. I'd rather play games than argue their relative merits. "Edition War" is especially silly with d100 games since there is like 95% shared DNA between even the most radically different versions.

Keep up the good work, and I am over the Red Moon that there will be a new Trollpak coming out at some point. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by tedopon

[GamingGlen]

8 hours ago, Jeff said:

.... But we expect most people will play it as written.

Jeff

Hahahahahahahahahaha...

[g33k]

1 hour ago, GamingGlen said:

Hahahahahahahahahaha...

Yeah, this.

So, SO much this!

(noting that I expect that Jeff/Chaosium in fact does NOT genuinely expect "most people" to play the game with 100% of the RAW, and nothing but the RAW).

[g33k]

11 hours ago, tedopon said:

I agree, but the rune affinity and passions were already in some form or another in RQ6 and Heroquest, and we've used them in pretty much the form they took in the new rules for a few years now.

The family history minigame is the only thing for which I don't see a preexisting direct analog in RQ. It reminds me of Traveler or FASA Star Trek. I really like it and will be designing my own, adds a neat little bit of backstory that isn't too detailed to make PCs feel restricted but still give some flavor.

I'm not dissing the game, just feel content to keep using RQ6 and backport the bits I liked.

I hadn't exactly seen "Rune Affinities" before... Passions of course have been "in the family" since PenDragon times, but the magicXpersonality that is Runes I hadn't seen; is that from HQ:G?   FWIW, I believe the "family history minigame" shows some heritage from HQ and the old KoDP computer-game...?

But you had, I thought, dismissed the "lack of progress" in RQG for NOT including these newer elements... but here they are...?

It's cool if you like the RQ6's ActionPoints and Special Effects engine over the bare %skill system in RQ2; I don't mean to be critical of that choiice at all!

 

[tedopon]

38 minutes ago, g33k said:

But you had, I thought, dismissed the "lack of progress" in RQG for NOT including these newer elements... but here they are...

I'm on my phone...

Tedopon said everything below here:

Quote

I didn't mean to represent my opinion as implying any version of RQ was more 'progressive' than another, sorry if I did...and I admit there's a fair amount of cognitive dissonance in my posts about how I dislike The New Shiny but have adopted it to some degree.

The Rune Affinities working like Passions may not have been spelled out ever as a system, but I've used pretty much the same system for years...as a reaction to PCs making decisions based on what was immediately useful rather than their actual established character concept...which IMO is kind of a slippery slope, I'm not enthusiastic about a system I could see being exploited mechanically by GM/PC that goes beyond 'well, maybe' handwaving. We handle it more loosely, meaning let's say Gary has adopted Fire as one of his defining runes, I'm going to say 'Really?,' any time he does something Water based...and then he has to roll against/for a Passion based on the Rune. It's functionally almost identical. It works the other way as well, I have one PC who invokes Beast nearly every session.

Yes, the family history thing probably existed prior, but I've only ever read HQ, only played RQ at a table. Which is funny to me because HQ seems more in line with my style of GMing.

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by tedopon

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Yeah, this.

So, SO much this!

(noting that I expect that Jeff/Chaosium in fact does NOT genuinely expect "most people" to play the game with 100% of the RAW, and nothing but the RAW).

Actually, it does appear that most people do play games as written. Houserulers and tinkerers are actually a rather distinct minority of all players. I'm an inveterate houseruler, but I've long ago learned that is a minority playstyle. Just one that is very overrepresented in forums.  

[David Scott]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Actually, it does appear that most people do play games as written. Houserulers and tinkerers are actually a rather distinct minority of all players.

I run a weekly RPG club (nearly 30 years old), we have three groups running at once, changing games every six weeks. Nearly every GM runs games as written. We even have GMs getting together to change up to the same rules set to avoid confusion - most recently with L5R all the GMs are now on the latest edition. The exceptions are far and few, mostly own worlds with established house ruled systems to fit and they are certainly a minority. Myself - even with RQ3 I had only two add ons from the RQ4 AIG rules set (fatigue and sorcery fix). When RQG comes out, RQ2 and 3 will go back in the cupboard (I never bothered with Mongoose or DM's versions). The integration of the runes and passions make it worth while for me. I am at times quite bewildered by the level of tinkering discussed on this site and I'm sure I will never really understand it.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Thanks for these insights into the new rules.

I have a few questions regarding strike ranks in the new RQG rules. I was curious as to whether the new rules clarify strike rank rulings that have previously remained quite ambiguous in previous editions. Particulary with regard to delaying an action in a melee round. I posted these questions orginally here in this post:

 

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, Jeff said:

Actually, it does appear that most people do play games as written. Houserulers and tinkerers are actually a rather distinct minority of all players.

Yeah, but that can be said of RQers, too. Is supect we have a higher percentage of houserulers than the norm because, since we have basically been running an "ophan" RPG for years, we are used to wrting up a lot of our own stuff. Even the BRP "Big Gold Book" is more of a tinkering kit than a RPG. 

20 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

I'm an inveterate houseruler, but I've long ago learned that is a minority playstyle. Just one that is very overrepresented in forums.  

Yes. The average gamer seems to play stuff as written, and also tends to play pre-written adventures. Speaking of which, I hope we get to see some RQ2 style campaign packs again.

[Atgxtg]

On 8/30/2017 at 2:08 AM, Jeff said:

What some consider "improvements" others consider "change without improvement". We've said all along that this was going to be essentially RQ 2.5 (e.g., https://www.chaosium.com/blog/designing-the-new-runequest-part-6/). Most of the new components of the new rules were anticipated by Greg in one form or another long ago. If you prefer incorporating elements of RQ3, Pendragon, Elric, Mythras, or CoC7 into your RQ, by all means do it. But we expect most people will play it as written.

Jeff

Yeah. I for one am not a fan of the changes made to the system in Mythras, etc. So I'm glad Chaosium didn't go that way with it. I do think the game probably would have benefited more using RQ3 as the base instead of RQ2 (Steve Perrin did address/fix some of the flaws on RQ2 in RQ3), but I think going MRQ2/RQ6/Mthras with the game would probably have killed it in the eyes of a lot of RQ fans. Besides, why take the RQ name away from RQ6 just to make another RQ6?

[Mankcam]

My only issue with classic-era RQ is that I felt that Skill Category modifiers needed to be bigger, thus placing a more emphasis on core Characteristics. Other than that, I'm pretty happy that most of the stuff I enjoyed from the RQ2 and RQ3 era seem to be in this upcoming edition. I'm glad the Special Success is more like the optional rules from RQ2, as I ended up returning to those anyway, the RQ3 version just felt a bit wrong.

I actually like some of the combat rules in CoC 7E, I like how Dodge works and how Shields work, its very smooth. Unsure if my troupe will want to go back to the way classic RQ handles these aspects, so personally I would have liked a little more consistency with CoC 7E as a modern version of BRP. However its no big issue, and I can see why the authors have gone back to RQ2 and RQ3 for the foundation of the rules.

I think having back compatibility with RQ2 products is a great move, as it allows all the RQ Classic releases to remain current and usable. 

I won't miss the RQ3 char gen for professional skills, at least this version sounds similar to the BGB or CoC rules for that, which is logical. Having an optional expanded char gen process to detail character background sounds like alot of fun as well. That was done quite well in the HQ Sartar book, a bit like KoDP pc game, so I think that will work equally well in RQG. I think the most interesting rules changes I am looking forward to are using Runes as personality traits, and I'm interested in seeing how Gloranthan Sorcery is going to be modeled.

Other than that, I'm looking forward to how Glorantha itself is presented as a setting in both RQG and HQG, and that is probably the most exciting thing that I am looking forward to.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Mankcam

[GianniVacca]

On 30/08/2017 at 6:49 AM, tedopon said:

The family history minigame is the only thing for which I don't see a preexisting direct analog in RQ. It reminds me of Traveler or FASA Star Trek. I really like it and will be designing my own, adds a neat little bit of backstory that isn't too detailed to make PCs feel restricted but still give some flavor.

I have designed my own "adventurer's history minigame" for my Chern Durel game (which is obviously waaaaay too different from Dragon Pass) and it's been (1) fun and (2) a focal point to help get my ideas together as to which cults, cities and organisations are important in Chern Durel. I believe any referee setting their game far from Dragon Pass will have a blast doing this.

[Mugen]

On 27/08/2017 at 4:13 PM, GianniVacca said:

2) Almost identical to RQ2.

Except the list is the same as RQ3, as far as I know. That is : Agility, Communication, Knowledge, Magic, Manipulation, Perception, Stealth.

[7Tigers]

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...