RuneQuest roleplaying in Glorantha yes or no?

[RosenMcStern]

20 minutes ago, simonh said:

Seconded. One of the risks of a long combat example is it getting out of sync with the rules text, especially as revisions, clarifications and typos pour in during the gap between publishing the PDF and the print edition. How many games have been burned by this sort of problem? 

To my memory... one: Mongoose RuneQuest first edition. And saying that this was the least of its problems is a perfect example of British understatement.

Edited June 11, 2018 by RosenMcStern

[simonh]

1 minute ago, RosenMcStern said:

To my memory... one: Mongoose RuneQuest first edition. And saying that this was the least of its problems is a perfect example of British understatement.

I think pretty much all of them. I'm sure the extended example in RQ3 had errata.

[RosenMcStern]

The errata are available on the download section of BRP Central. And they do not contradict the examples. So RQ3 did not have this problem.

[simonh]

3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

The errata are available on the download section of BRP Central. And they do not contradict the examples. So RQ3 did not have this problem.

I vaguely remember some of the SRs being off, but it was a long time ago.

[RosenMcStern]

17 minutes ago, simonh said:

I vaguely remember some of the SRs being off, but it was a long time ago.

This is indeed possible. But if this problem did exist, the errata neither caused it, nor did anything to fix it. 

[PhilHibbs]

45 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is indeed possible. But if this problem did exist, the errata neither caused it, nor did anything to fix it. 

Just to clarify, Simon suggested that there could be errata that corrected mistakes in the examples, and your reply seemed to be saying that there were no mistakes in the RQ3 examples. Clearly someone has misunderstood what someone else wrote.

Does anyone else feel it's getting a little warm around here?

[RosenMcStern]

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Just to clarify, Simon suggested that there could be errata that corrected mistakes in the examples, and your reply seemed to be saying that there were no mistakes in the RQ3 examples. Clearly someone has misunderstood what someone else wrote.

Does anyone else feel it's getting a little warm around here?

It is because of the Love (RuneQuest) 90% passion that many members share.

[styopa]

11 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

It is because of the Love (RuneQuest) 90% passion that many members share.

So the DM is controlling our characters and insisting what our responses "should" be?  I hate that.

[Joerg]

38 minutes ago, styopa said:

So the DM is controlling our characters and insisting what our responses "should" be?  I hate that.

Not really - but we should balance our "Grumpy Grognard 105%" augment with "Love RuneQuest 90"" as antagonist factor.

[g33k]

11 hours ago, styopa said:

So the DM is controlling our characters and insisting what our responses "should" be?  I hate that.

Naw, man.  We wrote this stuff down on our character sheets, not the GM.

It's up to us to play our characters, and if our characters have huge scores in posts and in +like upvotes, it's a legit call for the GM to say "Stop acting like a Blue Rose player, all romantic idealism and cooperative and shit.  This is Runequest, dammit; no quarter!  Cut off his limb, or reduce your Passion to 80%..."  Player still gets to choose, but within the limits of what's on the sheet.

Edited June 12, 2018 by g33k

[RosenMcStern]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

So the DM is controlling our characters and insisting what our responses "should" be?  I hate that.

Furthermore, if you insist on calling the Holy GM as "DM", you might suffer the consequences of the also-widespread-on-these-boards "Hate (That Other Game)" Passion. Geek has appropriately suggested that you could suffer limb removal as retribution. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Just to clarify, Simon suggested that there could be errata that corrected mistakes in the examples, and your reply seemed to be saying that there were no mistakes in the RQ3 examples. Clearly someone has misunderstood what someone else wrote.

Does anyone else feel it's getting a little warm around here?

If you want contradiction in RQ3 look at the GM aids handouts. The rules for healing an injured character in the handouts are not the same as the one in the players book. If I recall correctly, the handouts were  more forgiving in healing up someone who had hit hit points reduced below 1, or had had a limb cut off. 

 

But Rosen is quite correct with the understatement. With MRQ you had people from Mongoose running the game the wrong way at conventions. That is according to other people at Mongoose. I think they changed the way the basic game mechanics worked something like four times, but apparently failed to realize how interconnected the game mechanics were. So they'd change things to address one problem and by doing so created additional problems. 

 

I don't think all the other BRP related RPGs combined had as much of a gap between the text as published and what the final rules becuase as MRQ1.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Charlie D.]

I'm going to watch the GRQ videos that are out.

We tried Mythras and that didn't work out. The action economy didn't work for our group. I have looked at OpenQuest as well.