RQG: how much RQ3 still in it?

[PhilHibbs]

On 6/10/2018 at 3:15 AM, BWP said:

If Sorcery is ANYTHING like RQ3 Sorcery, then it will be a profound failure.  I want a Sorcery system that works.

Depends on your definition of "ANYTHING".

Similarities, off the top of my head:

• Each spell has a skill, which starts at 1D6 percent plus magic modifier when learned
• Free INT limits your manipulation
• Duration and Range roughly double per additional point of manipulation allocated
• Some of the spells are the same, such as Castback, Dominate, Protective Circle, 

Differences:

• No manipulation skills (Range, Duration, Intensity, Multispell)
• Days, weeks, seasons, places, and components (not consumed) give bonuses or penalties to casting chance
• Magic modifier is no longer affected by INT (general game system difference, but affects Sorcery)
• Need to learn Runes and Techniques (one off tick box, no skill percentage needed)
• First point of a spell MP cost is the number of Runes or Techniques needed, from 2 to 4
• Additional points of spell cost 1MP if you know all the Runes and Techniques, doubled per Rune or Technique that you only know by association with another, e.g. opposed, plus Mastery and Tap are "related" to all other Techniques
• Intensity is the total number of "points" of the spell (MP will be more than this, as above), which can be allocated among Power, Range, and Duration - Power is like RQ3 Intensity
• Cannot cast a spell if you do not know its Runes or Techniques or associated ones
• Dispelling and overriding is based on the Intensity
• Any sorcerer can create a spell matrix with no additional skill or roll
• Learning a spell takes a season, not a week
• No familiars, and no mention of Intellect Spirits although these might be in the Bestiary but I doubt it
• Many of the popular RQ3 spells are gone, e.g. Enhance (Characteristic) (there is Enhance INT only), Palsy, Venom
• Most of the spells are new or very different, e.g. Disappear, Finger of Fire, Logical Clarity, Pierce Veil

I think that's the main points covered, there are far more differences than similarities.

I made a thread to talk about Sorcery: 

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

Uhhh...? I don't think you have a valid point, here...  Sorry, man, but  (a) 3 pages isn't gonna TOUCH the needs of a bestiary, and (b) Chaosium promptly added a 16-page e-Bestiary, and (c) the full Bestiary is coming soon.  It IS a complete combat system; we just have one weapon mentioning an option apparently to be released in later books (honestly, my take would be to edit-out that feature of that weapon, and re-introduce it when/if the disarm-rules are introduced).

Three pages plus some of the pages spent on art or other things would. 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

Wow.  That's... that's pretty hardcore aggro.  I mean, seriously:  these guys are gamers and fans; they have been loving RQ and Glorantha for a long, long time.  And ponied-up a TON of their own cash to pull Chaosium out of the grave.  And you accuse them of... that???  The balance of the evidence is not just "no" but "HELL no" (and they have the Uz to prove it).

No I didn't accuse. I was just foolish enough to actually type out what virtually every old RQer who isn't buying this on impulse is going to do. Ask themselves why do they want this when they already have a bunch of RQ/HQ stuff already> I have X money to spend,and X times a million things I'd like to buy, and that not just RPGs. So I have to choose to buy some things and not buy others. So when I'm not buying on impulse, and especially when buying blind. I didn't accuse them of anything. I just asked questions and explained my reaction to the approach taken when it caught Jeff by surprise. 

Now from my perspective, I'm looking to start op a new campaign in the future after not having the chance to game in five years (I was working 3rd shift). So I was wondering what RPG to run and if I wanted to run RQG, and if I looked like my players would enjoy it. I've got lots of good RPGs I'd love to run and play, but not enough free time or players to run them all. 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

It is the best-ever intro to Glorantha for newbies.  I'm sure you've seen the perennial threads on the Web of "Glorantha WTF how duz I even PLAY this thing???"  For the first time in DECADES, we have a decent chance to pull in new blood to our extra-niche-y corner of our niche hobby.

With all due respect this is pretty much the same thing I've heard when Hero Wars, MRQ, HeroQuest, MRQ2, HQ2 etc. has come out. All of those game have their own following. but none led to the influx of new blood and the restoration of RQ as a leading FRPG in the gaming market. Wasn't the BRPG BGB supposed to bring in new players? Did it? Sure. A lot? Uh, no. 

 

And speaking on RQG again, who posting here was drawn into our corner by RQG. It's the BGB all over again. We're the choir, and that corner is our home turf. 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

Notwithstanding that Traits/Passions have been in other Chaosium products, they haven't previously been Glorantha-fied & integrated into a coherent whole.  Care to point out where I (anyone) can buy Pendragon Pass these days?

Hopefully nowhere. It was a free fan produced product. As for Traits/Passion, they are a mixed blessing, and honestly I don't see them being the deciding factor in how well RQ fits Glorantha. For DECADES Greg Stafford's been saying that RQ wan't really a good fit for Glorantha,  as RQ was gritty realistic while Glortantha was mythic and larger than life. That's supposedly why we got HeroQuest. It was a better fit. Traits/Passions don't change that, nor does any of the stuff that I posted about. What in RQG does?

4 hours ago, g33k said:

  Where anyone who's NOT a RQ grognard could ever even BEGIN to source-together all these bits and pieces... or why they'd want to?

Well,, it was one bit, and it did give a pretty interesting game-using Pendragon not RQ. As for being an RQ grognard, I'm produ of that. If it wasn't for all the RQ2 and RQ3 gronard, do you think RQ would exist in any form other that 30 year old backstock? It wasn't the D&Ders who kept RQ alive at the gaming tables. It wasn't the CoCers or the "didn't really exist until the BGB" BRPers. It was the RQ grognards and the Strombringer adherents. 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

Unless we DO game art.  This book sets a new standard amongst all RQ's -- possibly in the entire industry -- for use of art beyond "pretty pictures" and even "mood-evocative" pieces (though it has those, too).  It follows the "picture is worth a thousand words" maxim and actually USES the art as part of the rulebook, illustrating and clarifying the text.

How many game sessions does you group spend looking at the art? Even one? In my experience, at best, the GM would show a particular picture for effect, and that was usually a map, or drawing on a location, NPC, monster, or some sort of puzzle.In my 38 years of experience I've never seen a gaming group spend ten minutes, let alone, an entire session looking at the art.  

4 hours ago, g33k said:

But even if you disagree, even if you STILL "don't game art..."  That's you, and others have other opinions on this, FrEx http://www.sirlarkins.com/blog/2018/6/3/art-in-rpgs

Yes, of course. My statement was to explain my reaction to there not being a disarm rule in the core RQG book and to question if I should buy RQG or would want to run it with my players. Strictly me. I never said that RQG was bad or that anyone else shouldn't enjoy it or no play it. Me, I'd much rather have the combat rules complete in one book, so I can find them when I need to, than have to flip through multiple books hunting something down ("Wasn't it on the page opposite the dead pig?"). Or carrying all those books to someone else's house to game. Or am I the only one for whom outfitting for the weekly game session is like prepping for an expedition? Am I the only one whose has overstuffed a backpack to bursting with Players Book, GM Book, Bestiary, Campaign setting, special sub-book for character A, special sub-book for character B, etc. etc.? Am I the only one who has, in that huge assortment of book, forgotten to bring the adventure? Am I the only one who rather have one book, with less style and more substance than a lot of pretty paperweights that I'm going to have to drag will me each week?

Thee was a time we people could question RPGs and RPG companies. This site was founded by someone who got banned (repeatedly) from the Mongose RQ forums for doing just that. But I guess that's not the case here anymore. The sad thing is that is isn't just a case of "Let's all drink the cool-aid", but that people are more than happy to mix their own. Blindly defending everything Chaosium does without question isn't good for RQ. 

As far as my "nitpicking" goes. I was hoping to get some stuff fixed while the game is still in PDF before it ends up in the printed version. I though now would be a good time to address and fix bugs before it's too late.

 

Now, I'm more that willing to keep out of the RQG section. So if everybody is willing to let thing lie, so am I. If someone wants to call me out over something, that's fine too.  And I never said anyone had to agree with my opinion about anything, did I?

[Prinz Slasar]

18 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

but none led to the influx of new blood and the restoration of RQ as a leading FRPG in the gaming market. Wasn't the BRPG BGB supposed to bring in new players? Did it? Sure. A lot? Uh, no. 

 

And speaking on RQG again, who posting here was drawn into our corner by RQG. It's the BGB all over again. We're the choir, and that corner is our home turf.  

I am one of those newbies who came to this "corner" through RQG. More specifically, it was the prospect of an updated rule version for RQ/Glorantha and the wonderful artwork.

Only a few months ago, I knew Glorantha only by name, and now I bought the PDF just on 1st june.

[RosenMcStern]

3 minutes ago, prinz.slasar said:

I am one of those newbies who came to this "corner" through RQG. More specifically, it was the prospect of an updated rule version for RQ/Glorantha and the wonderful artwork.

Only a few months ago, I knew Glorantha only by name, and now I bought the PDF just on 1st june.

Welcome to this fine assembly of aging grogn... er, I meant to this elite of roleplayes in the evocative world of Greg Stafford's Glorantha, then

Jokes apart, welcome to the club. If the amazing artwork by mr. Fetisov and others has inspired you to try a new dimension of roleplaying, this is a Good Thing.

[jajagappa]

34 minutes ago, prinz.slasar said:

I am one of those newbies who came to this "corner" through RQG. More specifically, it was the prospect of an updated rule version for RQ/Glorantha and the wonderful artwork.

Only a few months ago, I knew Glorantha only by name, and now I bought the PDF just on 1st june.

I, for one, am glad to hear that both attracted you to the game.  I know my players are appreciating both the rules and art as well.

[Atgxtg]

58 minutes ago, prinz.slasar said:

I am one of those newbies who came to this "corner" through RQG. More specifically, it was the prospect of an updated rule version for RQ/Glorantha and the wonderful artwork.

Only a few months ago, I knew Glorantha only by name, and now I bought the PDF just on 1st june.

Great. Welcome. Enter freely and of your own will. Travel swiftly, and leave something of the happiness you bring. We are all pleasedto have some new blood here and hope it is a sign of things to come. 

So you had no prior experience or exposure to RQ? That's encouraging. 

[Prinz Slasar]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

So you had no prior experience or exposure to RQ? That's encouraging

A little bit OT:
I played Stormbringer in the 90s so I was familiar with RQ light/d100.
My return to d100 was initiated through the german translation of Mythras (2017).
Not much later I discovered Glorantha and have been hooked ever since.




 

[Rick Meints]

We at the Chaosium encourage people to engage in energetic and respectful debates about our products. We do not shy away from constructive criticism. Everyone is welcome to send us negative and/or positive feedback, including mixed feedback. We see no value in echo chambers where only positive things are said. We strive to improve our products and we know that improving them isn't a challenge that will ever end. There are always more things to improve. It's an ongoing journey.

While this topic, like many topics, may have more positive or supportive comments being made, I've read through enough topics to see that negative views are far from rare. I haven't seen anyone banned for questioning Chaosium or any other company whose products are talked about on this forum. People disagreeing with a post is not the same as shouting someone down or preventing them from posting. There's a whole thread of people questioning and sometimes complaining about what they have found in the RQG PDF, and you could say the same about many previous products as well. I've heard the "drink the cool-aid" phrase used to describe these forums before, and I am sure it will get said again, but I don't feel the phrase accurately describes these forums. If these forums have a majority of people who generally support and enjoy the products being discussed, I fail to see why that's evidence of group think.

[Atgxtg]

30 minutes ago, prinz.slasar said:

A little bit OT:
I played Stormbringer in the 90s so I was familiar with RQ light/d100.
My return to d100 was initiated through the german translation of Mythras (2017).
Not much later I discovered Glorantha and have been hooked ever since.
 

So more of a returnee than a new convert. That's still good. One more player is still one more player. But is there anybody here who is completely new to the D100 system? A HeroQuest/Glorantha player curious about the new game? I hope there is. 

[Mugen]

4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

So more of a returnee than a new convert. That's still good. One more player is still one more player. But is there anybody here who is completely new to the D100 system? A HeroQuest/Glorantha player curious about the new game? I hope there is. 

Some people on french forum Casusno were hooked by the news of a game based on Glorantha, even if some of them prefered HQG over RQG.

[Atgxtg]

18 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

. I've heard the "drink the cool-aid" phrase used to describe these forums before, and I am sure it will get said again, but I don't feel the phrase accurately describes these forums. If these forums have a majority of people who generally support and enjoy the products being discussed, I fail to see why that's evidence of group think.

It when they get reactionary to people questiong things or expressing preferences that don't match their views that I consider evidence of it. When not buying the game within the first week of release is treated as some sort of sin is what I consider evidence of it. 

Look, I see that pointof view. For the first time in since the last Millennium (I think)  Chaosium has released a new RQ new Glorantha product. Everyone here want's it to be fantastics and a great success and lead to a prosperous Chasoium producing more great RQ and Gloratha supplements for us to buy and enjoy. That I didn't just jump on the band wagon bothers some people who don't want me to spoil everything, by possibly saying something about the game that isn't positive. 

People need to relax a bit. RQG isn't going to fail or succeed because of something I type, the lack or inclusion of a disarm rule, or a picture of a dead pig (I'm really started to feel empathy for that pig. I thing we share the same stateroom). 

But the game will die fast and hard if people pounce on those so dare to so much as question anything about it. Hey I'm one of the flock. What's going to happen if some curious D&Ders wander over and questioned the lack of character classes or something? Do we throw 'em on the pig.? We have to be more tolerant of different views if we are going to get (and keep) any new players. 

 

Oh, and it will be impossible to actually fix anything if we can't even bring it up. Various editions of CoC have repeated reprinted the same erroneous SIZ chart for years (in in BRP too, page 296). Is it a crime to point out that 95 short tons does not equal 44 metric tons, and that the values for SIZ 72+ are messed up and  that it would be nice to get stuff like that corrected? Eventually? Or should I just stop nitpicking and just wait for a new player to bring it up?

 

And to be clear, I'm not throwing this out at the Chaosium staff or even most of the people here.

 

[Jeff]

10 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It when they get reactionary to people questiong things or expressing preferences that don't match their views that I consider evidence of it. When not buying the game within the first week of release is treated as some sort of sin is what I consider evidence of it. 

Look, I see that pointof view. For the first time in since the last Millennium (I think)  Chaosium has released a new RQ new Glorantha product. Everyone here want's it to be fantastics and a great success and lead to a prosperous Chasoium producing more great RQ and Gloratha supplements for us to buy and enjoy. That I didn't just jump on the band wagon bothers some people who don't want me to spoil everything, by possibly saying something about the game that isn't positive. 

People need to relax a bit. RQG isn't going to fail or succeed because of something I type, the lack or inclusion of a disarm rule, or a picture of a dead pig (I'm really started to feel empathy for that pig. I thing we share the same stateroom). 

But the game will die fast and hard if people pounce on those so dare to so much as question anything about it. Hey I'm one of the flock. What's going to happen if some curious D&Ders wander over and questioned the lack of character classes or something? Do we throw 'em on the pig.? We have to be more tolerant of different views if we are going to get (and keep) any new players. 

 

Oh, and it will be impossible to actually fix anything if we can't even bring it up. Various editions of CoC have repeated reprinted the same erroneous SIZ chart for years (in in BRP too, page 296). Is it a crime to point out that 95 short tons does not equal 44 metric tons, and that the values for SIZ 72+ are messed up and  that it would be nice to get stuff like that corrected? Eventually? Or should I just stop nitpicking and just wait for a new player to bring it up?

 

And to be clear, I'm not throwing this out at the Chaosium staff or even most of the people here.

 

If you want to start a new thread where you try to help Chaosium fix RQG in ways that would make you think it is a better product, go for it. But let's return this thread to discussing about how much of RQ3 is in RQG.

[Rick Meints]

20 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, and it will be impossible to actually fix anything if we can't even bring it up. Various editions of CoC have repeated reprinted the same erroneous SIZ chart for years (in in BRP too, page 296). Is it a crime to point out that 95 short tons does not equal 44 metric tons, and that the values for SIZ 72+ are messed up and  that it would be nice to get stuff like that corrected? Eventually? Or should I just stop nitpicking and just wait for a new player to bring it up?

We have a 10 page thread on any errors and typos people are finding in RQG currently running. We invite all to post there. We're usually the ones who set up the topic. We've done this for almost all of our books that have come out over the last 2+ years. These so called "Tribal edits" have led to numerous things being fixed. We used this system for the GSB, 13G, the RQ Classics, and also recent CoC titles. 

You are welcome to post BGB errors and such over in the BRP forums. Unfortunately, that book isn't currently easily updatable since it was done quite a few years back and in the previous layout software that we don't use any more. As for previous editions of CoC, they are what they are, but that was all done by the previous team that is no longer with the company. As for the 7th edition, we have already updated it a number of times, and continue to do so as and when errors and such are reported. 

You are also welcome to start a new thread for discussing your specific concerns about how you see the forums as stifling, unwelcoming, etc. All we ask is that is be civil in tone and constructive in nature.

As for this thread, let's get it back to just being about the differences between RQ3 and RQG.

[David Scott]

It would be great if some one would do one of those feature charts, with RQ2, RQ3 and RQG along the the top, the features down the side and ticks and crosses at the intersections: 

may need breaking into sections  

 

 

[Madrona]

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

It would be great if some one would do one of those feature charts, with RQ2, RQ3 and RQG along the the top, the features down the side and ticks and crosses at the intersections: 

may need breaking into sections  

 

 

Here you go! Don't take it too seriously but this is about what I've determined. (Don't scream people please, its not meant to be 100% ultra serious on all statements, its mostly accurate for the ones that are system referential! Its everything notably different I've found)

[Psullie]

I have to ask, what is BUTT ?

and RQ2 did come with a Box 😉

[Madrona]

4 minutes ago, Psullie said:

I have to ask, what is BUTT ?

and RQ2 did come with a Box 😉

Page 373 of RQG.

And it DID?! Man, before my time, but I never knew.

[simonh]

If you’re going to put ‘disarm’ on its own row, we should probably put disengagement, knockback,  every runic ability, each cult write up, every career, each homeland, every skill, rune spell, spirit spell, sorcery spell, shamanic power and goodness knows what else that’s in RQG and not in RQ2 on its own row as well.

Edited June 10, 2018 by simonh

[SDLeary]

17 hours ago, simonh said:

If only the core book, monsters book and  GM book format had been well established in the hobby from the early days by a dominant product, estabilising a well known set of expectations around the many games published that way. Oh well

Seriously though, that’s a fairly hypothetical issue. I see plenty of people wanting what seems like hundreds of pages of extra material in the book, but it’s pretty well spelled out what is in there and the product roadmap has been clearly communicated. It’s not like the combat resolution tables have been saved for the GM book.

True, but the group I played with didn't have the GMs book for some time in those early days, we played almost all from the players book (which had all the core rules in it). And one of the group had the MM. We were all early teens with little money to spend.

Its only that you should expect the rules in a core rules book. Advanced rules, optional rules, special circumstance rules, world building, detailed world description, place them in other books, sure. But core rules should be in one place. And again, with as much as the deadlines of combat is emphasized, and alternatives to killing advised, less-lethal methods of succeeding in combat should have been included in the main book.

Now, do I expect them to fix this? No. Layout is done and last minute error-trapping/fixing needs to progress. However, I would suggest that they at least take the section that describes Disarming , format it as the book is formatted, and place it on their site for download.

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Madrona said:

Page 373 of RQG.

And it DID?! Man, before my time, but I never knew.

And in that box was the RQ2 book, Apple Lane (a booklet  couple of adventures), FANGS (a  booklet of pregen NPC/monster stats along the lines of FOES) and a sheet of paper with the title "What's in this Box?" ( a Chaosium trademark) that listed the contents so you knew if something was missing. Oh, and possibly a sheet of RQ2 errata. 

 

I miss boxed sets. Pity they aren't economically viable or some such anymore. 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Atgxtg

[g33k]

8 hours ago, David Scott said:

It would be great if some one would do one of those feature charts, with RQ2, RQ3 and RQG along the the top, the features down the side and ticks and crosses at the intersections: 

may need breaking into sections  

I have been wanting this "feature chart" for all the flavors of BRP -- which do hit-locations, which do Wounds, which do General HPs, etc;  SR, Init, Impulses;  Etc etc etc...

[simonh]

9 hours ago, SDLeary said:

True, but the group I played with didn't have the GMs book for some time in those early days, we played almost all from the players book (which had all the core rules in it). 

Except the combat tables, so you couldn't actually fight anything, per my little jibe. In first edition, anyway.

[PhilHibbs]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

And in that box was the RQ2 book, Apple Lane (a booklet  couple of adventures), FANGS (a  booklet of pregen NPC/monster stats along the lines of FOES) and a sheet of paper with the title "What's in this Box?" ( a Chaosium trademark) that listed the contents so you knew if something was missing. Oh, and possibly a sheet of RQ2 errata.

The UK boxed set came with dice. Really crappy ones!

[BWP]

On 6/10/2018 at 3:15 PM, simonh said:

If only the core book, monsters book and  GM book format had been well established in the hobby from the early days by a dominant product, estabilising a well known set of expectations around the many games published that way. Oh well

If only people didn't respond to serious comments with fatuous generalisations.  Oh well.

"Many games"?  Well, there's been a couple I suppose.  There have been many more published in the last 30 years that generally only required one book; of course all publishers want you to buy more than one, but only a handful have ever made it a pre-requisite.  And someone new (or relatively new) might not even know about those prior works.  The question is what does the cover of RQG tell you about needing to buy more books.  If the answer is "nothing" then it's a potential source of customer complaint.  Since I haven't studied the book in any detail, I honestly don't know the answer to the question -- I may be worrying about an issue that doesn't exist.  Smart-arse responses like the above simply aren't helpful.

On 6/10/2018 at 3:15 PM, simonh said:

Seriously though, that’s a fairly hypothetical issue. I see plenty of people wanting what seems like hundreds of pages of extra material in the book, but it’s pretty well spelled out what is in there and the product roadmap has been clearly communicated.

"Clearly communicated" where?  I'm not talking about a potential buyer scouring these forums, I'm talking about a potential buyer who sees the printed book for the first time in a shop and who is thinking about buying it.  If he/she does, takes it home, cracks it open and starts going through it, only to discover that there are other books that must be purchased also to make the game complete -- well, that person may be a trifle peeved.  How does that help Chaosium?

Of course, if the covers of the book adequately inform the potential purchaser about the expected commitments -- then they have no-one to blame but themselves if they don't like it but go ahead and buy it anyway.

I'm certainly not advocating or recommending a sticker that says "WARNING you must read our online forums before deciding to buy this book"!

[BWP]

On 6/10/2018 at 3:29 PM, Madrona said:

Honest to god, I think its complete enough.

I guess no-one can stop you from thinking so, but you're wrong.

On 6/10/2018 at 3:29 PM, Madrona said:

Yeah, there's no disarm rule and no monster statistics. But thats not necessary for a book.

Yes it is (the monster descriptions part that is).  Unless your FRPG design very specifically and explicitly tells you that all of your characters are (and will forever) be human, and that no such thing as a non-human exists, and that you will never, ever be expected to enter into combat with anything that isn't another human -- then your design is not complete.  I guess I could be mistaken, but I've always operated under the assumption that Glorantha contains several sentient species, many of which are not very human-like at all; furthermore, adventuring in Glorantha might even require that you encounter and engage in combat with all manner of beasties (in addition to other humans and other non-humans).  Am I wrong in that assumption?

A core rulebook that is operating as a single complete volume does not need to include everything about everything.  It should, however, give you at least a sample of everything.  Sample lands, sample critters, sample local political situation, sample cults, whatever.  Other books will expand according to whatever their particular focus is.

I'm not saying that it's wrong for RQG to require other volumes; but per what I've written above, I think it would be very unwise for the game to not make that clear to the potential purchaser.

 

On 6/10/2018 at 3:29 PM, Madrona said: