RuneQuest Dice from Q-Workshop

[Humakt]

2 hours ago, jps said:

I've just received my dice today and I got the "incorrect" dice, so I guess that if you are interested in purchasing them, you'll have to wait a bit longer..

In q workshop website that set is not anymore available, I order my a week ago and it don’t arrived yet, I order both the normal set and the hit location one and a few days after to make the order they took it off from the website, so I don’t know, I presume they are working to fix the mistake

[Rick Meints]

Q-workshop is correcting the Hit Location D20 die so it has the correct information on it.

They are also working on a plan to provide replacement dice for those that purchased the incorrect die. To limit the number of people affected by this they stopped selling the D20 as soon as they found out, and also probably stopped processing orders that had not shipped. We are working with Q-workshop to get free replacement dice sent out to those who purchased them at Gen Con or via their website. Once the corrected replacement dice are ready Q-workshop will announce how they intend to do that. Thus far there is no expectation that any dice will have to be returned.

[jps]

1 hour ago, Humakt said:

In q workshop website that set is not anymore available, I order my a week ago and it don’t arrived yet, I order both the normal set and the hit location one and a few days after to make the order they took it off from the website, so I don’t know, I presume they are working to fix the mistake

That's the reason why I'm posting here to warn people: I ordered mine on August the 8th, so quite recently and I got the bad one. So ordering right now can be a little risky.

[Dragonsnail]

26 minutes ago, jps said:

That's the reason why I'm posting here to warn people: I ordered mine on August the 8th, so quite recently and I got the bad one. So ordering right now can be a little risky.

I think they will be good to order when Q Workshop put up the variant set on the site again. The standard set is fine of course, but I wanted to order both sets, so I'll wait until then.

[MOB]

Antonios S of RPGNet reviews the new RuneQuest dice from Q Workshop:

"The best imaginable dice for ancient civilizations out there... the two RuneQuest Dice Sets are fantastic, brilliant, exquisite, and I can continue with a long list of adjectives, all of them positive. They cover a rather incredible hole in the genres of dice marketed out there, namely designs relating to Bronze Age..."

Style: 5 (Excellent!)
Substance: 5 (Excellent!)

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/17/17738.phtml

 

 

[styopa]

RPG.net reviewers really need to make their ethical stance explicit; if someone's reviewing a $17 dice set and telling me they're the best thing ever, I'd like to know if they got some in the mail or if they went out and actually bought them.

I'm not saying a freebie review isn't worthwhile, it's better than no review at all certainly.

Does Chaosium get a cut from licensed products?

 

[Zozotroll]

I would certainly think so.  

[styopa]

17 hours ago, Zozotroll said:

I would certainly think so.  

I'd hope so.  It's the only possibility that I'm going to buy a $17 set of dice. 

I shouldn't lie, there's 0% chance I'd buy $17 dice.

[Cawdorthane]

I received my RQG dice yesterday.  Yes, the dodgy hit-location die was a let down, but I received a friendly and prompt email from the Q-Workshop people promising to send me a replacement one in due course.  So happy ending on that front.  Writing as someone who likes his dice, these were imho worth the money, being readily legible and good quality.  Maybe using custom dice is very much a matter of personal style or interest, but as I have always felt that Glorantha was as much about the 'feel' as the mechanics, these dice fit in nicely.  Thanks RQG & Q-Workshop!

 

cheers

Mark

[tedopon]

On 8/27/2018 at 1:22 PM, styopa said:

I'd hope so.  It's the only possibility that I'm going to buy a $17 set of dice. 

I shouldn't lie, there's 0% chance I'd buy $17 dice.

This statement reminds me of something I noticed recently. 

I go to GenCon each year because my job pays for the trip, and I also try to attend at least one smaller con per year. 

This year's trip to GenCon, both me and a friend who attended noted that there were a LOT of people using the fancy metal dice this year. I would ballpark it at 1/10 of everyone I sat with this year had metal dice. They must have come down significantly in price over the last couple years, because this year there was a large jump in the frequency we were seeing them.

[styopa]

15 hours ago, tedopon said:

This statement reminds me of something I noticed recently. 

I go to GenCon each year because my job pays for the trip, and I also try to attend at least one smaller con per year. 

This year's trip to GenCon, both me and a friend who attended noted that there were a LOT of people using the fancy metal dice this year. I would ballpark it at 1/10 of everyone I sat with this year had metal dice. They must have come down significantly in price over the last couple years, because this year there was a large jump in the frequency we were seeing them.

Yeah, you can get actual metal dice now for around $18-$20.

[g33k]

On 8/26/2018 at 3:50 PM, styopa said:

RPG.net reviewers really need to make their ethical stance explicit; if someone's reviewing a $17 dice set and telling me they're the best thing ever, I'd like to know if they got some in the mail or if they went out and actually bought them.

I'm not saying a freebie review isn't worthwhile, it's better than no review at all certainly.

FWIW. this reviewer does a LOT of reviews.  The CoC7 custom dice got a 3+5 rating (vs. the RQ dice 5+5), and the Pathfinder "Ironfang Invasion" and "Skill&Shackles" sets got 3+4 & 3+3 respectively (all Q-Workshop).  Other dice have also gotten his 5+5 top-marks ratings.

Agreed, though, that it'd be nice to see if he was reviewing a free-to-him gift, or a bought-at-retail product.

 

On 8/26/2018 at 3:50 PM, styopa said:

Does Chaosium get a cut from licensed products?

I suspect so.  Hence "license."  ;-) 

nuChaosium seems to include some really practical business-minded sorts; I presume they are getting most of what they want out of this deal (and practicality suggests that'd be money).

[Rick Meints]

While I'm not going to discuss the specifics of any license, a commercial license from Chaosium involves paying cash royalties in exchange for use of our IP and/or trademarks. In particular, Chaosium no longer has any licenses where we accept free product from the licensee instead of a cash royalty.

[g33k]

19 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

While I'm not going to discuss the specifics of any license, a commercial license from Chaosium involves paying cash royalties in exchange for use of our IP and/or trademarks. In particular, Chaosium no longer has any licenses where we accept free product from the licensee instead of a cash royalty.

like I said:  practical.    🙂

('cos you can't pay the mortgage with a case of dice)

[Zozotroll]

Outstanding.  While I want you to continue to make great runequest stuff, I also want you to stay in business and make lots of money

[Antonios S]

On 8/27/2018 at 12:50 AM, styopa said:

RPG.net reviewers really need to make their ethical stance explicit; if someone's reviewing a $17 dice set and telling me they're the best thing ever, I'd like to know if they got some in the mail or if they went out and actually bought them.

I'm not saying a freebie review isn't worthwhile, it's better than no review at all certainly.

 

 

4 hours ago, g33k said:

FWIW. this reviewer does a LOT of reviews.  The CoC7 custom dice got a 3+5 rating (vs. the RQ dice 5+5), and the Pathfinder "Ironfang Invasion" and "Skill&Shackles" sets got 3+4 & 3+3 respectively (all Q-Workshop).  Other dice have also gotten his 5+5 top-marks ratings.

Agreed, though, that it'd be nice to see if he was reviewing a free-to-him gift, or a bought-at-retail product.

 

I am the reviewer of the said review. I copy it here for ease of reference. https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/17/17738.phtml

All reviews on RPG.net have a Review Summary on the right of the review, along with the product summary. It states clearly whether an item a) was provided for the purposes of reviewing or whether it was paid for, and b) whether it was used during gaming conditions or not.  

This review, like most of mine, reads in bold: 

Comped Playtest Review

Thus, the item was provided to me for reviewing ('comped'), and was used in real game conditions ('playtest').

I believe this clarifies the ethical stance of RPG.net. This info is part of the template for review submission; it is always on the same spot, and can thus be instantly identified for what it is. 

[g33k]

TYVM, Antonio.  Sorry for not reading the sidebar more carefully!  (For those following via mobile skin, the "side"bar follows at the bottom of the review)

I usually find your reviews worth reading.  I may not always agree, but I cannot recall ever thinking you were just "wrong" -- it has always been a case of something where I could say "I see why he thinks that, even if I don't share his opinion.". It's always worth my time!

[styopa]

5 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

While I'm not going to discuss the specifics of any license, a commercial license from Chaosium involves paying cash royalties in exchange for use of our IP and/or trademarks. In particular, Chaosium no longer has any licenses where we accept free product from the licensee instead of a cash royalty.

Thanks!

58 minutes ago, Antonios S said:

 

I am the reviewer of the said review. I copy it here for ease of reference. https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/17/17738.phtml

All reviews on RPG.net have a Review Summary on the right of the review, along with the product summary. It states clearly whether an item a) was provided for the purposes of reviewing or whether it was paid for, and b) whether it was used during gaming conditions or not.  

This review, like most of mine, reads in bold: 

Comped Playtest Review

Thus, the item was provided to me for reviewing ('comped'), and was used in real game conditions ('playtest').

I believe this clarifies the ethical stance of RPG.net. This info is part of the template for review submission; it is always on the same spot, and can thus be instantly identified for what it is. 

And thank you Anthony!

I saw that, but didn't know if that meant it was a compensated (paid) review, or paid-in-kind (ie with product only).  

Very much appreciate your comments!

Again: so everyone's clear - there's nothing wrong with comped reviews intrinsically.  In fact, they can be better (Anthony does a ton of dice reviews for example; nobody's going to buy 30 sets of dice, so the fact that he gets them free actually means he has more to compare with AND I will point out that he's not just doing the Tame Reviewer thing - he does give some dice pretty meodiocre ratings.

I wrote computer game reviews for 10+ years online and for magazines, and probably 80% were comped with product and that's all.  Considering the effort that Anthony puts into his reviews, it's a fair amount of time spent.

[Theodric]

Was anybody able to get a replacement die? I have a friend who picked up a set for me at Gen Con... and still hasn't managed to pass them to me. Now I see that they seem to be available at a distributor up here, so I'm guessing the problem was fixed.

 

[Wolfpack48]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 1:54 PM, Jason Durall said:

If you have the incorrect dice, a simple workaround is that any time a roll of Left Leg comes up, roll a d10 and divide by 2. If the end result is a 5, it should be treated as Abdomen. 

One quick question on the workaround -- mathematically, should we be "rounding up" using this method?  So either a 9 (4.5) or 10 (5) is an Abdomen hit on a left leg roll, or just 10?

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Wolfpack48 said:

One quick question on the workaround -- mathematically, should we be "rounding up" using this method?  So either a 9 (4.5) or 10 (5) is an Abdomen hit on a left leg roll, or just 10?

Round up, 9 or 10.

[Wolfpack48]

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Round up, 9 or 10.

Thank you!

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Wolfpack48 said:

Thank you!

Advanced Dice Rolling

Think of it this way. There are 5 Left Leg faces, and there should only be 4. So one time in five, that face should say Abdomen. How do you do 1-in-5? It is the same as 2-in-10, and you have a D10. Roll it and nominate two of the results as indicating that one-in-five case. As long as you know beforehand which faces indicate it, it can be any you like. 9 and 10, 1 and 2, 1 and 10, pick a pair and stick with it.

You could instead roll the location D20 again and nominate 4 of the 20 faces as abdomen, e.g. the Right Leg faces, or the Abdomen and Head faces.

Or just dab some tipp-ex or cor-flu on one of the Left Leg faces and that's the Abdomen.

Edited September 30, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[g33k]

Can anybody confirm that the dice (the expansion set) at the webstore now have the corrected version of the hit-location die?

[daskindt]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

Can anybody confirm that the dice (the expansion set) at the webstore now have the corrected version of the hit-location die?

Should be. I just received my corrected dice in the past week.