Pregen Regen - Recreating the pregenerated adventurers

[PhilHibbs]

If anything, I'd suggest sneaking a paragraph in somewher that says "Some or all of these pregenerated adventurers diverge from a literal reading of the character creation sysytem. That's ok, and you are encouraged to change the numbers according to personal taste when creating your adventurers, subject to GM approval."

[Shiningbrow]

 

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think you're being more than a little harsh there! The pregens are fine as they are. The discrepancies are all fairly minor, a few points here and there and mostly on "skills that no-one cares about anyway". If you're going to use one of them as a long term character, like if you want to play Yanioth through to priesthood, then sure that 15% Cult Lore (Ernalda) might be a big deal, and I think everyone will spot that Vishi Dunn has a lower Track skill than base plus modifier. Mistakes happen, I'm sure that last one was just a typo, there's no need for apologies.

This thread was never intended as criticism, I should have made that clear from the outset!

I don't think I'm being "more than a little" harsh. Harsh - yes. More than what was deserved given the response - no.

I do agree with you that the discrepancies are fairly minor, and they won't make much difference to most (if any) people in the long run.

I do, however, think that the official response (if such it was) was inappropriate and insulting.  There were clearly mistakes made - the sheets weren't checked (yes, it happens - that's not a big deal). But, the way I read it, It comes across as "No, we're not wrong... it's just different". Given they're supposed to be representative of character creation, it really doesn't help.

In doing the YGMV, they're effectively saying you're wrong... And I find that unfair, and thus, insulting.

 

I'm a teacher. I tell  my students that mistakes are fine. They're supposed to be making mistakes... but accept then, learn from them, and move on. Don't deny them or try to put the 'blame' for them elsewhere!

 

 

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

I've used the pregens many times with no problems. @PhilHibbs was spot on with that last post.

I'm sure you have. I have no problems with the pregens having whatever stats they choose to give them... as long as it's clearly indicated that they are different from what the character creations rules should give them! If they're meant as examples of that chargen - it's not good, and that should be admitted to.

 

59 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

If anything, I'd suggest sneaking a paragraph in somewher that says "Some or all of these pregenerated adventurers diverge from a literal reading of the character creation sysytem. That's ok, and you are encouraged to change the numbers according to personal taste when creating your adventurers, subject to GM approval."

Yep! That's exactly the sort of thing I would have liked to have seen written!

 

 

 

[David Scott]

@PhilHibbswhich of the three versions of the pregens are you using?

[PhilHibbs]

41 minutes ago, David Scott said:

@PhilHibbswhich of the three versions of the pregens are you using?

Mostly the indvidual sheets from the GM pack, but the last couple have been done from the 2nd printing rule book. I kind of expected those to be the same, and I was only aware of there being two versions...

Edited April 30, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[g33k]

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

To have what is obviously so many mistakes (clearly, these weren't properly and carefully checked) - ...

Actually, I suspect (strongly!) that these pregens were correct, as of when they were created.

These are from the Quickstart, which was based on an early-draft edition of the rules.  That they not match the final rules is unsurprising... to those who realize this fact.

That said... I am loosely in agreement with @Shiningbrow's assertion that much of the point of pregen PC's is to have exemplars of how a RAW-PC turns out, which these clearly are not (given their origin, however, I'm unable to muster much of the outrage Shiningbrow seems to feel).  I agree that they "should" be brought up to date with the current, as-published rules.

And that in turn being said... I'm loosely in agreement with others' sentiment that, in-play / in-use (as one-shot PC's for intro scenarios), there aren't enough substantive errors to merit a revision:  it doesn't matter for that context.

Everyone'sGMV

[PhilHibbs]

As of right now, all the sheets are done. The last four - Sorala, Vishi Dunn, Nathem and Vostor - have been done such that if you delete the numbers in the "Extra" column on the CharGen sheet, you get a version of the character that (as far as I can tell) is correct as per the current rules. I will update the others so that they work the same way.

The CharGen sheet has tick boxes for the five enhancing spirit magic spells (Coordination, Glamour, Mobility, Strength, Vigor), for the characters that have these I have ticked them which results in small numbers appearing on the CharSheet indicating the skill levels and other numbers for when those spells are in effect.

Oh, and I just fixed Harmast and Yanioth's reputations.

*Edit* I've done all the sheets in the same way now, clear the Extra column and you get a version of the character that has skills by the book.

Edited April 30, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Shiningbrow]

12 hours ago, g33k said:

Actually, I suspect (strongly!) that these pregens were correct, as of when they were created.

These are from the Quickstart, which was based on an early-draft edition of the rules.  That they not match the final rules is unsurprising... to those who realize this fact.

That said... I am loosely in agreement with @Shiningbrow's assertion that much of the point of pregen PC's is to have exemplars of how a RAW-PC turns out, which these clearly are not (given their origin, however, I'm unable to muster much of the outrage Shiningbrow seems to feel).  I agree that they "should" be brought up to date with the current, as-published rules.

And that in turn being said... I'm loosely in agreement with others' sentiment that, in-play / in-use (as one-shot PC's for intro scenarios), there aren't enough substantive errors to merit a revision:  it doesn't matter for that context.

Everyone'sGMV

I just want to say - again - that the "outrage" wasn't over the mistakes. It was that these mistakes were effectively denied with the YGMV comment

Mistakes are fine. Mistakes happen. Ignoring or denying them isn't ok.

As for revising them... perhaps, perhaps not. The work has already been done. All it would take is about 10 mins to fix for any further printing in some future when they're being done.

 

With all that said - I'm letting it go now.

[David Scott]

19 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I was only aware of there being two versions...

Quickstart

Runequest Core book 1st printing

Runequest Core book 2nd printing

GM Screen Pack

There were changes in the Core book 2nd printing to the pre-gens.

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, David Scott said:

Quickstart

Runequest Core book 1st printing

Runequest Core book 2nd printing

GM Screen Pack

There were changes in the Core book 2nd printing to the pre-gens.

If there are any differences between the last two, then there may be some ambiguity. Does anyone have an opinion on which version I should take as being authoritative?

Oh, also I used a mix of the printed GM Pack and the PDF. Not sure if there are any differences there, but I know some of the GM Pack PDFs are out of date.

Edited May 1, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[BalazarLightson]

Sure the Pregen's predate the release of the Core Rules, and vary from what you might make with the Character Gen system in the book. Still compared to many games with Quickstarts and Starter boxes these days, they are far better than the average attempt I've seen in the last few years. Working in the FLGS, I've several starter sets for games where there is no way the Pregens get close to characters made with the system, and even become basically unplayable beyond the starter scenario, requiring complete rebuilds if folk get attached. 

If fans want to rebuild the characters and put them up in the community pages, fine, if they want to build more characters folk could use for games, great, I'd love to see more of what folk are doing. 

[PhilHibbs]

@JavaApp Sorry I goofed up on Sorala, I put her as having 1H Battle Axe instead of Broadsword as that made more sense for her culture. I have changed it now, so you might want to take a fresh copy using the same link.

I got her missile weapons wrong as well.

Oh, also Vishi Dunn's Hit Points are wrong in the pregen sheets, but are correct in my spreadsheet. The official versions don't give him the +1 for having a high POW. 

Edited May 5, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Lordabdul]

Bumping this thread! (since Phil linked to it for me recently)

Regarding Harmast, aren't most of his spells basically useless when you consider his origins as a Quickstart Scenario character? Passage must be stacked with Lock (which he doesn't have), and Spell Trading must be done in an Issaries Market (a situation that doesn't present itself in The Broken Tower). I guess a simple fix would be to replace Spell Trading with Lock and you fix 2 problems in one go. Does anybody have other suggestions?

[French Desperate WindChild]

I didn't read this topic before today, like @lordabdul

Just to say, without any anger, that I used one time the pregen to better understand the creation process. I didn't find any issue between the example and the rule (I don't remember wich one), after analysis.

There is no problem to play pregen as is. But it could be usefull to fix/advert in a new release (of course after god and godess, sorcery, blablabla.. even prince of sartar comic 😛 ) just when "new player/gm" use pregen stat to understand the rules

[Akhôrahil]

On 4/30/2019 at 10:18 AM, Shiningbrow said:

I'm going to say what I think many readers are probably thinking - that's a really bad idea (not updating the pregens officially)

Completely agree. It’s easy to see why the mistakes happened, but not updating them even after someone put in the work to check it and correct them? Examples that don’t line up with the rules are super confusing.