Quote from: Akrasia;858945:confused:

RQ6 only came out a few years ago, and in that short time DM has produced the Book of Quests, Monster Island, Mythic Britain, Luther Arkwright, etc.

And Shore of Korantia and The Taskan Empire. And the free SW supplement and Fenix articles. And if not for Moon Design, we would have had Adventures in Glorantha by the end of the year.

Yeah, RQ6 has not been hurting for support.

Quote from: Bren;859019I played RQ2, RQ3m and call of Cthulhu for decades so I have a good sense of how often tied quality results will occur (i.e. crit vs crit, special vs special, normal vs normal, miss vs miss, and fumble vs fumble) and I've played Pendragon which used a similar black jack roll under system for eliminating (most) tied quality results, so I have a fair idea of how much roll under black jack is likely to annoy me when applied to a D100 as well as how often using such a system will actually matter. I'm not trying to persuade anyone else to be annoyed, merely trying to explain why it annoys me and how it results in a marginally less intuitive play experience.

I get you don't like, but the popularity of blackjack compared to, well, any RPG on Earth goes against your argument that it's not intuitive. Saying "It's like blackjack" is always enough for people to nod instantly in understanding.

I'd say this blackjack argument has been beaten to death. There's more than enough information for a reader who cares* to make their own assessment, so unless the goal is to get Bren to publicly recant, what's the point?

* I don't care.

Quote from: Baulderstone;859046I get you don't like, but the popularity of blackjack compared to, well, any RPG on Earth goes against your argument that it's not intuitive. Saying "It's like blackjack" is always enough for people to nod instantly in understanding.

I think I got your point.

1. Lots of people play a card game called blackjack in Las Vegas so that means blackjack is intuitive.

2. People call an RPG opposed die roll method that uses the highest roll under a chance of success a blackjack highest roll under.

3. Since the word "blackjack" appears in the Vegas card game and in the name given to the RPG opposed die roll method that uses the highest roll under a chance of success, then the intuitiveness of the Las Vegas card game must equally apply to the blackjack highest roll under method in an RPG.

4. Runequest 6 adds the blackjack highest roll under method onto the existing Runequest method that compares quality of success (determined by die roll compared to chance of success) so that whenever the quality of success of the opposing rolls are tied the blackjack highest roll under method is used to break the tie, but if the opposed qualities of success are unequal, the blackjack highest roll under cannot be used as it will sometimes (though not all the time) yield an incorrect result.

5. Since the RQ6 combination of quality of success with blackjack highest roll under for breaking ties but not otherwise used still has the word "blackjack" in it, just like the Vegas card game, RQ6 must be just as intuitive as the Vegas card game.

You have indeed run in circles logically.

Quote from: Arminius;859047I'd say this blackjack argument has been beaten to death. There's more than enough information for a reader who cares* to make their own assessment, so unless the goal is to get Bren to publicly recant, what's the point?

Horse meat becomes more tender when thoroughly beaten.

Quote from: Baulderstone;859046I get you don't like, but the popularity of blackjack compared to, well, any RPG on Earth goes against your argument that it's not intuitive. Saying "It's like blackjack" is always enough for people to nod instantly in understanding.

That reasoning is kind of odd to me... Blackjack the cardgame has very simple rules centered on that one mechanism of determining a win/loss.
The RQ6 use of that mechanism, like it or not, exists amongst a much wider array of rules, of which it is relatively seldom used and goes counter to the otherwise fairly unified concept of lowest rolls being best.
It's not that it's harder/easier to understand... just that, sitting amongst the other rules, some people feel it is an odd fit.

Quote from: Arminius;859047I'd say this blackjack argument has been beaten to death. There's more than enough information for a reader who cares* to make their own assessment, so unless the goal is to get Bren to publicly recant, what's the point?

* I don't care.

I guess some people are reading Bren as not just saying the blackjack roll under mechanic doesn't feel intuitive to him, but that it's intrinsically less intuitive in general, which if you and your group find it perfectly intuitive (and I and my Pendragon group certainly do) might throw you. But even if you can convince Bren that the method is intuitive for you, you're not going to convince him that it's intuitive for him, so who cares?

Quote from: Pete Nash;858696I think you need to revise your perspective. For the last four years Loz and I have been writing, editing, negotiating art commissions, laying out books, proofreading and handling other writer's RQ projects; whilst also managing distribution deals, direct sales, postage, customer queries, chasing bills, printing cock-ups and all the other crap that running a business imposes.

In that time, other than RQ6 itself, we've put out an additional seven quality books not including the free Firearms and SW supplements.

Atop that, I have a bimonthly RQ column in a Swedish gaming magazine and much of my own 'spare' time over the previous year was researching and working on Adventures in Glorantha... instead of writing the Mycenaean Greece book that I actually wanted to do. In addition the Chaosium deal not only impacted several of our own projects, but they've also had us beavering away on multiple others since we got back from GenCon.

Considering we're just a couple of guys with family commitments, that this isn't our full time job and we get next to no real financial remuneration for our efforts - our interpretation of 'many' seems to be at odds with yours.

I meant no offence and know that you are both hard at work producing things as quickly as possible. Seven supplements in 4 years, 8 including the RQ6 rules, means 2 a year. I am not sure if that is "many", but I, for one, would like more.

I'd also like more from Mongoose, Chaosium, Alephtar, D101, Moon Design and the other gaming companies that I buy from.

Quote from: AxesnOrcs;858791Why? All of the games are broadly compatible.

Indeed they are, and I don't see the issue, frankly.
It's obvious the current situation bothers some people, but to me, it's the best possible option. This way, I can pick the core d100 rules that match best the game I have in mind, which is much more important than the minimum of fuss I need in order to add some content from other d100 variants.

Bren, I understand that blackjack isn't intuitive for you, but switching back to the old system wouldn't change the math of the system one bit, so what's the problem:)? And blackjack is more intuitive to me, and to people that like that higher is better, if you're good enough to make use of it.
Then again, this might be because you're used to RQ, and I'm almost equally used to Pendragon and Unknown Armies, both of which use the blackjack method;)

Quote from: baragei;858955I may bemoan TDM's appearant glacial pace, but the products have been pretty much outstanding. So thanks for that!

They have produced almost as much as Wizards have for 5e. Not bad for 2 part timers.