Quote from: Killfuck Soulshitter;668253Yeah, the font choices and layout of Magic World are poor. As a plus, though, the pdf reads well on a tablet due to the large font.

The next frontier in publishing is going to be variable layouts for screens with wildly divergent sizes and aspect ratios.

Really, any game that's going to have a PDF edition either needs to be laid out as a digest or have different formats for different devices.

QuoteMagic World still hits the spot for me, though. Great though RQ6 is, it has a large page count and requires some GM work to select magic systems, create cults etc. It feels like a Serious Game while MW feels like something to whip up some sword and sorcery fun.

If there's one thing that I could criticize RQ6 for, it's the lack of examples.

I like a lot fo what RQ6 brings to the table, but as mentioned before:
1) it leaves an AWFUL lot of work to the DM: the magic systems are essentially 'sketched' in, with no effort at balancing.  
2) the Action-point thing, with the break-point of 2 AP vs 3 AP just a *hair* over average stats, is terrible.  Having 1 extra AP means essentially a free, undefended action, every round, it's a huge advantage.

There are other gripes, but essentially it boils down to this: this was a system built out of love, and playtested out of love, and everyone involved *really* wants RQ to become again a living, breathing system with regular supplements and a community that's not 50-year-olds navel-contemplating on the Glorantha Mailing list.  But there's the problem: a rules system needs to be tested by people that *want* to find its weak points.  Who WANT to break it.  That doesn't appear to have been done.  The combat maneuvers - while a basically good system - is badly broken, making it far, far too easy for a single defender to be 'locked down' and have no AP to function at all.  Goodbye boss fights.

Latest news is that what was going to be a campaign supplement (Adventures in Glorantha) has been co-opted.  With Stafford and crew once again at the helm of Chaosium, they bought Moon Design (who owned the license).  This means Chaosium once again holds the license AND is eager to grow RQ.  So they made a deal with TDM that before next Gen Con, RQ will come out in a NEW edition (effectively, yes, RQ7) called only "RQ" and it will be fully integrated as a Glorantha game, with all the setting stuff inherent in the game.  That SHOULD resolve a lot of the workload on new DMs, and (hopefully) reinvigorate Glorantha as a game world.
Still doesn't fix my issues with the combat, but I'm looking forward to it and will CERTAINLY buy it.

Quote from: styopa;8488612) the Action-point thing, with the break-point of 2 AP vs 3 AP just a *hair* over average stats, is terrible.  Having 1 extra AP means essentially a free, undefended action, every round, it's a huge advantage.

The way I read it you normally only get 1 proactive action (attack, draw weapon, regain footing, etc.) per cycle of Strike Ranks. The extra AP are primarily useful for defense, more parries, countering spells, evading, etc...

Your average combat cycle will have those involved expend 2 action points - one to defend and one to attack. There are exceptions - if you're being ganged up on, forced to evade hellfire or a giant's club, or trying to be clever with delaying actions or manuevring etc.
But basicly, if your opponent has two action points while you have three; at the end of the first cycle he's probably done and you're free to put one right in his undefended smacker.
Having more action points than your opponent is nothing but a huge advantage.

In theory. And ..not uncommon in play. But not always - the RAW works pretty well provided you approach every encounter as a boss fight.

A proposed fix to the action point-conundrum is to lock everyone to to 2 AP, leaving 3+ to the übercombatants. Another fix is to raise the AP-threshold, but you'd have to look at how strike ranks and initiative play into the equation. It has been proposed to make AP's rely on skill level instead of attributes, which would unbalance things.

The action points was a thing I worried about, but found it to be pretty much a non-issue as we got to play it.

Quote from: baragei;848904But basicly, if your opponent has two action points while you have three; at the end of the first cycle he's probably done and you're free to put one right in his undefended smacker.

Doh! I can see where I misread that now. I joined a RQ6 game on D20 to help learn me the rules but so far we've only had 1 combat.

Still, doesn't seem like a problem to me. Fast guy throws more punches, smart guy sees more openings.

Quote from: baragei;848904The action points was a thing I worried about, but found it to be pretty much a non-issue as we got to play it.

That has been my experience as well. It is a minor advantage but doesn't really unbalance the game.

QuoteThe combat maneuvers - while a basically good system - is badly broken, making it far, far too easy for a single defender to be 'locked down' and have no AP to function at all.

Styopa, I'm looking forward to your detailed, play-based examples of precisely which Special Effects are badly broken, how broken they are, where they broke, and what you would personally do to fix the issues. I'm also looking forward to your evidence to support the below conclusion:

QuoteBut there's the problem: a rules system needs to be tested by people that *want* to find its weak points. Who WANT to break it. That doesn't appear to have been done.

Because you've obviously talked in great detail to the six play test groups used for RQ6 who candidly admitted that they failed to playtest RQ6 properly or had their playtest feedback crushed. Failing that, perhaps you could publish the exchange of playtest notes between Design Mechanism and the playtesters which will clearly support the above statement.

I've no doubt you can back up your various conclusions - even though they seem to be at odds with the vast amount of other experiences and feedback out there.

Quote from: Zachary The First;663830-Wait for OpenQuest 2 (coming out soon)
-BRP with Classic Fantasy
-Mongoose Legend
-Basic Roleplaying With Classic Fantasy
-RuneQuest 6
-Age of Shadow
-Use the Renaissance SRD, strip out the black powder stuff.

Meh. They're D100 mechanic. So it doesn't matter which one you pick. Just like with D20 mechanic.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;849033Meh. They're D100 mechanic. So it doesn't matter which one you pick. Just like with D20 mechanic.

There is a lot of truth to that.

Oh dear, for a sock-puppet post this is pretty weak and pretty sad considering what TDM has achieved over a short period of time.

Quote from: styopa;8488611) it leaves an AWFUL lot of work to the DM: the magic systems are essentially 'sketched' in, with no effort at balancing.

The magic systems in RQ6 are the best they've ever been and full of examples. This is your weakest complaint and has no basis - not only does the rule book fully flesh out all the systems, Monster Island, for one, puts the sorcery system and spells into a specific setting and shows what you can do with it. Ironically the only complaints I've seen about magic are from RQ2 grogs (that's the 50 year old navel-gazers to you) who don't like the loss of power in battle magic (now folk magic) which doesn't match up to RQ2 levels of power. I'm not sure what you mean by 'balancing', but strangely, one of the reasons for reducing Folk Magic was to ensure it's not as powerful as Divine Magic, hence, 'balancing' it.

Quote2) the Action-point thing, with the break-point of 2 AP vs 3 AP just a *hair* over average stats, is terrible.  Having 1 extra AP means essentially a free, undefended action, every round, it's a huge advantage.

The AP system is one of those things which sounds much trickier than it is. It's also pretty easy to adjust if you don't like it - ie. just shift the point where you get 3 APs lower down. Do I have 3AP or only 2? Do you feel lucky?

QuoteThe combat maneuvers - while a basically good system - is badly broken, making it far, far too easy for a single defender to be 'locked down' and have no AP to function at all.  Goodbye boss fights.

They're called special effects now...have you played RQ6? CMs, as they were in MRQ2, are one of the stand-out additions to the RQ rules, I remember laughing when I read that section of the rules - the laugh of recognition when I realised someone had created something so innovative that immediately made the game better, and that sense was only re-inforced when I played it.

QuoteLatest news is that what was going to be a campaign supplement (Adventures in Glorantha) has been co-opted.  With Stafford and crew once again at the helm of Chaosium, they bought Moon Design (who owned the license).  This means Chaosium once again holds the license AND is eager to grow RQ.  So they made a deal with TDM that before next Gen Con, RQ will come out in a NEW edition (effectively, yes, RQ7) called only "RQ" and it will be fully integrated as a Glorantha game, with all the setting stuff inherent in the game.  That SHOULD resolve a lot of the workload on new DMs, and (hopefully) reinvigorate Glorantha as a game world.
Still doesn't fix my issues with the combat, but I'm looking forward to it and will CERTAINLY buy it.

So after slagging RQ6 this is really a moan about the move towards Glorantha? I don't think you have the details quite right but the rules will still be RQ6. Everyone is disappointed this is going to cause a delay (it seems) in releasing the AiG material but the upside is for the most part a lot of the production work is shifted over to Chaosium now and TDM can concentrate on writing, which ultimately should mean more RuneQuest, more often, and more lavish production. Hurrah. Now stop moaning and go fight a hydra in Monster Island, come back and tell us how that went.