Quote from: RosenMcStern;940370Erm, wasn't this supposed to be a RuneQuest 3 thread? Who derailed it talking about products by The Evil Competition(TM)?

Hmm, true, this thread was supposed to be about RQ3, hmm, ok, I'll say a few words about it.

The first RPG I ever played was D&D Mentzer (the one with the Larry Elmore cover), but the first RPG I ever bought, and ever loved, was RQ3. It was the Spanish version, which was, if I'm not mistaken, a translation of the British version (Games Workshop), with two corebooks, RQ Basic and RQ Advanced. After having played D&D Mentzer and MERP, RQ3 blew me away, it felt so logical and consistent.

Nowadays, I would (and will, when my turn to be the GM comes, soon, my treasure, soon ) choose another flavor of d100. The BRP golden book includes some rules slightly different from the RQ3 ones, which I like more. And I like Mythras even more than BRP. I might like Revolution d100 as much as Mythras if I get to decipher the rules.


At RosenMcStern

Thank you for your answers. Perhaps I should open or resurrect a thread about Rd100 so I don't derail this one.

By the way, I saw a conflict example in the corebook, but no combat example. Did you write a combat example anywhere? I would like to see one.

Quote from: Simlasa;940517My main issue with RQ3 were the flimsy paper covers on the rulebooks that came in the boxed set. I was careful with mine, and kept them out of the hands of rougher folks... but I really wish they'd been made of sterner stuff.

Really? Mines made of the same stock as the pages inside. But its a pretty sturdy stock. Its not cardstock like the module covers. But not flimsy paper either.

Quote from: Claudius;940539Thank you for your answers. Perhaps I should open or resurrect a thread about Rd100 so I don't derail this one.

By the way, I saw a conflict example in the corebook, but no combat example. Did you write a combat example anywhere? I would like to see one.

Quick answers to avoid stealing space from the main subject of the thread: yes, chapter 4: "Combat" has few examples. As it is chapter 3 that introduces something really new, we prioritized providing more examples for that, instead. This means that the long, complete example that other games devote to combat was instead reserved for a social encounter, with the incidental violent part of the challenge excised.

A Basic Combat example is essentially the same as a non-violent Conflict in a violent context. I do not have a complete advanced combat example ready for linking - it could be a good idea to provide one as soon as possible, given that users are starting to have the game available for play.

Quote from: Claudius;940376I suspect that all this Chaosium talk that "the new Chaosium RQ4 (yes, 4th, Mongoose and the Design Mechanism never happened!!) will be like RQ2, with some tiiiiiiny changes", is just marketingspeak. After all, RQ2 is still remembered and very well regarded by a lot of RQ fans, and the RQ2 kickstarter was a resounding success, so it is in the best interest of Chaosium to portray RQ7 as the natural successor of RQ2.

I had a look at the RQ7 design notes, and didn't get the impression that RQ is actually so similar to RQ2. Yes, RQ7 is a d100 game and as such, it will share a lot of traits with RQ2, but I think the same can be said about RQ3, MRQ1, MRQ2 and RQ6. Or Stormbringer.

Anyways, all of this is speculations from me, time will tell if I was right or wrong.

Personally, I have little to no faith that the new Chaosium management will create an RQ I'll want to play.

Quote from: Omega;940547Really? Mines made of the same stock as the pages inside. But its a pretty sturdy stock. Its not cardstock like the module covers. But not flimsy paper either.

Yeah, it's a petty thing... but it bugs me beyond any rational reason. The Fantasy Trip books were similarly annoying to me in that regard.

yah, its a shame that TFT was published the way it was. They did it for a reason: their goal was to present a game that was structurally a bit like D&D (three core books; involves mucking around in dungeons), but cost ~1/3 as much to buy - i.e., it would fit within Metagaming's business model of pumping out cheap but cool table top board games. It worked - a lot of people bought TFT as it was published. But the poor editing and super cheesy cover art was bothersome from the start (got knows why the covers were like that; the interior line art is great). And they practically dissolved in peoples hands as the books aged. One of the reasons why the game didn't revive well during the OSR revival is that the original books are in bad shape. Plus the IP is owned by an insane monster who won't republish or let anyone else take it over. Also, GURPs sort of displaced it in the market. And the lineup of campaign and adventure materials went downhill super fast - Death Trap is fun in a board gamey way, but the rest of it is honestly not worth while other than as collectors materials. Its too bad, because the rules were great and arguably better for dungeon crawling than any of the other 'D&D with a difference' games (Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, Chivalry and Sorcery, etc.)

Quote from: TrippyHippy;940387RQ2 doesn't actually use a Resistance table for anything other than POW vs POW conflicts (usually for magic).

You have stated this before and you are still wrong

Quote from: waltshumate;940590You have stated this before and you are still wrong

I have the RuneQuest 2 book in front of me now. The Resistance table is located P37 in the Basic Magic Chapter, and specifically refers to POW vs POW only.

It may be in a Basic Roleplaying supplement in a box set version of RuneQuest, but it isn't in the RQ2 rulebook itself for anything else - including Appendices.

You are wrong.

Well, there are the following I can find for uses of the Resistance table:

- p56: Rune Lord allying a spirit uses POW+CHA vs POW+INT of spirit
- p66: Darkness Elemental uses its POW against the CON of the victim
- p66: Fire Elemental uses a roll of 3d6 vs the CON of the victim on the Resistance table
- p67: Sylphs can throw people unless they resist by pitting STR vs that of the elemental (explicitly said to be STR vs STR rather than POW vs POW using the Resistance table)
- p100: Knockback "compare STR+SIZ of attacker vs SIZ+DEX of target on the resistance table" (paraphrased a bit) (Appendix C)

There are also Characteristic rolls used throughout the book, not just on p98

p45 Poisons attack by matching their POT against CON
p90 Vampires attack like Ghosts (POW vs POW)

I cannot find Wraiths in the RQ2 rulebook, but they matched POW vs CON/STR in their initial attack, I think.

RQ3 was the first book I ever encountered in the Runequest series. I found it rather late in my gaming years - 2008 or so I think? I got my hands on a copy of the Deluxe Edition and fell in love with the mechanics immediately. Because it was my first read, I still prefer that particular edition over any other, though I quite like the RQ6 copy I have. I've just picked up the RQC hardcover, and am waiting to read it (time, time, time), so I'll see how I feel after that.

In terms of mechanics? I know the encumbrance rules seem laborious, but I guess I just got used to clunky mechanics and tracking from my Rolemaster days, so it didn't bug me. But I have a preference for games where wandering around with 100lbs of gear matters, and incentives light weight travel and armour. My players? A lot of them love the "so epic it shits marble" approach to gaming, and therefore RQ sits on my shelf, untouched and unused a lot of the time.

The Mythic Earth bit in RQ3 was what sold me the most, actually. I liked how Ars Magica made a mythic earth as well, and this one was in the same vein in terms of setting, and made me really start to rethink what I wanted out of fantasy games.

RQ3's encumbrance rules are not really that complicated: you add up what you are carrying, and its either above your limit or not. People gripe about it because they are babies about tracking any kind of encumbrance!

Quote from: Larsdangly;940698RQ3's encumbrance rules are not really that complicated: you add up what you are carrying, and its either above your limit or not. People gripe about it because they are babies about tracking any kind of encumbrance!

Keeping track of fatigue and encumbrance in RQ was super easy. I never understood why people thought it was so complicated.

My gripe was that it seemed like a useless complication. I played RQIII pretty heavily from '85-'95 or so, and don't ever remember the skill penalties -ever- coming into play.

Quote from: Herne's Son;940699My gripe was that it seemed like a useless complication. I played RQIII pretty heavily from '85-'95 or so, and don't ever remember the skill penalties -ever- coming into play.

It's not difficult but it is tedious, time-consuming and not worth the effort. Especially for the GM tracking multiple NPCs' fatigue points.

I used to have a house rule based on running settings where magic was not prevalent that you could increase your skill chance by 1% per Fatigue Point spent (or 5% per Magic Point spent). I wouldn't bother with it now.

Exactly. Incremental penalties are statistically useless in BRP. Losing 1% per round is just a pain in the ass to track. If it were a 5% penalty for each point of negative FAT, it might actually make a difference. But like I said above, the games I played back in the day, no fight ever lasted long enough for anyone to have more thank like a -3% to -5% penalty. And by the time PCs had been around long enough that they were equipped with heavy armor (chain, plate, etc.), their combat skills were up in the 75%-90% range anyway, so those fiddly penalties were -really- useless.