I bought the PDF seems a bit more complex than MRQ2 to me.
|
I've been slowly reading through the book and here are a few things Ive learned
Characteristics:
Strength, Constituition, Dexterity, Power, Charasima, Intelligence, and Size
You can roll or there is a point assign option
(I'm having a really hard time accepting size as a stat, human range is 8-18, a dragon size is 50, which means is about 320cm (13' tall, weighing about 1000 lbs which seems almost small for a dragon, there may be some monster size ive not gotten to yet tho )
Game is skill based using percentile roll under mechanic
22 general skills, a wide range of suggested professional skills
Character creation is basically
Roll/Pick stats
Calculate derived attributes, (HP, attack points, strike ranks, magic points)
Determine baseline for general skills (Usually 2 stats added together)
Pick a culture (Barbarian, Civilized, Nomadic or Primative)
Option to pick 3 new professional skills, add 100 points between them and general skills, pick your cultural Passions
Background (big chart)
Pick a career, generally your culture determines which careers are open to you, careers grant access to additional professional skills, then get another 100 skill points to divvy up between skills, determine if your career grants access to magic, also decide if you want to join a cult/brotherhood
Pick an age, how old you are determines your final skill allotment, and how much your skills can improve
Get your gear and get playing
There are no classes, there are no levels, your choices determine what skills you have, and which you are best at, its entirely possible to be terrible at all skills, or to start with a skill or 2 close to 70 or 80...
Magic isnt a section Ive read yet... but character creation seems interesting
That size is a stat is really.. really bugging me tho
|
|
Believe it or not, I managed to miss the entire runequest family of games over the past 30 years. Heard of them, but never really bothered to find them or play them.
I went from D&D into Palladium, and from there into rolemaster, shadowrun, traveller etc.
I only recently picked up BRP, and from there Stormbringer and 4th ed Pendragon at a yard sale, Then picked up runequest 6th, and overall, it seems incredibly well made.
But size as a characteristic seems really limiting/restircitve
A stat/characteristic should always be relevant, strength should do fine for damage bonus, but you need to consider size as well?
I did find that creatures can use a different weight chart, since its hard to make a blue while fit, or an elephant etc.
It seems to be a hold over that they have failed to revise out.. through 6 editions
But size as a characteristic seems really limiting/restircitve
A stat/characteristic should always be relevant, strength should do fine for damage bonus, but you need to consider size as well?
D&D/Pathfinder also has a stat for size, except that instead of being 3-18 it's fine/diminutive/tiny/small/medium/large/huge/gargantuan/colossal.
Size can have a great impact on stride and speed, reach (not only for fighting but for jumping/climbing) and general constitution.
'findel
*sigh* Runequest 6 is out... I missed that and I skipped the Mongoose versions. But I don't think I can skip this one, especially if it's set in Glorantha. The background information mentioned above sounds right for that. And yeah, Size has always worked well in RQ.
The examples in the RQ6 book don't use Glorantha. The Design Mechanism do sell some of the old Mongoose Second Age material. Moon Design are producing excellent material for the setting.
Oi, Loz, practising thread necromancy now are we.
I ve noticed(from covers and the preview) that RQ6 has this heavy Greek vibe in the design department. I was surprised but I finally dig that.
I think the celt/viking thing has been overdone...But obviously I'm not a RQ expert, I ve only recently discovered the whole family; so no offence meant.
No offence taken here. I suspect there's a deliberate call-back to the RQ2 cover - this one - with the RQ6 version. Not, fortunately, the GW version, which still makes me shudder.I've noticed(from covers and the preview) that RQ6 has this heavy Greek vibe in the design department. I was surprised but I finally dig that.
I think the celt/viking thing has been overdone...But obviously I'm not a RQ expert, I've only recently discovered the whole family; so no offence meant.
Interesting...
GW version?
No offence taken here. I suspect there's a deliberate call-back to the RQ2 cover - this one - with the RQ6 version. Not, fortunately, the GW version, which still makes me shudder.I've noticed(from covers and the preview) that RQ6 has this heavy Greek vibe in the design department. I was surprised but I finally dig that.
I think the celt/viking thing has been overdone...But obviously I'm not a RQ expert, I've only recently discovered the whole family; so no offence meant.
Interesting...
GW version?
This thing. You'll notice the same general pattern, a woman fighting off a lizard-creature with shield and sword. And the difference - on the Chaosium cover she's in sensible armour, on the Games Workshop printing she's in a bikini.
Here is the RQ6 cover. The similarities must surely be deliberate.
Interesting pictures.
Deluxe edition is RQ 3 correct? The one that breaks the same cover tradition?
(and 4 and 5 are Mongoose's I&II?)
No offence taken here. I suspect there's a deliberate call-back to the RQ2 cover - this one - with the RQ6 version. Not, fortunately, the GW version, which still makes me shudder.I've noticed(from covers and the preview) that RQ6 has this heavy Greek vibe in the design department. I was surprised but I finally dig that.
I think the celt/viking thing has been overdone...But obviously I'm not a RQ expert, I've only recently discovered the whole family; so no offence meant.
Interesting...
GW version?
This thing. You'll notice the same general pattern, a woman fighting off a lizard-creature with shield and sword. And the difference - on the Chaosium cover she's in sensible armour, on the Games Workshop printing she's in a bikini.
Here is the RQ6 cover. The similarities must surely be deliberate.
Interesting pictures.
Deluxe edition is RQ 3 correct? The one that breaks the same cover tradition?
(and 4 and 5 are Mongoose's I&II?)Yes. RQ3 was the Avalon Hill version, with this as the cover image for the deluxe set and the Players book if you bought that separately - though there were other covers too. Good art, but not quite in the tradition. I have to say some of the covers for the other RQ3 books are among my favourites, particularly this one from Shadows on the Borderlands. Of course I know what Thanatari head hunters like to do.
As for MRQ I&II, given that the new version is describing itself as RQ6 I guess they are...
Cool, thanks for clarifying that :)
What are the significant rules differences then that make this one a new edition?
The summary upthread could fit any edition of RQ I've seen. I'm a huge fan of the system - in fact it's my go-to system of choice. But I'm not seeing any changes.
I myself made a change a while back; to percentile the characteristics too, bringing them in line with skills. I also did away with hit points and have a four scale wound system instead. (Light, Medium and Severe Wounds, and kill strikes - with variance depending on the body part hit, and weapons giving a percentile bonus to a percentile damage roll.)
BRP/RQ is better imo than D20 systems because it allows descriptive combat results from rolls (GM's don't need to make up what wound you took - the rolls tell you clearly what happened - not abstract a/c and hp results). It avoids the artificiality of 'character class', or level. You can also build whatever character you can imagine - with no need for books full of new character classes. Also, it's basic concepts are elegantly simple - I rarely have any need to consult rulebooks during play - indeed the basic rules have always been possible to summarise effectively on one side of a sheet of paper. With a few tweaks the system works for just about any setting in my experience.