I finally got around to reading my kickstarter copy of pic related. It had a lot less setting information than I was expecting. If I was looking to GM this, what book should I look at next?
Setting/system discussion welcome.
I will take the oportunity of this thread to ask: What are the differences between each edition? What edition you guys prefer?
I only really played the pic related edition but it was one of my absolute favorite games of all time.
Man, i think I should track a copy down and try to run a game
>>48128920
RuneQuest 6 is the best, by far.
>>48129902
What does it do better?
>>48128576
Problem with ALL runequest is its super light on setting. RQ6 which is losing its license and you can't even discuss glorantha on their website after next week. Never got a proper "how to play in setting". I have come to the conclusion that RQ is strictly for people who got all the setting and fluff back in the day and they just put out these universal setting rules. I have been trying to get a RQ thing going for ages now, after two bad Mongoose editions and now RQ6 is sinking already after barely treading water for a few years.
>>48128576
You want the Gloranthan Classics: Griffin Mountain, Borderlands, Pavis and Cult Compendium. RQ2-mechanics and really good setting books if Glorantha is what you want.
>>48130036
RQ6 isn't exactly sinking, it just used other setting beyond Glorantha like Mythic Britain. It's also still continuing on as Mythras since they lost the license.
>>48130277
That's what I'm looking for. Thank you!
Monitoring this thread. RQ is a hot topic for me right now.
>>48128920
OP's version is the original RQ2 (which was RQ with a functional layout and typeface). It was the ur-BRP system, which is still alive and still good today.
RQ3 was an updated RQ2 - some good updates, some bad updates, and no longer Glorantha-centric.
MRQ was a Glorantha-centric fucking mess of an IP-revival.
MRQII saw the mess cleaned up when Mongoose hired some competent designers.
RQ6 is (was) bloody brilliant, as it took MRQII's base and made everything better.
RQ4/7/fill-in-number-here seems to return to its roots of RQ2, with bits of RQ6 and Pendragon to buff it out.
>>48130036
Setting books, man. Setting books.
>>48130565
So I got RQ6 (as well a bunch of mrq 1 & 2) and pretty much all of 2nd on PDF
What would be the best way to sit down and game RQ6 or this RQ4/7 thing?
>>48128920
>RQ2
Very crunchy and mechanical. Percentile scores for most abilities that you roll under to achieve particular tasks. Lots of fiddly mechanics (requirements to join cults, hit locations, weapon degredation, etc).
>Heroquest
Very narrative-driven system. Uses a roll-under D20 system with player-created skills and abilities, a la FATE. Very focused on creating the feel of myths and legends.
>RQ6/Mythras
Can't say, never played with it.
>>48130728
Step 1: chuck MRQ out the nearest window. Unless it has some setting info you want to salvage, then copy it first and then chuck it out the window.
Step 2: determine if you up for a) playing a crunchy sword, sandal & sorcery game now, or b) a less crunchy Glorantha focused-game sometime in the future.
If a): play RQ6
If b) wait for the new edition from Chaosium
>>48130949
>chuck MRQ out the nearest window
Only kidding. You shouldn't chuck books out windows. It can sit in a box in the back of the closet you never use.
>>48128576
Have you looked at the new Runequest being developed? That will have a lot more setting material, and will also be a more modern game. If you want to play in Glorantha, that's probably your best bet.
If you're happy with RQ2, though, I would suggest looking at Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes produced by Moon Design Publications. Technically, it is for the Heroquest game system, but Heroquest is such a light system that most of the book is fluff.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/y04313bvarr1v/Glorantha
This might help.
>>48130565
>Mongoose hired some competent designers.
I call bullshit.
>>48133808
>>48134012
Thanks. I'll take a look at those.
Is there a release date on the new version?
>>48134633
Sadly not. An open "beta" of the new rules is supposedly on its way, and the full release should be sometime this year. An exact date is not forthcoming.
I've read through the RQ6 book several times and it does look the most compelling of all the "universal" systems in this particular niche.
I'm still hung up on several very personal issues - such as Characteristics, or some of the aspects of Combat - but the game is very much a toolkit. I'd still like to try it out even largely unchanged.
>>48134035
Congrats.
Basically, all the praise towards Runequest is basically bullshit. You can ignore this thread and play a system that's not in desperate need of a compassionate trip behind a shed with a shotgun-toting farmer.
There's nothing wrong with Runequest that couldn't be fixed by turning it into a d20 system.
>>48134703
And it was supposed to be out this month - not a terrific sign from Chaosim.
>>48136219
Really? When did they say that?
>>48135952
The skill system is a mess.
And the combat makes me want to avoid combat.
>>48136249
When it was first announced it was supposed to be a RQ6 update coming out in July/August 2016 with more setting information.
As of July 2016, it's based on RQ2 with no firm release date and the RQ6 team is disappointed with the direction. (IIRC disappointed was the word they used)
>>48136277
How so?
>>48136277
This bait actually got me to reply. How could you possibly think the skills are a "mess" and the combat sucks?
>>48136319
To be fair, that was Runequest: Adventures in Glorantha, a different product.
>>48135952
So, Pendragon?
savage bump
It seems that a fair number of older products are basically dungeon crawls. Mainly, Big Rubble. Does Runequest work well for that?
>>48137294
I think that's more a product of it's primary competition (D&D) than a strength of Runequest's system.
You can do it, but I think it has much more to offer.
>>48137309
I don't think I'd want to do it. The interesting parts of both RuneQuest and Glorantha seem to be conflicts between two groups of heroic figures in some great struggle, not wandering around a ruin stabbing goblins.
Are those old dungeon crawls, like Big Rubble, any good as dungeon crawls, or are they just there to have them?
>>48137419
Honestly, I don't know; I've never played any of the old material.
As you say, Glorantha can be many things. Its strength is in the depth of its cultures, and the relationships between them. Rootless dungeon crawling deprives your game of those advantages.
>>48130036
>after two bad Mongoose editions
I never read the first, but I don't remember the second mongoose edition being that bad. What made it bad?
Is Chaosium's new Runequest going to be more like their newest edition of CoC? I haven't read the rules but it has one thing I think I like (% stats instead of 3-18) and one thing I'm not sure about (advantage/disadvantage is apparently roll the tens twice and take the lower/higher?).
Can some one explain to me how the mechanics work in RQ6? How well suited would they be for an established homebrew world? I'm using a DND like system right now. not 100% sure I'm happy with it.
>>48138629
The basic mechanics are a simple roll under percentile system. Combat is an extension of this, where rolls are just skill rolls using opposed weapon abilities. If you succeed, then you hit. If you succeed and the other guy succeeds his parry, he gets a small bonus to defense. You add up your damage, roll for hit location, and apply it to the location hit. Health is based on hit points by limb, and one or two hits can be crippling.
If you want another layer of complexity, after rolling your combat roll, you can apply one or more special effects based on how much you succeeded. These can be things like tripping, impaling, feints, taunts, etc. They're derived from your weapon and can add an extra level of depth to combat.
>>48138754
Any sort of magic in the system?
>>48138808
Three different kinds. Petty magic, which are small charms, animism, which is summoning I think, and some other that's more traditional big magic. To be honest, I have never used any of the magic systems for my settings. Different kinds of magic are a huge deal for the game, though, and interestingly you can allow, depending on setting, everyone to have access to some small form of magic, even if it's just petty charms.
>>48139167
Nice I'll definitely have to check it out then!
Magic is really important to my world so I'll have to see how they handle it.
>>48138808
Folk magic: little spells that everyone can use.
Divine magic: spells powered by the pact you have with a god or goddess.
Spirit magic: summoning and binding spirits. More or less the nature magic of RQ.
Kung fu: I forget what it is called, but there is also a martial arts magic of some kind.
Sorcery: your basic arcane magic. One of the more flexible options. Spells can be manipulated to have greater range, duration, or other effects.
>>48139352
Legend has a bunch of expansion systems, blood magic and elementalism. I think the bundle of holding site still has a package deal on the Legend PDFs.
bumpan
>>48134035
I think those were the designers that went on to make RQ6, so yeah, definitely competent.
>>48135743
I think he was calling bullshit on Mongoose, not the designers. Totally understandable.
>>48139389
Is the Kung Fu magic in the core?
>>48142492
Yes, it's called Mysticism. You can boost stats, skills, etc. as well as learn some sweet Wuxia moves like clinging to walls or blending into shadows or running along thin branches.
In the fan-made Star Wars conversion it was made into a really good representation of force powers.
>>48139389
These are the actual names:
>Folk Magic
>Thiesm - prepared spells called miracles, strongly tied to cult ranking
>Animism - you command spirit NPCs to do stuff, and there is a pretty expansive spirit bestiary in the book
>Mysticism - see my post >>48142664
>Sorcery - a series of moderately strong spells you invest additional power to while casting to make a very customized effect.
>>48137734
No. One of their stated key goals of RQ7 was that it should be immidiately compatible with RQ2. So they (probably) wont pull some stupid shit like that.
>>48142664
>say my name
>>48142761
FFG BTFO
>>48134012
I really wish this had the setting books because I'm a poorfag that really doesn't want to pay, but probably will anyways as the guide to Glorantha has piqued my interest.
>>48142693
In some ways I think you can also sum up the magic systems as:
Mysticism - Magic from self improvement.
Theism - Magic your god works through you.
Animism - Magic you get a spirit to do for you.
Sorcery - Magic from manipulating the fundamental forces of the universe.
Folk magic isn't the sort of thing that has a D&D equivalent, maybe cantrips, but well... folk magic is far more common than that. It's the everyday magic you use in your job.
>>48143954
Well, the guide is THE setting book. It details everything, albeit with more width than depth.
If you want something more detailed, pick up Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes. It details the Dragon Pass area.
>>48143954
You really should just skip the setting. Glorantha is more like a student's pet project than anything else, a neurotic exercise that produced something so bland and tasteless that it even managed to strip away the fun and excitement that you could have found in a more generic setting.
>>48144537
I think you mean more specific setting. Glorantha is *the* kitchen setting that Forgotten Realms and even Golarion can trace its roots back to.
>>48144537
Nah, Glorantha is cool, but it is being smothered by its own weight.
>>48144660
I think you don't really have any clue what you're talking about.
>>48144537
What would you recommend as a setting? I don't really know RPGs as my /tg/ experience is tabletop wargames (historical or otherwise) but Glorantha seemed like less of a clusterfuck than some others.
>>48145034
Play what you enjoy.
I'm a fan of the setting, he's not, but it's up to you what you want.
And of course, nothing stops you from using RQ for other published settings.
Combine the Isle of Dread and Monster Island for some really old school style wilderness crawling on an overgrown hellhole.
>>48130949
>>48131115
>>48130565
What's wrong with mrqii? It seemed to work pretty well to me.
And while I wouldn't use mrq1 core rules, I've used some stuff in guilds, factions, & cults.
>>48129902
Combat and magic.
Character creation is also improved.
>>48145228
I really love the Combat Style mechanic. Can come up with some neat ideas with it.
>>48145301
I did give a warrior an OP one. He was an armor smith, and I gave him a Melee version of the Marksman style trait. He would automatically shift the hit location to any connected hit location with les armor, but couldn't choose not to
>>48145301
Yes, one of the more compelling aspects. Could use some streamlining and expanding simultaneously - apply the DH-style DoS "cost" to each maneuver, with some more realistic maneuvers for cheaper, and more outlandish for high costs - here go your Cleaves and acrobatic strikes. The latter may be allowed only with a specific Combat Style even.
Also, I think the game can be relatively ease changed to use only a single type of dice? Most people wouldn't care, but it's my pet peeve.
>>48128576
Runequest had a kickstarter? Didn't know that.
Is it better than Mongoose RQ? I bought a copy, I remember people were upset with high end skills and thought M Sprange's maths was off.
>>48145660
The Kickstarter was to reprint 2e
>>48145590
A single type of dice would be easy, just do average damage with attacks.
>>48145680
Judging by the responses in this thread so far, I'm guessing 2e is vastly superior to MRQ, which is the version I own.
>>48145754
Well, most of the complaints about MRQ are about things like the setting, the formatting, the art, and the terrible fucking indices.
I don't think the rules themselves are too different. You can check out this stripped down version of RQ6 to compare.
>>48145754
I don't like 2e personally, I like RQ6 which is like MRQ3
>>48144670
It's being smothered by the fact that the only guaranteed release in the lifecycle of an edition is Sartar. Fucking again.
Where my goddamn Uz at?
>>48145754
The original Second Edition is the best version, hands down.
>>48145212
Well..you just said you did what I said the other anon should do...
And while MRQII did well in attempting to drag Mongoose's line out of the crud, it got stomped by RQ6.
If you're sitting on copies of RQ2, MRQ, MRQII and RQ6, two of those are going to lose out (and they both have an "M" in their name).
>>48146836
Why is it better than RQ6?
>>48146822
They're having a party!
>>48146854
But MRQ has all sorts of stuff that rq6 doesn't, so even if you're using rq6 for your core book, MRQ still has lots to offer you.
Plus, MRQii is a dollar, if your the kind who wants to pay for their PDFs.
>>48146870
Different anon here. Inquiring minds would like to know. Does it also have combat styles and special effects?
>>48142706
What is stupid about those changes? Unless you mean stupid when their goal is to make it immediately compatible with RQ2 so they can reprint those old supplements without any work and just watch people buy in because nostalgia.
Does anyone have the media fire link anymore?
>>48146822
I heard in a podcast interview that Trollpack is just waiting for art... For Heroquest: Glorantha that is. But that was when Adventures in Glorantha was still going to be a thing so... who knows what is going on.
>>48146854
And you can toss out RQ2 and use OQ2 instead.
>>48152222
Nobody has ever given a reason why one edition is better than the other. What advantage does OQ2 have?
>>48154369
It's simpler. It's the OSR of runequest.
>>48152222
What is OQ2? Original quest?
>>48154844
Openquest. Now I will be honest and say that I miiight have made up the RQ2 thing since I don't know that system, just going off things I've read and I don't really remember where.
http://d101games.com/books/openquest/
>>48145590
>more outlandish for high costs - here go your Cleaves and acrobatic strikes.
I've already had combat resolved the first turn when the attack was Perfect and the defense a fumble, resulting in Choose Location: Head, Impale and Bypass Armour.
Or how you stab a Bretonnian knight through the eye slit and instantly murder him.
I started with RQ3e and there were a lot of boxed sets and books for Glorantha. It seems people weren't fans of it but 3e has a chunk of nostalgia for me. Also Trollpak has rules for Troll Ball, which I think might predate Blood Bowl.
>>48157668
Anybody thinking of getting a game going, say, online? RQ6, HQ:G...it's hard to find groups unless you live on like, Jeff Richard's front lawn.
And is a General in order?
>>48157908
I might be interested. There were these guys I had briefly hooked up with who were playing on IRC a few years back. I had only dropped in a hand full of times before I got distracted by horrible IRL things and then forgot the name of the channel.. I was looking forward to playing a Durulz too
>>48158179
I'm hesitant to lead a game b/c after two years of owning the Guide I still feel utterly clueless in RE: Glorantha, and much less how to make it playable. There's plenty of intro and lore threads on /tg/ and elsewheres but ze niche, she is strong. But playing would be nice...these are some big, heavy books
Related: http://elfmaidsandoctopi.blogspot.com/2016/07/brp-blues.html
>>48158990
The guide is more a masturbation aid for the Glorantha-scholars than a usable RPG sourcebook. Look at the Glorantha Classics-reprints and HeroQuest-supplements instead.
>>48128576
Is there a good place to get your hands on all the books? Or to just get an idea of what all the books are.
>>48158990
Find the Heroquest book about Satar. It's only a small part of the setting but it's made as am actual guide for playing in the setting rather than an anthropology book.
>>48159933
>Look at the Glorantha Classics-reprints and HeroQuest-supplements instead.
Which are still more masturbation aids for the Glorantha-scholars than usable RPG sourcebooks.
Question: how easy would it be to steal this system to play a runescape rpg?
>>48163055
Hah!
But still a lot more usable than the backbreaking guide.
>>48163055
What book would you recommend then?
YEAH WARHAMMER 40K FOR THE EMPEROR!
>>48157908
I've tried to start a general several times. The thread always dies in a handful of hours. This is the only time I've seen a Runequest thread last more than 8 hours.
>>48165454
Unfortunately Runequest isn't too popular and Glorantha is fairly hard to get into for people who have no idea where to start. The best thing to do is keep actually talking about the game.
How does RQ6 actually do with guns? I know rules exist for them, but how are they?
>>48167007
>How does RQ6 actually do with guns?
Lethally. As with melee weapons, unless they're big and scary they probably won't kill you outright, but they will mess you up.
Woof woof, motherfuckers.
>>48167261
Look, hon. The barbarians are trying to communicate, the poor things.
>>48167409
Please, the Telmori need to look up to see the Barbarians.
These guys have metal weapons only because they're the big important guys and have been given them by barbarians. Telmori are palaeolithic for the most part.
>>48167007
I love he gun rules. You have to plan around them and they scale appropriately for the tech level.
You cannot parry a bullet, you can maybe rely on a passive party from a shield if the GM says so. Automatic weapons spray so many bullets you can literally take out a squad with good aim (albeit at Herculean difficulty), and you can force people to Dither at range with suppressing fire.
The only way to defend against bullets is taking cover as an Action (notice, not reaction), and it makes you impossible to hit.
I only used the rules in a Star Wars game and the one gun fight I had between two mandolirians and the party was epic. One set explosive traps, and the other was a sniper. They fought in vehicles, on rooftops, and the the final battle was in a bank as two dozen security droids try to suppress both of them.
>>48163055
Are you trolling or is this an actual opinion people have? If it is your real opinion, why do you say that?
>>48165454
We have generals that last days all the time. Or at least we do every few months when I get on /tg/.
>>48167701
>You cannot parry a bullet
I feel like there should be something in the Mysticism magic that would allow that, especially if you're playing in a star wars game.
>>48168546
Rules as written, Arrowcut would allow you to parry bullets with your bare hands or things like swords. (I'd let you catch them if you had a suitable weapon, like bare hands or chopsticks)
Wouldn't work with energy weapons (as they're not really projectiles), which is why the Star Wars supplement has the Deflect Talent, which allows you to deflect blaster shots.
>>48168807
Yeah, the deflect talent - plus the firearms supplement talks about energy shields and you do have a passive parry with a handheld weapon (lightsaber)
I don't understand the hate for Runequest 6. It's not my cup of tea (any system with that many skills is "meh"), but it seems like a solid system for running adventures in a brutal, Game of Thrones-style universe.
Okay /tg/entlemen, storytime: since this thread's focused on getting into systems & lore, what was your introduction to RQ/HQ/Glorantha? How'd you discover it, what bridged the gap?
I'll start: I found the KS page for the guide, then glorantha.com, then fell hard for Jeff's notes on the major cultures, especially the new West. Sartar may be the company favorite but I'll take philosopher-kings over pseudovikings any day of the week
>>48167758
Weird. Yeah every time I try to make a general for anything brp related it dies with no more than 5 posts.
Anyone played Pendragon? What are your thoughts on how it plays? Been curious but haven't gotten a chance to try it.
How about stormbringer? Reading through the book I noticed it doesn't seem to have rules for difficulty modifiers (either +/-, or ×/÷). I can't help but feel those are important. How does brp play without them?
>>48170764
I stumbled across a bunch of MRQ 1&2 books in my LGS, flipped through them, and picked it up.
Went to start looking it up more, and came across a bunch of d100 books that seemed really cool. Went to run it and legend was coming out, so I ordered it.
A friend has just run a Rolemaster campaign in a setting made by playing darn of worlds with the pcs, with a homebrew god and Pantheon creation minigame before hand.
It went well, then I did the same with legend. I incorporated stuff from Vikings, as well as the mrq1 spell compendium, guilds, and empires. Homebrewed the races the pcs made up, and statted the religions and cultures they came with in the campaign creation minigame.
It went well for about 8 months before fizzling out because the university term ended and the players all went to different places.
I still don't like how any of the brp games handle races, unfortunately. Thats my biggest irritation with the system.
There's also a shortage of powers you can give characters outside of spellcasting.
So I would not attempt another fantasy game in a custom setting like that using this system.
But I'd very strongly consider its use in any game that's "all humans" and the only source of superpowers is to be magic (or no superpowers all).
>>48171086
Well every thread that lasted long was Glorantha related instead of BRP.
>>48171086
>How about stormbringer? Reading through the book I noticed it doesn't seem to have rules for difficulty modifiers (either +/-, or ×/÷). I can't help but feel those are important. How does brp play without them?
Not sure about Stormbringer. I own the successor (Magic World) but IIRC if it's hard you half your skill, easy you double.
Call of Cthulhu 7e sounds like it's doing something new (I haven't read it but I've heard about this mechanic). Roll the d% die twice if you have an advantage or disadvantage. If you have a disadvantage use the higher result, if advantage the lower.
>>48171297
Do you mean CoC 8e? Pretty sure 7e came out a few years ago.
>>48171316
Nope, I mean 7e, I still just have never read it.
>>48171297
>Well every thread that lasted long was Glorantha related instead of BRP.
Oh. Gotcha. I've never been able to muster any personal interest in Glorantha, and so all of my Runequest topics have not offered any conversation starters that were about that setting. Always other settings or the game system itself.
The system has some other really great settings, especially in the historical area.
>>How about stormbringer? Reading through the book I noticed it doesn't seem to have rules for difficulty modifiers (either +/-, or ×/÷). I can't help but feel those are important. How does brp play without them?
>Not sure about Stormbringer. I own the successor (Magic World) but IIRC if it's hard you half your skill, easy you double.
I checked both. Couldn't find any such rules in either book. Last time i asked someone they told me if o wanted difficulties is needed to grab rules from another brp source. Haven't had a chance to actually play it yet though.
>>48170062
Who's hating on RuneQuest 6?
>>48171382
I've made a few RuneQuest threads, they last a lot longer with less quests.
>>48171382
>I checked both. Couldn't find any such rules in either book.
Found it in BRP Big Gold Book page 175,177. I would copy/paste but it is hard copy (just moved and had to dig through some boxes).
Easy - Double skill. Characteristics are at x10
Average - Normal skill. Characteristics are at x5
Difficult - Halve skill. Characteristics are at x0.5 (round up for both which is kind of silly because you always round 0.5 up).
>>48171552
Yeah.
I bet a lot of people miss them completely due to quest filters.
Maybe we shouldn't use the word quest?
Just RQ?
"The first rule of /rqgen/ is to never spell out the acronym, especially in the op, because you'll set of everyone's spam filters and kill the thread."
>>48171560
I could find it there just fine.
I couldn't find it in magic world, or in stormbringer, both of which are supposed to be run without the bgb.
>>48171616
I couldn't find it in Magic World either I guess those games don't cover it. You can either throw that in or just ignore it. Personally I disagree that they are important, but there are two easy to implement solutions. But I can see it being kind of aggravating that they aren't written in the rules if you think they are important.
>>48171716
Well, without them, all actions have the same difficulty, unless they're opposed by another skill check.
>>48171609
>I bet a lot of people miss them completely due to quest filters.
While I wish that was the case I fear you might be a bit optimistic here. /tg/ simply doesn't love the sacred d100 as much as it should.
We must go forth with pamphlets and gospel, and make the heathens, sinners and nay-sayers cup the 2d10 of the blessed BRPS in their hands, and make them know the Triumph of the Critical and the Despair of the Fumble!
>>48171609
There was a general for a short while like a year and a half ago and I think it was RQ/BRP general or maybe d100 general
>>48171748
And that's fine by me for easy skills, those just don't need to be rolled. But if you want to make climbing the castle wall at night in the rain more difficult than during a clear day (which makes sense) then yeah missing some stuff you'd want.
To be half fair page 219 has the standard "You can change the rules" cop-out.
>>48171797
I suspect that was me, before I stopped trying to make them. I'd need to see the threads to know for sure though.
>>48171857
>that's fine by me for easy skills, those just don't need to be rolled.
Sure, I guess that's okay.
> But if you want to make climbing the castle wall at night in the rain more difficult than during a clear day (which makes sense) then yeah missing some stuff you'd want.
Or if you want climbing a polished sheer ice cliff in the rain to be more difficult than climbing a chain link fence with a rope as backup.
Or if you want it to be harder to shoot a fast moving skeet at a given distance than to shoot a stationary barn.
>To be half fair page 219 has the standard "You can change the rules" cop-out.
Ugh. That's not an excuse to only publish part of the game.
Has anyone run brp/rq without task difficulties? Was it okay? How did it go?
>>48172075
>That's not an excuse to only publish part of the game.
They didn't only publish a part of a game. The game they published just did not have a rule that you wanted. Different things.
>Has anyone run brp/rq without task difficulties? Was it okay? How did it go?
If you think it's going to be a problem why don't you just use one of those two implementations of difficulties?
>>48171857
I'm pretty sure there were rules for difficulty modifiers in SB5. Or maybe there wasn't and we made them up? Cant remember.
>>48172180
>>Has anyone run brp/rq without task difficulties? Was it okay? How did it go?
>If you think it's going to be a problem why don't you just use one of those two implementations of difficulties?
I probably will
However, I'm still shocked at what seems like a very bizarre decision to put out a game with "all tasks are equally difficult" as a design decision, and want to hear how such a game actually plays, from someone with experience playing that way.
It's possible it's not problematical or weird at all in play, hence the question.
>>48136350
My thoughts exactly. The skill system and indepth combat were what pulled me to RQ6 away from 5E.
Also, hype to see what is essentially an RQG thread, I've been holding a lot of interest in RQ lately and desperately searching fora group.
But that leads me to a question Ive had. Why does it seem that RQ fans are so loyal to Glorantha. Like I understand that its pretty good, but in the end isnt it just a setting? I like to make my own settings, so it seems strange to me how people sometimes act like RQ was built around Glorantha and doesnt work anywhere else. Is there something I'm missing?
>>48172856
I second the question. I always make my own settings for my campaigns, and I've never actually ran one in a preexisting setting before. I really enjoy systems that are setting agnostic for this reason, usually GURPS or RQ6 when I can pry my players from their dead man's grip on D&D at least.
Despite RQ6 general lack of setting info, I always see discussion about it as if it is only ever run in Glorantha, and honestly don't get the hype around the setting .
>>48170764
>what was your introduction to RQ/HQ/Glorantha?
this thread
>>48172856
>>48173054
It mostly comes from that Glorantha and RQ have always been really closely tied to each other more or less since there inception.
As for the hype around the setting, Glorantha was more or less created to be a "realistic" (insofar as magic and monster and supernatural weirdness can be realistic) fantasy setting, with a well developed history and multipul varied religions and all that, and so people love to dig into it (and so get really invested in the setting).
(not to say that other settings aren't well developed, or anything like, of course, but you know what I mean).
>>48173054
I've run WFRP with RQ6 rules, and it fucking rocked. I've also played in a slightly modified version of the Monster Island setting for RQ6, and although the campaign was unfortunately cut short, it was really fun.
>>48173307
Well welcome. I hope you enjoy the games (or at least one of them, they are quite different.
Anyone play Classic Fantasy? I hope to buy it soon.
>>48172856
>>48173054
Glorantha is cool and all that and it has plenty stuff for me to steal, but it just fails to interest me as a game setting to actually play in. Its more a how-to for worldbuilding.
