Page 1 of 5

Preview 2

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:30 am
by estarriol
I have looked at the pages to Preview 2, the taste of combat and strike ranks etc looks interesting, but I have a couple of comments/concerns.

Silver pieces? Part of the charm and immersion of Runequest was that you didn't have silver Pieces etc like D&D, you had Lunars, Wheels and CLacks, now I know Lunrs are inappropriate for 2nd age, but None empire was Guilders, why the change?

Secondly, who named the shields, all those people using a medium shield that arn't called Norman will have fun flying there kites. Call it a Hoplon, or Medium shield or whatever, but this is Bronze age, if your going to use a real world term, use one of appropriate antiquity.

Swords, where has the Broadsword gone? Bastards are now Broads as are Rapiers, but you add weird things like Glaives in while cutting back sword types, and who what has happened to the poor Scimitar?

SO far not totally impressed with this preview, but I'll still buy, which brings me to another point, I can buy RQ from amazon in the US and ship it cheaper than I can buy it from Mongoose or UK direct.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:40 am
by Longsword
Yes it looks like silver pieces will be the default currency for the core rules. It's better than $'s.

I do wish they'd abbreviated it as 'sp', rather than 'SP'.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 7:50 am
by t-tauri
Lunars are only called lunars in the Lunar Empire. Before the lunar empire and outside its sphere of influence silver pennies/pieces is as accurate as anything else.

I found the "glaive" a bit disconcerting as it's very mediaeval, also glaive is used as a synonym for bladed weapons in poetry so glaive can equally be used for sword, rather than sword on a stick.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:47 am
by Archer
The Scimitar is there; Scimitar 1H Sword, 1d6+1 (a little weak I think).
Broadsword seems to have become War sword (at least that is my guess from the statistics of the war sword).

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:29 am
by MongooseMatt
t-tauri wrote:
I found the "glaive" a bit disconcerting as it's very mediaeval, also glaive is used as a synonym for bladed weapons in poetry so glaive can equally be used for sword, rather than sword on a stick.
It is worth remembering that the core rules are for a variety of fantasy settings - each of which will no doubt add its own weapons list. The variety is there to show what is possible and to give a leg up to people developing their own settings.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:30 am
by MongooseMatt
Archer wrote:The Scimitar is there; Scimitar 1H Sword, 1d6+1 (a little weak I think).
Broadsword seems to have become War sword (at least that is my guess from the statistics of the war sword).
And it is really not worth getting into an argument over what, historically, broad, war and long swords actually were :)

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:36 am
by estarriol
msprange wrote:
Archer wrote:The Scimitar is there; Scimitar 1H Sword, 1d6+1 (a little weak I think).
Broadsword seems to have become War sword (at least that is my guess from the statistics of the war sword).
And it is really not worth getting into an argument over what, historically, broad, war and long swords actually were :)
In RuneQuest, yes, take Humakt for instance, it requires 2 sword attacks at mastery to make Rune Lord, if you only have a couple of sword options, all the characters aiming for this become very samey.

The old RQ2 weapon list had a nice breadth and balance of weapons, and was generic enough to cover all the options.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:22 pm
by Rurik
msprange wrote:It is worth remembering that the core rules are for a variety of fantasy settings - each of which will no doubt add its own weapons list. The variety is there to show what is possible and to give a leg up to people developing their own settings.
So does that imply that the Gloranthan sourcebook will have a weapon/armor list that more closely resembles the "classic" weapons (i.e. RQ2)?

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:25 pm
by Wulf Corbett
Rurik wrote:So does that imply that the Gloranthan sourcebook will have a weapon/armor list that more closely resembles the "classic" weapons (i.e. RQ2)?
Or else a note on each cultuire that limits or extends the list locally (ie no Crossbows in Dragon Pass, a very limited set of bone/stone weapons in Prax, etc).

Wulf

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:26 pm
by Wulf Corbett
estarriol wrote:In RuneQuest, yes, take Humakt for instance, it requires 2 sword attacks at mastery to make Rune Lord, if you only have a couple of sword options, all the characters aiming for this become very samey.
It DID require. There is no evidence whatever what it WILL require in future...

Wulf

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:43 pm
by estarriol
Wulf Corbett wrote:
estarriol wrote:In RuneQuest, yes, take Humakt for instance, it requires 2 sword attacks at mastery to make Rune Lord, if you only have a couple of sword options, all the characters aiming for this become very samey.
It DID require. There is no evidence whatever what it WILL require in future...

Wulf
True, but as I am in the middle of a Humakt campaign, and no cults books currently planned that I know of will cover the 3rd age version (being tied to the 2nd age setting) it has a major bearing on Runequest as I currently play it, and would be a downside to changing to the new version. There are enough weapons changes to already throw a degree of awkwardness into converting as it is.

Sigh, hopefully a character sheet will be previewed soon, so any other surprises can be seen.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:44 pm
by Archer
msprange wrote:
Archer wrote:The Scimitar is there; Scimitar 1H Sword, 1d6+1 (a little weak I think).
Broadsword seems to have become War sword (at least that is my guess from the statistics of the war sword).
And it is really not worth getting into an argument over what, historically, broad, war and long swords actually were :)
No, I agree about a discussion regarding names, and mostly regarding statistics as well (as long as something is not so out of order that it totally breaks the game).

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:47 pm
by Wulf Corbett
estarriol wrote:True, but as I am in the middle of a Humakt campaign, and no cults books currently planned that I know of will cover the 3rd age version (being tied to the 2nd age setting) it has a major bearing on Runequest as I currently play it, and would be a downside to changing to the new version.
Any conversion between different game systems (and they ARE different systems, no matter how close) is going to require some... well, conversion! When the Glorantha book appears, it will, probably, give some idea of the requirements for Rune level characters, assuming the term is still relevant at all (it wasn't in HeroQuest). You can then rebuild the character and decide either to arbitrarily design him to fit the new requirements, or convert accurately, demote him, and make the extra effort to re-establish his status.

Wulf

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:25 pm
by estarriol
Wulf Corbett wrote:
estarriol wrote:True, but as I am in the middle of a Humakt campaign, and no cults books currently planned that I know of will cover the 3rd age version (being tied to the 2nd age setting) it has a major bearing on Runequest as I currently play it, and would be a downside to changing to the new version.
Any conversion between different game systems (and they ARE different systems, no matter how close) is going to require some... well, conversion! When the Glorantha book appears, it will, probably, give some idea of the requirements for Rune level characters, assuming the term is still relevant at all (it wasn't in HeroQuest). You can then rebuild the character and decide either to arbitrarily design him to fit the new requirements, or convert accurately, demote him, and make the extra effort to re-establish his status.

Wulf
Or take option 3, keep playing what I currently have, which is in economic terms the worst option for mongoose.

I am not saying that if I or my group decided not to buy it would make the game unviable or anything like that, but too many of the older RQ players not buying might. And streamlining and chnging it too much might.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:36 pm
by Wulf Corbett
estarriol wrote:Or take option 3, keep playing what I currently have, which is in economic terms the worst option for mongoose.
Well, you can't expect to change horses in midstream without getting wet (I'm sure there's a point to that metaphor... :? ). It's a different game, with at least SOME different rules. If people want to keep playing the same game, they should do.

The closest equivalent in my group was when I converted our Stargate game from AEG uber-crunchy exceedingly number-heavy D20 version to True20. Dead simple to convert the rules, players none too happy. Tough luck for them, I'm running the game, and I'm running it True20. They had to decide whether to play my game or give it up. And it works just fine, and far quicker.

Wulf

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:44 pm
by Turloigh
Archer wrote:
msprange wrote:
Archer wrote:The Scimitar is there; Scimitar 1H Sword, 1d6+1 (a little weak I think).
Broadsword seems to have become War sword (at least that is my guess from the statistics of the war sword).
And it is really not worth getting into an argument over what, historically, broad, war and long swords actually were :)
No, I agree about a discussion regarding names, and mostly regarding statistics as well (as long as something is not so out of order that it totally breaks the game).
Weeellllll.... the gap between the 2H bastard sword (1d8+1) and greatsword (2d8) IS a little wide...

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:11 pm
by wartorn
Turloigh wrote:
Archer wrote:
msprange wrote: And it is really not worth getting into an argument over what, historically, broad, war and long swords actually were :)
No, I agree about a discussion regarding names, and mostly regarding statistics as well (as long as something is not so out of order that it totally breaks the game).
Weeellllll.... the gap between the 2H bastard sword (1d8+1) and greatsword (2d8) IS a little wide...
Hmm yes good catch. I wonder if that was a 'misprint' since the 1H Bastard damage is the same as a 1H War Sword (not entirely unreasonable) and there's no 1d10 sword - the traditional RQ damage for it.

Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:24 pm
by Archer
I agree. That is something that truly is a odd thing. 1d8+1 for one-hand use I can understand. But should it not have a 1d10+1 for a two handed use? to make it more in line with being a weapon between a warsword and a greatsword?

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 am
by homerjsinnott
t-tauri wrote:Lunars are only called lunars in the Lunar Empire. Before the lunar empire and outside its sphere of influence silver pennies/pieces is as accurate as anything else.

I found the "glaive" a bit disconcerting as it's very mediaeval, also glaive is used as a synonym for bladed weapons in poetry so glaive can equally be used for sword, rather than sword on a stick.

What poetry? Beowulf?
What medieval?

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:45 am
by homerjsinnott
Wulf Corbett wrote:
estarriol wrote:Or take option 3, keep playing what I currently have, which is in economic terms the worst option for mongoose.
Well, you can't expect to change horses in midstream without getting wet (I'm sure there's a point to that metaphor... :? ). It's a different game, with at least SOME different rules. If people want to keep playing the same game, they should do.

The closest equivalent in my group was when I converted our Stargate game from AEG uber-crunchy exceedingly number-heavy D20 version to True20. Dead simple to convert the rules, players none too happy. Tough luck for them, I'm running the game, and I'm running it True20. They had to decide whether to play my game or give it up. And it works just fine, and far quicker.



Wulf
Glad you're not my ref, some much for player input.