Author Topic: Chaosium to reprint RQ2 (Read 3594 times)

Bren · « **Reply #75 on:** November 16, 2015, 09:12:15 am »

Quote from: nDervish;864702

Not particularly, or at least it doesn't trip my "cinematic" detectors. The RQ6 combat special effects are things like Trip, Impale, Bleed, Open/Close Range, Choose Hit Location, and so on. The sort of things that, in most RPGs, would be a "combat maneuver" that you attempt to pull off in exchange for a penalty to hit. RQ6 turns that around and, if you hit with a higher degree of success than the defense (critical > success > failure > fumble), you get to pick one special effect per degree difference. If the defender gets a higher degree of success, then there are also defensive special effects. (One of the defensive SEs is Blind Opponent, which covers the old "throw sand in their eyes" trick, but that's as cinematic as they get.)

I don't think I want to change from 'declare action, roll for outcome' to 'roll for outcome, then declare action', but your correct that it doesn't sound cinematic. Thanks for explaining.

CRKrueger · « **Reply #76 on:** November 16, 2015, 10:42:38 am »

Quote from: Christopher Brady;864138

I think I'm the only one saddened by this. Instead of making a new car, with better features and maybe better gas mileage, this hobby has got to be the only one in which trotting out the old Model T is praised.

Gamers hate change. This is what threads like this tells me.

If it's not how was back in the day, it's crap.

Yeah, or realize that game design is not mechanical technology/science and not be the guy who laments still printing Shakespeare today since we have Sam Elliott and Tom Stoppard.

Whichever

Bren · « **Reply #77 on:** November 16, 2015, 11:00:37 am »

Quote from: CRKrueger;864722

Whichever

Bit of both.

P&P · « **Reply #78 on:** November 16, 2015, 12:29:08 pm »

RPG companies keep the same game name even when it's different rules written by different people, which is like marketing Metallica as "Chuck Berry 6".

And then when they re-release a Chuck Berry album you always get someone who goes, "Why don't you just listen to Metallica?"

Christopher Brady · « **Reply #79 on:** November 16, 2015, 02:28:27 pm »

Quote from: P&P;864732

RPG companies keep the same game name even when it's different rules written by different people, which is like marketing Metallica as "Chuck Berry 6".

And then when they re-release a Chuck Berry album you always get someone who goes, "Why don't you just listen to Metallica?"

That's slightly incorrect. It's a complete reprint, as if Metillica takes -to use your example- a Chuck Berry album and simply represses the LP.

It's not bringing back RQ2 that saddens me, it's that people are giving the impression that they don't think any other edition should have existed because RQ2 is the pinnacle of gaming perfection. Or something similar.

Simlasa · « **Reply #80 on:** November 16, 2015, 02:51:09 pm »

Quote from: Christopher Brady;864744

It's not bringing back RQ2 that saddens me, it's that people are giving the impression that they don't think any other edition should have existed because RQ2 is the pinnacle of gaming perfection. Or something similar.

And again, I think that's all your own imaginative creation, because I don't see anyone saying anything like that.
There are some things from RQ6 I'd happily adopt... but other things from RQ2 I'd keep.

Bren · « **Reply #81 on:** November 16, 2015, 03:08:03 pm »

Quote from: Simlasa;864750

And again, I think that's all your own imaginative creation, because I don't see anyone saying anything like that.
There are some things from RQ6 I'd happily adopt... but other things from RQ2 I'd keep.

Christopher is pissy today because someone kicked his dog.

Bren · « **Reply #82 on:** November 16, 2015, 03:09:34 pm »

Quote from: Simlasa;864750

And again, I think that's all your own imaginative creation, because I don't see anyone saying anything like that.
There are some things from RQ6 I'd happily adopt... but other things from RQ2 I'd keep.

I think Christopher is pissy today because someone kicked his dog.

AsenRG · « **Reply #83 on:** November 17, 2015, 06:53:54 am »

Quote from: nDervish;864702

Not particularly, or at least it doesn't trip my "cinematic" detectors. The RQ6 combat special effects are things like Trip, Impale, Bleed, Open/Close Range, Choose Hit Location, and so on. The sort of things that, in most RPGs, would be a "combat maneuver" that you attempt to pull off in exchange for a penalty to hit. RQ6 turns that around and, if you hit with a higher degree of success than the defense (critical > success > failure > fumble), you get to pick one special effect per degree difference. If the defender gets a higher degree of success, then there are also defensive special effects. (One of the defensive SEs is Blind Opponent, which covers the old "throw sand in their eyes" trick, but that's as cinematic as they get.)

Just as a note,I've never seen "Blind opponent" described as "sand in the eyes". Usually it's using the second hand to gouge.
Don't know if that makes it more or even less cinematic.

nDervish · « **Reply #84 on:** November 18, 2015, 05:47:40 am »

Quote from: AsenRG;864879

Just as a note,I've never seen "Blind opponent" described as "sand in the eyes". Usually it's using the second hand to gouge.

I was going by the description of the SE on RQ6 p.145: "On a critical the defender briefly blinds his opponent by throwing sand, reflecting sunlight off his shield, or some other tactic which briefly interferes with the attacker’s vision." Considering that it only blinds them for 1d3 turns[1], I'd expect an eye gouge to be something more severe than just a Blind Opponent SE, although I don't see any other SEs (offensive or defensive) that seem like a solid fit, either.

[1] For those unfamiliar with RQ6, an RQ6 "turn" is shorter than a "round", with most PCs potentially having 2-3 turns per 5-second round (although they get fewer if they parry or take other reactive actions).

The Butcher · « **Reply #85 on:** November 18, 2015, 08:34:05 am »

Quote from: Christopher Brady;864744

It's not bringing back RQ2 that saddens me, it's that people are giving the impression that they don't think any other edition should have existed because RQ2 is the pinnacle of gaming perfection. Or something similar.

People are thinking this about fucking Exalted. I thank my lucky stars some people, having decided to go down the One True Game road, have chosen better games.

I kid because I love.