Comparing RuneQuest to D&D

[TheCreated]

Hi,

I'm one of the crowd that dislikes the new incarnation of D&D and is looking for something different. I'd like to change to a skill based, grim n gritty RPG with a general low-magic feel. It should be playable without miniatures and the PCs should not be equipped with super powers as I prefer a realistic approach.

From reading some reviews on rpgnet, I get the impression that RuneQuest might be just right for my tastes. I have been skimming through the SRD and like what I see, but I still have some questions, maybe you could help me with those:


- Do RQ fights need miniatures?

- What is the general feel of playing RQ compared to D&D 3.5 or 4e? How powerful are the characters, what is the feel of magic or magic items?

- How complex are fights compared to these systems? How many rounds does an average fight last? Is it longwinded and overtly complex or quick and deadly? I obviously prefer the latter.

- Is there a strong focus on balance concerning the PCs?

I'd also be interested in general suggestions when changing from D&D to RQ, e.g. how the RQ mindset is different and what I should look out for.

Thanks!

 

[soltakss]

I'm one of the crowd that dislikes the new incarnation of D&D and is looking for something different. I'd like to change to a skill based, grim n gritty RPG with a general low-magic feel. It should be playable without miniatures and the PCs should not be equipped with super powers as I prefer a realistic approach.

Grim and gritty with low-magic and no super-powers sounds like RQ.

From reading some reviews on rpgnet, I get the impression that RuneQuest might be just right for my tastes. I have been skimming through the SRD and like what I see, but I still have some questions, maybe you could help me with those:

Sure ...

- Do RQ fights need miniatures?

No. I haven't used miniatures in RQ for over 10 years. Sometimes it helps to see where things are, but a piece of paper with the opponents roughly sketched out does as well. You still need to know if you are close to someone else or if you have a good line of sight for missile spells, but you really don't need miniatures for that.

- What is the general feel of playing RQ compared to D&D 3.5 or 4e? How powerful are the characters, what is the feel of magic or magic items?

The general feel is that PCs are not restricted by class in what they can and cannot do. They are still restricted in certain things because of cult/background, but this is more of a "you shouldn't do that" rather than "you can't do that".

Characters are as powerful as you want them to be.

For example, in Second Age Glorantha, one of the current settings, there are people who can turn into dragons, which is quite powerful, and a wizard who can sink a whole land, but he is more of a demigod. In Elric, the albino antihero Elric is a master sorcerer who can summon up demons and elementals and has a sword called Stormbringer that can kill deities.

However, realistically, RQM (Mongoose RQ) PCs are very unlikely to get that powerful.

Also, in RQ, everything is dangerous. Because of critical hits, even weak NPCs can get a lucky shot/blow in and take an experienced PC down.

Magic is personal and normally affects the caster or one target. You don't get many area effect spells and very few crackle-zap spells. In Glorantha, Rune Magic can be learned by anyone, Divine Magic is learned by people who worship deities in cults, Sorcery is learned by people who can manipulate the very energy of the world and Dragon Magic is learned by dragon mystics who prefer not to cast their own spells and pollute themselves spiritually.

Magic is normally limited by skill (sorcery/Divine Magic) or by the number of points you have in the spell (Rune Magic / Divine Magic). In the case of Divine Magic, it is further limited by the amount of POW you have, but people tend to houserule that to make it more powerful.

You learn spells from people you know or from organisations/cults that you belong to. Not everyone has the same magic and cults/societies have different magic that reflects the powers/abilities of the deity/founder concerned.

Magic items can be whatever you want. Some people like having lots iof minot magic items, some GMs hate magic items and hardly ever have them. Many magic items can be created by PCs or NPCs, many just exist, for instance there are different types of magic crystal. Normally magic items boost a skill, grant a spell or ability or provide some kind of magical boost. They are generally personal and you rarely get a magic item that has game-shattering potential.

Magic Items are not class-restricted in the same way as in D&D, so anyone can use a magical sword or ring. Some items are restricted to certain cults or races, but that's an individual property of that particular item rather than a general property of all similar items.

- How complex are fights compared to these systems? How many rounds does an average fight last? Is it longwinded and overtly complex or quick and deadly? I obviously prefer the latter.

I haven't played D&D for 20 years, so I am speaking from memory, but combat is different from D&D. If you go toe-to-toe then combat is different than if you use missile fire or use different tactics. You get bonuses/penalties based on your relative position to your opponents and generally the bigger/stronger you are the harder you hit and the more damage you do. Combat is based on individual skill, strength, equipment and ability rather than on Level. Tactics sucg as Legendary Abilities can open up com bat, as can the use of magic.

I don't play RQM, preferring to use RQ3, but combats in our game typically last up to about 10 rounds. The last combat we had lasted 4 rounds and ended with an arrow through the skull for a PC.

Combat can be longwinded if you have very many combatants and use a lot of tactics, but if the GM is organised and the players know what they are doing (I wish) then combat can be quick.

As mentioned above, combat can be dangerous even when fighting weaker NPCs. Because of criticals, a weak NPC can still do enough damage on a lucky hit to take out a location and disable or even kill a PC.

Fortunately, healing is readily available in many forms, including personal magic, magic items or as a buyable commodity, so death and disfigurement is rare, if that is they way the GM likes to play it.

- Is there a strong focus on balance concerning the PCs?

Yes and no.

Everyone starts off with the same number of points to allocate to a PC, GM permitting. However, the starting prodessions are not particularly balanced and the resulting PCs are not particularly balanced. Since skills increase through Experience Points and everyone has roughly the same XP gain per session everyone increases at a similar overall rate. Some PCs increase key skills faster at the expense of others, but that is a matter of personal taste.

However, magical PCs have an advantage over non-magical ones in that they have spells that they can use. This isn't an overwhelming problem as most PCs can get access to magic - you don't have to be a Magic User to use magic.

Character races/species are not at all balanced. Some are strong and some are weak. Some have powerful cults and some have weak cults. The balance is in the playing.

But, you don't get the dominant all-powerful half-elf multi-class PC in RQ.

I'd also be interested in general suggestions when changing from D&D to RQ, e.g. how the RQ mindset is different and what I should look out for.

RQ has no Character Classes. This is a big change in mindset. Someone can be a fighter and also be magically powerful. Someone else can be a sneaky, backstabbing thief and a good healer.

RQ has no Alignment. This is also a big change in mindset. If you meet an orc, you don't know if he's a nice orc or a nasty orc. PCs can be good one day and bad the next, as can NPCs. You are not required to act in a certain way, except if you belong to a cult in which case you should try and act as the cult/deity, so if you belong to a pacifist healer cult then you should be a pacifist healer, if you belong to a violent rapist cult then you should play a violent rapist. And, yes, there are both types of cult in Glorantha.

Typically, in RQ everyone is an adventurer and has almost total freedom over how the PC evolves. I like the idea of professions and sometimes a PC is moulded by his/her current profession, so you tend to go in a certain direction, but that can change at any minute.

Combat can involve many different tactics and thus a lot of thinking can be needed. It is sometimes better to blast an enemy with missile fire rather than slug it out in hand to hand. Not every encounter automatically results in combat and not every potential threat is an enemy. It is easy in RQ to talk your way out of a situation using a skill or simply through roleplaying.

I can't think of any other major differences in mindset, but I am sure there are loads. No doubt you wil get a lot of answers as this is the kind of thread that attracts opinions, which is good.

 

[elgrin]

As RQ GM, who currently plays D&D as well,I would like to be able to give an erudite addition to the treatise above, but as it covers just about everything I could have said, and much more, I will only add that running away is always an exceedingly good option for PC's in RQ. For the good and sane reason given above that combat is always dangerous.
elgrin

 

[Cleombrotus]

What I love about RQ is that every time I take a beloved character into a fight my pulse rate goes up because I know that the character may die. I don't think I ever got that from D&D.
I feel that the character survives because of the decisions I make in the fight, rather than power, e.g. knowing when to brace, when to parry, when to dodge and when to use your shield as armour (all a bit RQ3, I know).
RQ is a great system for scaring the crap out of players, particularly if they are attached to their characters.
I remember a fight we had against a clan of vampires where the dust had settled and we looked at each other across the table and let out genuine sighs of relief and wiped away genuine sweat. That sort of thing is priceless.

 

[Loran]

My personnal impression is that fights are less deadly with MRQ than with RQ3, giving more chance to be a little bit more heroïc (heroïc was the most stupid attitude to have in RQ3), something my players' ego appreciate (after all we all play RPG to escape a cruel reality, don't you? :wink: )

 

[Deleriad]

- Do RQ fights need miniatures?

No. For a complex fight with lots of people involved it can be handy to have markers to give a bird's eye of who is where but that's about it.

- What is the general feel of playing RQ compared to D&D 3.5 or 4e? How powerful are the characters, what is the feel of magic or magic items?

That's a difficult question because the answer depends on how you play it. For me the two most defining differences in terms of game system are that your hit points don't increase and everything is handled through percentile skill rolls. At a deeper level they are part of the same thing.

In D&D the system, basically, asks "what makes a cleric a cleric or a wizard a wizard" and so on. From that everything flows. In RQ, the system asks, "what is a good way of a modelling a person in the world with just a few numbers and rules." Being a cleric then is simply something that a person does.

Unlike other simulationist rpgs such as GURPs, however, RQ is a broad brush, light touch system. It doesn't really hold up to detailed scrutiny but that's fine because it sticks to the fun side of fun simulation.

Player characters are as powerful as you want them to be but no matter how powerful a character is, if they fall off a cliff they will die without need for a special falling off a cliff rule. That said, RQ does have Hero Points which can be used for getting out of a jail free. If you want more cinematic games where PCs don't die through bad luck then you use Hero Points. If you don't want this, don't use Hero Points.[/quote]

- How complex are fights compared to these systems? How many rounds does an average fight last? Is it longwinded and overtly complex or quick and deadly? I obviously prefer the latter.

Again, it depends. RQ always used to take a lot longer than D&D but it seems that this has shifted recently. The of hitting someone take longer than D&D. In D&D you have hit roll and damage. In RQ you have hit roll, parry roll, location roll and damage roll. Depending on character power you can sometimes have characters battering away at each other for a long time until someone breaks. The general progression of a D&D fight is X HPs, Y average damage per attack and X/Y tells you who dies first. In RQ fights tend to consist of insignificant damage until someone gets a significant hit in which isn't parried; at that point it is often fight over. Thus the first blow can end a fight or the 100th.

In the campaign I've been running with mostly beginning characters, once they come to blows the combat has usually been determined within a couple of combat rounds (4 or so attacks each).

The finale of my campaign was a 4 player character assault on a hillfort. They were facing 40 NPCs in total; two of whom matched or exceeded the PCs in skills and power. I allowed 4 play hours for it and it needed it all. The PCs didn't have any sort of area effect or mass death spells so, basically, each NPC needed to be confronted one on one.

- Is there a strong focus on balance concerning the PCs?

No. That comes out of the deep system. A troll is bigger and stronger than a human. An elf is quicker, smarter and more magically powerful, a dwarf is stronger, smaller and clumsier. There are no balancing mechanics - it just is. A duck is smaller and weaker.

I'd also be interested in general suggestions when changing from D&D to RQ, e.g. how the RQ mindset is different and what I should look out for.

The best way is to think of RQ more as a real-life documentary than an action adventure. If players imagine that something is quite likely to kill them in real life then it'll probably kill their character in RQ. Combat is something you do because you have to not because it's fun or easy. Obviously the flavour of a game depends on your preferences but RQ tends to work best in my experience when you emphasise the blood, dirt and fear.

One way to get your head around this.
In RQ damage is hit-location specific and in more cases than not, when one person takes a serious wound that wound will incapacitate the person without killing outright. In that case the opponent must take a choice to kill the helpless opponent. RQ is more Reservoir Dogs than Star Wars.

 

[Utgardloki]

I think you are always going to need miniatures in a role-playing game that has combat and combat maneuvers, just to keep track of things.

An example of why I think a RPG always needs miniatures is an encounter I went through in White Wolf's Exalted game. The PCs were on a ship that was attacked by pirates.

Me: I am going to stick by the Captain!

<the other characters with higher initiative had their turn>

DM: Okay, what are you going to do?

Me: I will attack the pirate who just attacked the Captain.

DM: You are nowhere near the Captain!.

<my character spends the combat composing a sombre love ballad>

I hate Exalted.

I think in a Runequest game, it certainly is a good idea to have counters of some sort so that the GM and players all understand who is where. Position is important in a Runequest game because you typically can't use a melee attack against a character who is 30 meters away.

I think the one game I've seen where miniatures would not be used would be BESM D20, which is based on anime and combat is generally one-on-one where position really does not matter. But BESM D20 characters are designed to be as indestructible as D&D characters, and with super powers to boot.

But I think you'd probably like Runequest, and should give it a try.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Miniatures add something (I have almost never used them, but when I have I always wished I did it more often.)

However, they also take something away. Arguments about such things as position and distance are an inevitable part of roleplaying.

When I first started out I hated these arguments, but the years have taught me that if a player questions a decision it's because they care about the situation, and sometimes the ambiguity of no figures can add to the tension:

"It looks like you can cover the distance before he can react...make me an INTx5 or weapon attack roll, whichever is higher...No? Okay, well, like I say..."

I save figures for the special occasions.

 

[Blackyinkin]

Hi,

If you ever need miniatures for an RQ Game, remember that the Unspoken Word has its Paper Wars CD, with a plethora of Gloranthan Characters. We plan to release this on Drive Thru in the near future.

Another alternative is these great figures, which I use a lot for my other games...

http://www.gwindel.eu/Figurines.html

Cheers Simon

 

[TheCreated]

Thanks everyone for your replies! They helped me in making my decision.

Seems like RuneQuest might be just the game for me. I'll order the deluxe book of Mongoose's version after Christmas. The reason for choosing this one over an older incarnation is that I really like what I see in the SRD and the Hero Points mechanic might make it easier for me to persuade my group to give it a whirl.

 

[Utgardloki]

I have not had the opportunity to actually play Runequest since 1982, but to compare the two games, it might be useful to consider how my homebrew campaign would have turned out if I had used Runequest instead of D&D.

One big difference would be that I would not have felt the need to make sure all 11 base classes were supported. There would probably still be paladins and bards and rangers, but there would be no need for monks in my campaign. I might have introduced an order of pugalist paladins, but I would not have imported an order of monks from the east, or felt the need to use monks as clergy for the magic-avoiding Toranians.

Size becomes a lot more important in a Runequest game. The "high-level" humans could still be killed by a lucky blow, so they would not have the aura of invincibility that the high-level D&D humans have. The PCs in my game reached 6th level so far, so it would be very hard to kill one of them in just one blow.

One thing that is probably a limitation in Runequest, is that PCs do not have access to ways to really define their characters, until they qualify for the Legendary Abilities. I have some posts about implementing a system of Advantages, but this is something that would have to be tacked on to the system. A Runequest Audor would probably maintain a societal distinction between the barbarians and the rangers, but there would not really be game mechanics to support the distinction.

 

[Cleombrotus]

One thing that is probably a limitation in Runequest, is that PCs do not have access to ways to really define their characters, until they qualify for the Legendary Abilities.

Beginning Runequest characters are very much undefined. I think that most people regard this as a strength, as you are allowed to develop the character in a more freeform way (Fate obviously has an influence, although in MRQ you get to choose which skills improve, of course).

Characters often go through a phase of similarity as they discover (or already know) the most effective combinations of armour and weapons and spells.

Legendary Abilities are one of the rules I've kept in from MRQ, but the characters in our game have been defined as characters for years now, and none of them has yet acquired a legendary ability. We haven't had to seek or force them to be defined - it's just come out of gameplay, and this is what I have experienced in every RQ campaign I've played in.

On the other hand I remember characters in D&D games being referred to as "The Fighter" and "The Thief" forever (not true for everyone, I know).

One thing I think you have to beware of, in Glorantha anyway, is "Cult as character class" mentality.

 

[TRose]

One big difference between your average D&D and Runequest game is also what the player start with.
In D&D most players Start with at least Chain armor if not Plate and a horse ,unless their class cannot wear heavy armor.
Not so in Runequest games . Its not unusual to see even experienced adventurers looking very scruffy with odds and ends of scale, ring mail ,and leather armor all at once . And if you do get a full suit of chain mail , that's a sign that you have made it and are somebody to be reckoned with.

 

[TRose]

Hi,

If you ever need miniatures for an RQ Game, remember that the Unspoken Word has its Paper Wars CD, with a plethora of Gloranthan Characters. We plan to release this on Drive Thru in the near future.

Another alternative is these great figures, which I use a lot for my other games...

http://www.gwindel.eu/Figurines.html

Cheers Simon

I own the CD and can recommend it for those who like paper mini's .
Any chnce that we might see new ones in the future? I would like to see prax aninal riders and Dragonewts
Arion games also has some nice sets of cardboard mini's if you use them

 

[RosenMcStern]

Interesting enough, I have just released the version of Stupor Mundi that includes cardboard figures and maps on DriveThru, and I sold some, although not many, of them. The figures were drawn by Dario, who also made the cardboards for Paper Wars. Both Dario and me were wondering how large the market would be for a new wave of dedicated cardboard figures - Gloranthan or generic. Well, it appears that at least there is someone who actually uses them.

 

[The King]

The main difference between both game systems is the coherence.

In D&D, you are motivated by XP's (to gain levels and new advantages) and treasures (because magic and magical object is so common). The skills system being what it is, there is an enormous disparity between the classes.

In RQ, you can focus on the adventure/quest because you get no more XP whatever you do, so mass-killing isn't a necessary option. Magical items are more limited but also more in tune with the PCs (they know they won't necessarily find a better magical sword in the next adventure, so they cherish the few they have all the more.
The skill system is better balanced than in D&D and with the exception of very specialised skills, a PC can developp in any skill he want (i.e. no class specialisation).

 

[Blackyinkin]

Hi,

I have spoken to Dario and we are going ahead with the release of Paper Wars via Drivethrurpg in the new year. Paper Wars will be released first, broken down into smaller sections, and then we will be releasing new figures as soon as possible, including Praxians, which are already done. There will also be generic miniatures included for gamers of different genres.

Simon

 

[Blackyinkin]

There is another advantage to PDF miniatures, they make great clip art for your character sheets, NPC's etc.

Simon

 

[Inspector Zero]

As someone who is playing both D&D 4e and MRQ I think Monggose have made obvious efforts to make the game more familiar to D&D veterans than was ever the case before. I'm thinking particularly of legendary abilities here which are akin to D&D feats

As a player, the clearest difference between the two is that in D&D you roll a character and you are rock hard from the word go and this encourages the "charge into the nest of hobgoblins" type behaviour. The various powers you start with are extremely potent. As others have said, a starting character in RQ is a vulnerable entity - you might have a relatively high skill score in a weapon or a magical skill but your other skills and abilities are likely to be much less well developed. And no armour!

4e gives the characters frankly unexplained abilities to heal themselves instantaneously through healing surges and the like. Healing in RQ is a slow and expensive affair. This seems to encourage caution, thought and roleplaying.

I've always preferred the RQ combat system which tries to simulate pitting skills against one another which plenty of space of freak occurences. By contrast 4e works off trying to roll a value higher than the opponents armour. As a mechanic it has the benefit of being simple and easy to understand but that's about it.

I think you may find the character creation options in RQ liberating. As someone who went from RQ first to D&D I found the latters character classes incomprehensible and stifling. Creating a D&D style fighter in RQ can be done, trying to create a Praxian nomad clan warrior in D&D cannot be done "No Bob, he doesn't wear plate..."

Some interesting things have been written about the mindset and although this is gross exaggeration the D&D players I play with seem to have at their disposal four or five personalities; "my thief is sneaky and venal" "my fighter is brave and doughty" "my dwarf cleric is drunken and belligerent" and so on. Sometimes roleplaying with these guys can be a struggle.

In the end the two systems are not trying to do the same things. If you are tired of super-powered starter characters who are indistinguishable from the last time your group rolled up characters then RQ is for you.

 

[Utgardloki]

In a system without classes, it is really easy to make characters who are not effective, especially if the player is not familiar with that system. In D&D, you can just create a iconic character and be good to go.

The lack of guidelines might be frustrating for some players. Based on comments on the D&D boards, players who see 4th Edition as an improvement over 3rd Edition are likely to be frustrated by Runequest, because everything the 4E fans say about 3E applies fifteenfold to Runequest. And everything the Runequest fans here say about D&D applies threefold to 4th Edition.