First game experience

[Faide]

We had our first outing with RQ last night. I gave up on waiting for a copy of RQ deluxe and I got hold of a copy of the excellent Collected Character from Sceaptune Games.

Four players, all totally new to Runequest made up characters within an hour and a bit and we jumped into a dream sequence combat test.
Using the combat rules in the players update and the SRD we had a good first test of the rules. It all flows nice and quickly. It didn't take long for the players to notice the fact that their average damage output outweighed their hitpoints per location and the adrenaline started to flow.

The only real complaint the players had about character generation was the lack of starting money. But that's not really a problem. They dealt with it fine. It means the first time they gain some cash they'll really feel they've gained something.

I scoured forums and looked around for reviews before I tried (and failed) to commit some cash into Runequest. I really don't understand the negativity I found. We obviously haven't had a thorough test yet, nor gained any experience on the characters, or tried the magic system but our first impressions were very favourable.

I just thought I'd post our thoughts on the game, if you're in doubt I'd suggest you give the game a go. The SRD gives you enough to get started so it won't even cost you anything.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The negativity was all about the differences from previous editions of RuneQuest, not the fact that the system in itself is bad (except some scattered mistakes that can be easily corrected). Many veterans here (including me) still play RQ3 or even RQ2, so they'll always complain how things were better back in the days. Listening to these comments is optional

 

[Mage]

Listen to what I have to say about the game:

Its lovely
Its well supported

 

[kintire]

There is also a selection effect at work. There's nothing really to say about the bits that work really well, so discussions tend to be about the other bits!

 

[Arioch]

Yes it is true, some of us old time players where a bit slow to open our eyes to the idea of looking at new material
Ken

 

[Sinisalo]

Right this needs answering....
1) There have already been other versions of RQ and this one, though it is new, in print and has some new nice features, is not as good as it should have been. Improvements to d100 gaming discovered in other quarters were ignored.

2) The game clearly had not been playtested properly or if it had the feedback wasn't heeded or the editors rewrote bits just prior to publishing that didn't work right. I refer of course to the "two roll" combat system.

3) Some of the writers did not understand or play the game. I refer to references to a characteristic called "WIS" which comes from D&D and not RQ (I'd be very embarrassed if I was the editor of that one). Some of the cults have spells they can't cast (though should be able to) so the writer of Cults 2 though he definitely has an encyclopedic knowledge of Glorantha that I respect probably plays RQ3 or HQ and not MRQ. Or his good work was over-edited. Sorry with respect I believe I am right here and it needs saying.

4) It is clear which books are written by quality writers who care about the milieu and which are not. The quality goes from awesome to dreadful. To save blushes I wont name names.

5) The rune magic system though funky and works properly is un-Gloranthan. It is also un-Lhankmar, un-alternative Earth, un-Middle Earth and un-Every other setting. It is not generic at all. However, what it is is unique and has a flavour that stands the game out which isn't a problem. All they need to do to satisfy (mostly) their core fans is add "Rurik's Rule". Make no mistake us older Runequesters with proper incomes are quite happy to go in to our hobby shops and spend a hundred quid. Listen to us.

6) The two roll system didn't work so they changed it (the update) which on the face of it was an improvement. However, they completely forgot a mechanic of the game that if they actually played it would know all about: breaking through shields. How much easier would it have been to simply say: if the defender wins the opposed roll match damage rolled against the shield and make dodging harder? So good ideas by writers who are trying really hard but don't actually seem to play the game they are writing for.

In conclusion it is a fun game but there have been too many mistakes some of them very embarassing.

 

[Faide]

I've managed to get hold of some Elric and Hawkmoon books and these use the updated combat system which seems to work nicely. I haven't spotted any obvious errors in either of these books, are they just in the core rules?
Again I'm assuming the rules for runes is in the core so I'll have to wait and see when the Deluxe rules reach England but there's hints of rules for runes in some of the Elric books and it looks very interesting.
Out of the five books I've managed to get in the last week I've also noticed a great variety in the quality of the content but that's true of any RPG system, you start to realise which writers appeal to you.
My favourite book of those I've got is Bright Shadows. It's extremely well written and a brilliant insight into the island of Melnibone and it's people. I'll certainly be looking out for other books written by the same author.

Sinisalo, I didn't understand your reference to breaking through shields, could you explain it again please? And what is Rurik's Rule?

 

[Loz]

hints of rules for runes in some of the Elric books and it looks very interesting.

The Elric runes are entirely different to those in the core RQ rules. You'll find them in 'Magic of the Young Kingdoms' (by Mr Charles Green, me, and Pete Nash, no less, so quality is assured :wink: )

 

[RosenMcStern]

Improvements to d100 gaming discovered in other quarters were ignored.

Not always. Fatigue levels replaced Fatigue points, as in RQ4.

or the editors rewrote bits just prior to publishing that didn't work right. I refer of course to the "two roll" combat system.

Probably true. But the "two roll" issue was corrected months ago.

3) Some of the writers did not understand or play the game. I refer to references to a characteristic called "WIS" which comes from D&D and not RQ (I'd be very embarrassed if I was the editor of that one).

Mistaking a name is not the same as never playing the game. I am currently playing in a game with the culprit of that mistake and he does not act like being unaware of the subtleties of RuneQuest.

Some of the cults have spells they can't cast (though should be able to) so the writer of Cults 2 though he definitely has an encyclopedic knowledge of Glorantha that I respect probably plays RQ3 or HQ and not MRQ. Or his good work was over-edited. Sorry with respect I believe I am right here and it needs saying.

I think Jeff (you could have named him) has already explained what happened there. He had no access to the final rules when he wrote that book, and was not aware of some details (like spirit combat being replaced by D&D-style hit-the-spirit-with-magic-weapons), so things got messy, and quick-and-dirty editing did the rest. Or possibly it is a curse cast on him, since all of his fine works published in the last year got screwed in editing or in printing, somehow

5) The rune magic system though funky and works properly is un-Gloranthan. It is also un-Lhankmar, un-alternative Earth, un-Middle Earth and un-Every other setting. It is not generic at all.

Here I agree. The choice was well-intentioned, but created a big mess.

All they need to do to satisfy (mostly) their core fans is add "Rurik's Rule".

Ditto. I still wonder why this did not happen.

The two roll system didn't work so they changed it (the update) which on the face of it was an improvement. However, they completely forgot a mechanic of the game that if they actually played it would know all about: breaking through shields.

Absolutely true IMO.

How much easier would it have been to simply say: if the defender wins the opposed roll match damage rolled against the shield and make dodging harder?

Not much easier, as although I followed you in all your previous points I absolutely did not understand this one. What do you mean?

So good ideas by writers who are trying really hard but don't actually seem to play the game they are writing for.

On the contrary, some awful rules are the result of actual playetesting where unrealistic rules offer some game balancing.

 

[soltakss]

We had our first outing with RQ last night. I gave up on waiting for a copy of RQ deluxe and I got hold of a copy of the excellent Collected Character from Sceaptune Games.

All you really need is the SRD to start a game.

If you want background then buy all the other books, but the basic rules are in the SRD.

Four players, all totally new to Runequest made up characters within an hour and a bit and we jumped into a dream sequence combat test.
Using the combat rules in the players update and the SRD we had a good first test of the rules. It all flows nice and quickly. It didn't take long for the players to notice the fact that their average damage output outweighed their hitpoints per location and the adrenaline started to flow.

I have enjoyed every game of Mongoose RQ I've played. The rules seem to hang together quite nicely.

However, I doubt if I'd use them for a long running campaign until I'd ironed out the problematic parts.

I scoured forums and looked around for reviews before I tried (and failed) to commit some cash into Runequest. I really don't understand the negativity I found. We obviously haven't had a thorough test yet, nor gained any experience on the characters, or tried the magic system but our first impressions were very favourable.

My reviews are normally quite favourable towards Mongoose, I definitely recommended buying RQM and most of the supplements. Perhaps you didn't look hard enough.

I just thought I'd post our thoughts on the game, if you're in doubt I'd suggest you give the game a go. The SRD gives you enough to get started so it won't even cost you anything.

RQ can be good fun to play. It is easy to pick up and fairly quick. You can use RQ for most settings, even though Fantasy is the most common.

 

[Sinisalo]

Sorry cant quote properly this interface is playing up...

How much easier would it have been to simply say: if the defender wins the opposed roll match damage rolled against the shield and make dodging harder?

Rosen:
>Not much easier, as although I followed you in all your previous points I >absolutely did not understand this one. What do you mean?

Attacker and parrier both make opposed roll. If attacker wins roll for damage as normal. If parrier wins (ie, he manages to block attack) roll damage vs shield to see if attacker breaks through. I play it like this but it obviously is more complicated when you factor in criticals - but that is the jist. As you can see as an experienced GM you may spot that your players may now favour dodge. So make dodging a little harder or as I do it make it easy to use a shield.

 

[DirkD]

Attacker and parrier both make opposed roll. If attacker wins roll for damage as normal. If parrier wins (ie, he manages to block attack) roll damage vs shield to see if attacker breaks through.

That doesn't make it better, just different... There is a tendency in all rule-heavy systems to meddle with some details - and everyone has a specific area of focus. I personally think that dodging attacks is far too easy in most RPGs, especially if you can use it against attacks from multiple sources at the same time. Most RPGs don't address reach and optimal distance in close combat (arguably the most important things in a real fight) to make it more playable. Every system will have proplems with some situations - the more detailed, the more perceived problems (the only systems where we didn't make any changes are the ones with few rules and a higher level of abstraction in combat, like Sorcerer, Unknown Armies or CoC). For me, this is a non-issue.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Aehm, this was supposed to be a thread about "First experience with RuneQuest". The discussion about shields is interesting but it can really scare newbies. I am opening another thread to continue the debate with Sinisalo.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

or the editors rewrote bits just prior to publishing that didn't work right. I refer of course to the "two roll" combat system.

Probably true. But the "two roll" issue was corrected months ago.

For some value of "corrected". My rulebook - that I paid for - still contains the error. Other rulebooks - that I also paid for - are also victims of poor editing and proofreading. The fact that Mongoose accepted many of these errors, and produced errata (and sometimes errata to the errata) is a good thing, but does not negate the fact that we were initially sold sub-standard work. These problems may have gone away in RQ Deluxe, but having (over)paid for the multitude of small books full of errors, I do not feel any need to pay again to find out.

The reason that there were so many dissapointing comments about MRQ is because there were so many dissapointing problems with many of the earlier volumes. A little bit more care, and an earlier willingness to recognise that a complete core rulebook is of more use than a rulebook that fits in 96 pages come what may would have seen a completely different perception of MRQ.

3) Some of the writers did not understand or play the game. I refer to references to a characteristic called "WIS" which comes from D&D and not RQ (I'd be very embarrassed if I was the editor of that one).

Mistaking a name is not the same as never playing the game. I am currently playing in a game with the culprit of that mistake and he does not act like being unaware of the subtleties of RuneQuest.

It's all about perception though. A newcomer to RQ might not realise that this is just an editing slip and wonder where the rules for WIS are. A more experienced player can't help but wonder if a mistake of that obviousness manages to make it into the final printing what other errors will have slipped through. It gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the book is a slipshod piece of work and reviewers are likely to respond to this impression.

5) The rune magic system though funky and works properly is un-Gloranthan. It is also un-Lhankmar, un-alternative Earth, un-Middle Earth and un-Every other setting. It is not generic at all.

Here I agree. The choice was well-intentioned, but created a big mess.

The real problem was the somewhat schizophrenic attitude where the "default setting" for RQ was Glorantha, although the rules contained a lot of "definitely not Glorantha" because they were a generic ruleset. I always felt the Rune Magic was a great tool that could be used in lots of different ways, but it needed much more explanation and examples. Despite the (largely) Gloranthan rune set, it never seemed to be aimed at Glorantha, at least not as we understood it from either a RQ2/3 pov or a HeroQuest pov. A better approach (IMO) would have been a "proper" RQ Glorantha core rulebook, where all the examples were set in Glorantha, all the magic systems were Gloranthan (and all, or at least all the common, Gloranthan magic systems were included) - This would be similar to RQ Deluxe in size - and a "Generic" RQ-Lite which could be the 96 page slim volume that provides the base for the subsequent games to
build on.

 

[RosenMcStern]

A better approach (IMO) would have been a "proper" RQ Glorantha core rulebook, where all the examples were set in Glorantha, all the magic systems were Gloranthan (and all, or at least all the common, Gloranthan magic systems were included) - This would be similar to RQ Deluxe in size - and a "Generic" RQ-Lite which could be the 96 page slim volume that provides the base for the subsequent games to build on.

This could have been a good idea, but I am afraid the Mongeese were too eager to publish the new ruleset to adopt such a complex approach.

As for the newbies, I am more concerned with them thinking that Orlanth is a Chaos deity because he teaches Skybolt, rather than them wondering where the rules for WIS are.

 

[Faelan Niall]

Doing a Glorantha specific core rule book as the initial roll out for the product line would have been a mistake. Many people are clearly using MRQ in their own settings, and having Glorantha wasting page count in what is clearly intended to be a generic ruleset would have been disappointing. As it is it's minimal intrusion created conflicting goals with the core books, an intrusion they would have been better off without. Following up with a Glorantha specific Core Book much like Hawkmoon or Elric would have been the way to go, instead of just tacking on setting books using the core rules. This way the magic systems could have been easily tailored to the specific quirks of Glorantha.

 

[Faide]

We had our second session of RQ last night and pushed the combat system a little harder.
I gave the players some hero points to spend and they were all gone by the end of the fight.

Five rounds of combat and most combatants were dead or unconscious, it's certainly fast and furious. Nearly thirty people dead within twenty five seconds of game time- that's pretty grim.

After some discussion we decided that the combat system best represented heroic fantasy in a David Gemmel kind of way with an element of Manga (when the limbs start to fly!).

This test was just with starting characters defending a cliff against an enemy horde climbing up to them, so they had plenty of advantage but even so it was a very tense fight, the Hero points really made the difference in keeping the PC's alive.

We had to introduce a "Cautious advance" combat action to get people into fights other than charging which made things work alot cleaner. Has anybody else got a similar thing or an alternative?

Book keeping at my end was a fairly steep learning curve, to keep track of initiative, combat actions and damage. But after a couple of rounds of fighting I worked out a system that worked fine and I just assumed the enemy failed any Resilience test they needed to make to speed things up.

Overall a good test of violence, it seems to work nice and smoothly.

Next session I'm going to give them a pile of experience to spend and we'll see how the combat changes then. I was thinking about 20 Improvement rolls, does this sound like enough to make a reasonable difference? Should it be more?
They'll also need some extra cash to buy stuff. I was thinking maybe double or triple starting money. Is that too much?

 

[RosenMcStern]

After some discussion we decided that the combat system best represented heroic fantasy in a David Gemmel kind of way with an element of Manga (when the limbs start to fly!).

Try RQ3 and you'll see things get even worse. In the old rules Critical = sure Death or sure amputation.

This test was just with starting characters defending a cliff against an enemy horde climbing up to them, so they had plenty of advantage but even so it was a very tense fight, the Hero points really made the difference in keeping the PC's alive.

Maybe it was a bit too much. Did you give them an opportunity to soften the enemy with missile fire?

We had to introduce a "Cautious advance" combat action to get people into fights other than charging which made things work alot cleaner. Has anybody else got a similar thing or an alternative?

I don't see any reason to introduce a new type of action. When a character intentionally moves towards the enemy he is charging, period. Charge does not necessarily mean you lower your head and advance in a frenzy. The only difference is that one might not get the damage bonus if he does not move enough metres. The rules do not explain this very well, but this is what was intended with "Charge".

Book keeping at my end was a fairly steep learning curve

Use fewer enemies next time.

Next session I'm going to give them a pile of experience to spend and we'll see how the combat changes then. I was thinking about 20 Improvement rolls, does this sound like enough to make a reasonable difference? Should it be more?

No, it is TOO MANY. Things tend to escape the GM control if you are too generous. Ten rolls at most.

They'll also need some extra cash to buy stuff. I was thinking maybe double or triple starting money. Is that too much?

Er, they killed thirty enemies and took their weapons. Isn't this enough cash? In my games when PCs see the enemy the first thing they do is not casting protective spells, it is calculating how much they will get for the looted armour.

 

[Faide]

Thanks for your reply Rosen.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear- We're just testing out the combat system at the moment, it's not a "proper" game. I was just experimenting with as much variety in foes as I could against starting characters with a bare "It's all a dream" excuse. All but one of the PC's died in the fighting.

The enemy were climbing up a cliff at them in waves of six people, the first was unarmoured peasants with 20% skills and a dagger, then leather armoured foes with 30% skills and shortswords, then chain mail clad with sword and shield and 40% skills and the final wave was full plate with halberds and 50% skills.

This test was just with starting characters defending a cliff against an enemy horde climbing up to them, so they had plenty of advantage but even so it was a very tense fight, the Hero points really made the difference in keeping the PC's alive.

Maybe it was a bit too much. Did you give them an opportunity to soften the enemy with missile fire?

The party could attack them whilst climbing, as they showed their head and arms above the edge, then they climbed up and had to ready their weapons. I was trying to simulate a seige feeling as people attacked over a wall. Most of the enemy died without being able to strike back. Finally the numbers began to tell and the party were pushed back from the cliff edge they were defending allowing the later waves to arrive and ready themselves for combat.

I don't see any reason to introduce a new type of action. When a character intentionally moves towards the enemy he is charging, period. Charge does not necessarily mean you lower your head and advance in a frenzy. The only difference is that one might not get the damage bonus if he does not move enough metres. The rules do not explain this very well, but this is what was intended with "Charge".

It's pretty clear from the rules that a person must have five metres to move to be able to charge. Therefore we needed a way for someone to be able to move up to the foe without getting hit on the way in.

Er, they killed thirty enemies and took their weapons. Isn't this enough cash? In my games when PCs see the enemy the first thing they do is not casting protective spells, it is calculating how much they will get for the looted armour.

Because it was just a dream, I've told the players that their characters have had half a dozen minor adventures before they have their next dream. As all of their individuals worlds have started to become much more troubled and violent. So I'm trying to show how much equipment and advances they would have if they'd done six short adventures.

 

[Rurik]

A couple of points:

I agree with your interpretation of charge - it requires 5 meters is how I have always read it. What I do is allow a close and attack as one action. You may move up to full move and attack as one action - it still draws a free attack which you must defend against as you close and before you attack, but assuming you survive you get to attack in the same action, rather than have to close with one action and then wait until your next action to attack.

Rather than give a bunch of Improvement Rolls (which introduces a lot of randomness as to who gets better by how much) you may want to look at the Beginning Play with Advanced Characters guidlines, under the (horribly named) Levels of Experience section of the Improving Characters Chapter. For example Veteran Characters get 200 free skill points instead of 100, may add up to 70 of these points to one skill (instaead of 30), get 5xStarting Money, get 1d4+1 characteristic points to distribute, 1d4+1 integrated runes, and 6 Hero Points to start.